Abstract
Passive samplers (PS) have been proposed as an enhanced water quality monitoring solution in rivers, but their performance against high-frequency data over the longer term has not been widely explored. This study compared the performance of Chemcatcher® passive sampling (PS) devices with high-frequency sampling (HFS: 7-hourly to daily) in two dynamic rivers over 16 months. The evaluation was based on the acid herbicides MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid), mecoprop-P, fluroxypyr and triclopyr. The impact of river discharge parameters on Chemcatcher® device performance was also explored. Mixed effects modelling showed that time-weighted mean concentration (TWMC) and flow-weighted mean concentration (FWMC) values obtained by the HFS approach were both significantly higher (p < 0.001) than TWMC values determined from PS regardless of river or pesticide. Modelling also showed that TWMC PS values were more similar to TWMC HFS than FWMC HFS values. However, further testing revealed that MCPA TWMC values from HFS and PS were not significantly different (p > 0.05). There was little indication that river flow parameters altered PS performance—some minor effects were not significant or consistent. Despite this, the PS recovery of very low concentrations indicated that Chemcatcher® devices may be used to evaluate the presence/absence and magnitude of acid herbicides in hydrologically dynamic rivers in synoptic type surveys where space and time coverage is required. However, a period of calibration of the devices in each river would be necessary if they were intended to provide a quantitative review of pesticide concentration as compared with HFS approaches.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 116292 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-9 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Environmental Management |
| Volume | 324 |
| Early online date | 30 Sept 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published (in print/issue) - 15 Dec 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The authors thank Briege McCarney for retrieving many of the water samples from the Derg and the Finn catchments. We also thank the Northern Ireland Water staff at the Derg WTW for granting access to the intake compound and the Loughs Agency for granting access to the River Finn monitoring location. We acknowledge the use of hydrometric data from the Department for Infrastructure Northern Ireland (River Derg) accessed through the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology National River Flow Archive, and the Office of Public Works (River Finn). This work was funded in part by the Source to Tap project (project reference IVA5018 – http://www.sourcetotap.eu), supported by the European Union's INTERREG VA Programme which is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB). The work was also part-funded by the FAIRWAY project (project reference 727984 - http://www.fairway-project.eu/). supported by the European Union's HORIZON 2020 Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, HORIZON 2020 or the SEUPB.
Funding Information:
This work was funded in part by the Source to Tap project (project reference IVA5018 – http://www.sourcetotap.eu ), supported by the European Union's INTERREG VA Programme which is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) . The work was also part-funded by the FAIRWAY project (project reference 727984 - http://www.fairway-project.eu/ ). supported by the European Union's HORIZON 2020 Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, HORIZON 2020 or the SEUPB.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
Keywords
- Chemcatchers®
- Passive sampling
- High frequency sampling
- Acid herbicides
- Water quality monitoring
- Catchment-scale
- Pesticides/analysis
- Water Pollutants, Chemical/analysis
- Herbicides
- Environmental Monitoring
- Rivers
- 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic Acid
