Development of passive sampling devices for bioavailable contaminants of current and emerging concern: Waitemata Harbour case study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Sites selected for PSD assessment. Tamaki Estuary is a heavily urbanised and industrial catchment, Upper Harbour is partly urbanised and partly rural catchment and Illiomama Rock is a background site more removed from urban influences.

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of hydrophobic contaminants analysed from polyethylene samplers.

	Water solubility (μg/L)^a	Molecular weight^a	log KOW^b	log KPED^b
PAHs
Naphthalene	31000	128.2	3.37	2.93
Acenaphthene	1930	154.2	3.98	3.62
Acenaphthylene	3930	152.2	4.07	2.79
Fluorene	1830	166.2	4.18	3.83
Phenanthrene	1200	178.2	4.45	4.21
Anthracene	76	178.2	4.45	4.17
Pyrene	77	202.3	4.88	4.58
Fluoranthene	230	202.3	4.90	4.75
Chrysene	2.8	228.3	5.16	5.41
Benz[a]anthracene	10	228.3	5.61	5.37
Benzo[b]fluoranthene	1.2	252.3	6.04	5.99
Benzo[a]pyrene	2.3	252.3	6.06	5.83
Benzo[k]fluoranthene	0.8	252.3	6.06	6.02
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene	0.3	276.3	6.50	6.25
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene	62	276.3	6.58	6.47
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene	0.5	278.4	6.84	6.46
PBDEs^c
BDE-15 (2)	130	328.0	5.82	5.04
BDE-28 (3)	70	406.9	6.24	5.30
BDE-47 (4)	15	485.8	6.80	6.23
BDE-99 (5)	9	564.7	7.38	6.81
BDE-153 (6)	1	643.6	7.86	7.38
BDE-183 (7)	2	722.5	8.61	7.83
BDE-209 (10)	0.1	959.2	9.87	5.36

^aPAH data taken from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1995) or where not available USEPA (1996) or NCBI PubChem (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pccompound); PBDE data taken from ATSDR (2004).

^bPAH data from USEPA (2012); PBDE data from two sources (Bao et al. 2011; Perron et al. 2013).

^cFor brevity selected BDE congeners shown; number in brackets corresponds to number of bromine atoms.

Table 2. Comparison of calculated mean and median sampling rates (R_S) for wastewater chemicals analysed in POCIS samplers with log K_OW.

			RS (L/d)^a
Compound	Family	log KOW^b	n	Mean	SD	%RSD
Acetaminophen	Anti-inflammatory	0.91	4	0.266	0.269	101
Clarithromycin	Antibiotic	3.16	1^c	0.016	NA	NA
Caffeine	Stimulant	−0.13	3	0.125	0.028	22
Carbamazepine	Anticonvulsive	2.77	9	0.262	0.149	57
Diclofenac	Anti-inflammatory	4.26	3	0.124	0.034	27
Cotinine	Stimulant	−0.23	1	0.24	NA	NA
Benzophenone-2	UV filter	3.16	0^d	0.348	NA	NA
Benzophenone-3	UV filter	3.16	1	0.348	NA	NA
Ibuprofen	Anti-inflammatory	3.84	4	0.646	0.856	133
Triclosan	Disinfectant	4.8	6	0.91	0.697	77
Estriol (E3)	Hormone	2.67	1	0.12	NA	NA
Estrone (E1)	Hormone	4.31	1^c	0.15	NA	NA
β-Estradiol (β-E2)	Hormone	3.75	9	0.42	0.229	55
Ethynlestradiol (EE2)	Hormone	3.9	1^c	0.18	NA	NA
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Plasticiser	4.04	6	0.638	0.133	21

NA, not applicable.

^aR_S calculated from table 2 of Morin et al. (2012). However, pesticide POCIS values and small surface area rates were removed, where these were markedly different to other rates (estrone, β -E2, EE2, BPA).

^bFrom Morin et al. (2013), where available and ACD Labs where not (http://www.chemspider.com).

^cSingle saltwater value used.

^dValue for benzophenone-3 used.

Figure 2. Calculated average (n = 3) PAH water concentrations from polyethylene samplers at three sites in the Waitemata Harbour. Error bars are ±1 SD about the mean. Inset: naphthalene, acenaphthene and acenaphthylene.

Figure 3. Calculated average (n = 3) water concentrations for BDE congeners above detection limits from polyethylene samplers at three sites in the Waitemata Harbour. Error bars are ±1 SD about the mean. Inset: BDE-209.

Figure 4. Calculated average (n = 3) water concentrations of wastewater markers from POCIS at three sites from the Waitemata Harbour. Error bars are ±1 SD about the mean.

Figure 5. Calculated average (n = 3) labile zinc, copper, iron, nickel and cadmium water concentrations at three sites from Waitemata Harbour. Error bars are ±1 SD about the mean.

Figure 6. Comparison of mussel and PED uptake of PAHs. PAHs have been sorted (left to right) by decreasing hydrophilicity.

Figure 7. Correlations between shellfish metal concentrations (2010–2013: median) and calculated labile water concentrations for three study sites in the Waitemata Harbour.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1995. Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

 Google Scholar

[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Soil screening guidance: technical background document. Part 5: Chemical-specific parameters. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waster and Emergency Response, EPA.

 Google Scholar

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2004. Toxicological profile for polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

 Google Scholar

[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: procedures for the determination of the freely dissolved interstitial water concentrations of nonionic organics. EPA-600-R-02–012. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, EPA.

 Google Scholar

Bao L, You J, Zeng EY. 2011. Sorption of PBDE in low-density polyethylene film: implications for bioavailability of BDE-209. Environ Toxic Chem. 30:1731–1738. doi: 10.1002/etc.564

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perron MM, Burgess RM, Suuberg EM, Cantwell MG, Pennell KG. 2013. Performance of passive samplers for monitoring estuarine water column concentrations 1. Contaminants of concern. EnvironToxic Chem. 32:2182–2189.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morin N, Miège C, Coquery M, Randon J. 2012. Chemical calibration, performance, validation and applications of the polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS) in aquatic environments. Trends Analyt Chem. 36:144–175. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2012.01.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morin N, Camilleri J, Cren-Olivé C, Coquery M, Miège C. 2013. Determination of uptake kinetics and sampling rates for 56 organic micropollutants using ‘pharmaceutical’ POCIS. Talanta. 109:61–73. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2013.01.058

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar