4.7 Article

Chemical-monitoring on-site exercises to harmonize analytical methods for priority substances in the European Union

期刊

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 25-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2012.04.002

关键词

Alkyl phenol (AP); Analytical variability; Chemical monitoring; Harmonization; Intercomparison; Polybromodiphenyl ether (PBDE); Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH); Priority substance (PS); River water analysis; Water Framework Directive (WFD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In support of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC), three intercomparison exercises were carried out on European rivers (Po, Danube and Meuse) in order to assess the current state of monitoring methodologies. Laboratories from European Union (EU) Member States (MSs) were invited to gather at the selected EU river and sample together, each laboratory with its own method. Participants simultaneously sampled the river water and analyzed according to their protocols. A selection of priority substances (PSs) [i.e. polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and alkyl phenols (APs)] included in Directive 2008/105/EC were analyzed in standard solutions, extracts from river waters and river-water samples in order to investigate variabilities in different steps of the analytical process. Concentrations measured in river samples using WED-monitoring protocols showed that even some of the most challenging WFD PSs (e.g., PAHs, PBDEs and APs) can be measured at WED-relevant concentrations with methods currently applied in MSs, but variability is still too great and not all laboratories meet required limits of quantification. Hindrance to the implementation of the monitoring requirements is therefore not the technical feasibility of analysis at these concentration levels, but rather communication, knowledge exchange and harmonization among the laboratories involved. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据