4.7 Article

A flow-through passive dosing system for continuously supplying aqueous solutions of hydrophobic chemicals to bioconcentration and aquatic toxicity tests

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 86, 期 6, 页码 593-599

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.10.024

关键词

Passive dosing; Contaminant dosing; PDMS; Constant water concentrations; Bioconcentration test; OECD 305

资金

  1. European Chemical Industry Council Long-Range Research Initiative
  2. European Union [GOCE-CT-2007-037017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A continuous supply of water with defined stable concentrations of hydrophobic chemicals is a requirement in a range of laboratory tests such as the OECD 305 protocol for determining the bioconcentration factor in fish. Satisfying this requirement continues to be a challenge, particularly for hydrophobic chemicals. Here we present a novel solution based on equilibrium passive dosing. It employs a commercially available unit consisting of similar to 16000 polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) tubes connected to two manifolds. The chemicals are loaded into the unit by repeatedly perfusing it with a methanol solution of the substances that is progressively diluted with water. Thereafter the unit is perfused with water and the chemicals partition from the unit into the water. The system was tested with nine chemicals with logK(ow) ranging from 4.1 to 6.3. The aqueous concentrations generated were shown to be largely independent of the water flow rate, and the unit to unit reproducibility was within a factor of similar to 2. In continuous flow experiments the aqueous concentrations of most of the study chemicals remained constant over 8 d. A model was assembled that allows prediction of the operating characteristics of the system from the logKow or PDMS/water partition coefficient of the chemical. The system is a simple, safe, predictable and flexible tool that generates stable aqueous concentrations of hydrophobic chemicals. (C) 2011 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