Back to Search
Start Over
Comparison of different monitoring methods for the measurement of metaldehyde in surface waters
- Source :
- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Castle, G D, Mills, G, Gravell, A, Leggatt, A, Stubbs, J, Davis, R & Fones, G 2019, ' Comparison of different monitoring methods for the measurement of metaldehyde in surface waters ', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 191, no. 2, 75 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7221-x
- Publication Year :
- 2019
- Publisher :
- Springer International Publishing, 2019.
-
Abstract
- Metaldehyde is recognised as an emerging contaminant. It is a powerful molluscicide and is the active compound in many types of slug pellets used for the protection of crops. The application of pellets to land generally takes place between August and December when slugs thrive. Due to its high use and physico-chemical properties, metaldehyde can be present in the aquatic environment at concentrations above the EU Drinking Water Directive limit of 100 ng L−1 for a single pesticide. Such high concentrations are problematic when these waters are used in the production of drinking water. Being able to effectively monitor this pollutant of concern is important. We compared four different monitoring techniques (spot and automated bottle sampling, on-line gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and passive sampling) to estimate the concentration of metaldehyde. Trials were undertaken in the Mimmshall Brook catchment (Hertfordshire, UK) and in a feed in a drinking water treatment plant for differing periods between 17th October and 31st December 2017. This period coincided with the agricultural application of metaldehyde. Overall, there was a good agreement between the concentrations measured by the four techniques, each providing complementary information. The highest resolution data was obtained using the on-line GC/MS. During the study, there was a large exceedance (500 ng L−1) of metaldehyde that entered the treatment plant; but this was not related to rainfall in the area. Each monitoring method had its own advantages and disadvantages for monitoring investigations, particularly in terms of cost and turn-a-round time of data. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10661-019-7221-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
- Subjects :
- Crops, Agricultural
Metaldehyde
010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Molluscacides
On-line gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
NERC
Pellets
Water monitoring
APC-PAID
Acetaldehyde
010501 environmental sciences
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
01 natural sciences
Spot sampling
Article
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Water Purification
chemistry.chemical_compound
Ecotoxicology
0105 earth and related environmental sciences
General Environmental Science
Pollutant
Drinking Water
Environmental engineering
RCUK
Agriculture
General Medicine
Pesticide
Pollution
NE/L009145/1
Environmental Management
Passive sampling
chemistry
Molluscicide
Drinking water directive
Environmental science
Water treatment
Water Pollutants, Chemical
Environmental Monitoring
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 15732959 and 01676369
- Volume :
- 191
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....34a525a46d4390e6a5bab9952f6c15bf
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7221-x