4.7 Review

First intercomparison study on the analysis of oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (oxy-PAHs) and nitrogen heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic compounds (N-PACs) in contaminated soil

期刊

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 83-92

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2014.01.007

关键词

Analytical method; Contaminated soil; Intercomparison study; Nitrogen heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic compound; N-PAC; Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; Oxy-PAH; Polar polycyclic aromatic compound; Polycyclic aromatic compound; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

资金

  1. Northern Sweden Soil Remediation Centre (MCN)
  2. SNOWMAN project, Assessment and Management of Polar PACs in Contaminated Soils and Remedial Processes (PACMAN)
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [SNF 200021_131938/1]
  4. Swedish Knowledge Foundation (KK Stiftelsen)
  5. University of Copenhagen
  6. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CGL2010-22068-C02-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (oxy-PAHs) and nitrogen heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic compounds (N-PACs) are toxic, highly leachable and often abundant at sites that are also contaminated with PAHs. However, due to lack of regulations and standardized methods for their analysis, they are seldom included in monitoring and risk-assessment programs. This intercomparison study constitutes an important step in the harmonization of the analytical methods currently used, and may also be considered a first step towards the certification of reference materials for these compounds. The results showed that the participants were able to determine oxy-PAHs with accuracy similar to PAHs, with average determined mass fractions agreeing well with the known levels in a spiked soil and acceptable inter- and intra-laboratory precisions for all soils analyzed. For the N-PACs, the results were less satisfactory, and have to be improved by using analytical methods more specifically optimized for these compounds. (C) 2014 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