We developed and compared two analytical methods for determination of MeHg in freshwater biota and sediments, by: I) simplified static headspace GC-MS using internal standard (IS) isotope dilution quantification, after microwave acid digestion and aqueous phase NaBEt ethylation; II) Automated Mercury Analyzer, after double toluene extraction followed by back-extraction with L-cystein. The performance was evaluated by analysis of certified reference materials. For biota, mean recovery was 100 ± 2% and relative standard deviation (RSD) <= 6.8% for method I, and mean recovery was 98 ± 7% and RSD <=13% for method II. For sediments, recovery of 94.5% and RSD of 8.8% were obtained with method I, and recovery of 90.3% and RSD of 9.4% with method II. Limits of detection (LOD) were 0.7 µg kg and 6 µg kg, respectively. Both techniques were tested for MeHg analysis in freshwater invertebrates, fish and sediments, covering a large range of MeHg values (1.9-670 µg kg d.w.). o Both protocols proved to be suitable for MeHg analysis in complex environmental matrices, even if, for method II, interferences in the extraction phase and limited sensitivity may hinder sediment analysis. o Passing-Bablock regression revealed a slight disproportion between methods, with line slope = 1.058 (95% CI ranging from 1.001 to 1.090).

Methylmercury determination in freshwater biota and sediments: Static headspace GC-MS compared to direct mercury analyzer

Valsecchi Lucia;Roscioli Claudio;Schiavon Alfredo;Marziali Laura
2021

Abstract

We developed and compared two analytical methods for determination of MeHg in freshwater biota and sediments, by: I) simplified static headspace GC-MS using internal standard (IS) isotope dilution quantification, after microwave acid digestion and aqueous phase NaBEt ethylation; II) Automated Mercury Analyzer, after double toluene extraction followed by back-extraction with L-cystein. The performance was evaluated by analysis of certified reference materials. For biota, mean recovery was 100 ± 2% and relative standard deviation (RSD) <= 6.8% for method I, and mean recovery was 98 ± 7% and RSD <=13% for method II. For sediments, recovery of 94.5% and RSD of 8.8% were obtained with method I, and recovery of 90.3% and RSD of 9.4% with method II. Limits of detection (LOD) were 0.7 µg kg and 6 µg kg, respectively. Both techniques were tested for MeHg analysis in freshwater invertebrates, fish and sediments, covering a large range of MeHg values (1.9-670 µg kg d.w.). o Both protocols proved to be suitable for MeHg analysis in complex environmental matrices, even if, for method II, interferences in the extraction phase and limited sensitivity may hinder sediment analysis. o Passing-Bablock regression revealed a slight disproportion between methods, with line slope = 1.058 (95% CI ranging from 1.001 to 1.090).
2021
Istituto di Ricerca Sulle Acque - IRSA
Benthic invertebrates
Methylmercury determination
Methylmercury in freshwater biota and sediments by GC-MS or automatic mercury analyzer
Organometallic compounds
Sediments
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/449255
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact