Abstract
In this study, we present a screening method based on molecular absorption spectrometry to study PFAS uptake and fate in plants. To evaluate the suitability of this method we analyzed plant extracts with molecular absorption spectrometry (MAS) as well as liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) for mass balance studies (w(F)). French bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris) were grown on soil spiked using eight PFAS substances that vary in chain length and functional group composition. Specifically, these include three short-chained (C4–C5), five long-chained (C7–C10) carboxylic acids, one sulfonic acid and one sulfonic amide moieties. To investigate substance-specific PFAS uptake systematically, PFAS were spiked as single substance spike. Additionally, we studied one mixture of the investigated substances in equal proportions regarding w(F) and four PFAS mixtures of unknown composition. After 6 weeks, the plants were separated into four compartments. We analyzed the four compartments as well as the soil for extractable organically bound fluorine (EOF) by high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace-molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS) as well as for sum of ten target-PFAS by LC–MS/MS. All three short-chained PFAS perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorobutanoic sulfonic acid (PFBS) and perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) were determined in high concentrations mainly in the fruits of the investigated plants while long-chained PFAS perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) were mainly determined in roots. PFBS was determined in remarkably high concentrations in leaves compartment by both quantification methods. Overall, comprehensive results of single substance spikes were in good agreement for both methods except for a few cases. Hence, two phenomena were identified: for mixed PFAS spikes of unknown composition huge differences between EOF and sum of target PFAS were observed with systematically higher EOF values. Overall, both methods indicate comparable results with MS being more reliable for known PFAS contamination and MAS being more valuable to identify PFAS exposure of unknown composition.Graphical
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.