Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in water

- Low cost (less than 1 USD) disposable/reusable PDMS sorptive loop sampler.
- Direct thermal desorption of sampler in GC inlet of 2DGC-TOFMS, cryogenics not required.
- Comparison of the loop sampler to commercial stir bar sorptive extraction.
- Comparison of thermal desorption in a GC inlet to a dedicated thermal desorber.

The presence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment is a worldwide environmental concern. The diversity of micropollutants and the low concentration levels at which they may occur in the aquatic environment have greatly complicated the analysis and detection of these chemicals. Two sorptive extraction samplers and two thermal desorption methods for the detection of micropollutants in water were compared. A low-cost, disposable, in-house made sorptive extraction sampler was compared to SBSE using a commercial Twister sorptive sampler. Both samplers consisted of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as a sorptive medium to concentrate micropollutants. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable samplers in the inlet of a GC was compared to conventional thermal desorption using a commercial thermal desorber system (TDS). Comprehensive gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS) was used for compound separation and identification. Ten micropollutants, representing a range of heterogeneous compounds, were selected to evaluate the performance of the methods. The in-house constructed sampler, with its associated benefits of low-cost and disposability, gave results comparable to commercial SBSE. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable sampler in the inlet of a GC eliminated the need for expensive consumable cryogenics and total analysis time was greatly reduced as a lengthy desorption temperature programme was not required. Limits of detection for the methods ranged from 0.0010 ng L−1 to 0.19 ng L−1. For most compounds, the mean (n = 3) recoveries ranged from 85% to 129% and the % relative standard deviation (% RSD) ranged from 1% to 58% with the majority of the analytes having a %RSD of less than 30%.

364