Making use of apex predator sample collections: an integrated workflow for quality assured sample processing, analysis and digital sample freezing of archived samples.

Apex predator Digital sample freezing platform European sample collections Non-target screening Quality assurance

Journal

Chemosphere
ISSN: 1879-1298
Titre abrégé: Chemosphere
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0320657

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Historique:
received: 20 06 2022
revised: 21 09 2022
accepted: 22 09 2022
pubmed: 30 9 2022
medline: 27 10 2022
entrez: 29 9 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Using monitoring data from apex predators for chemicals risk assessment can provide important information on bioaccumulating as well as biomagnifying chemicals in food webs. A survey among European institutions involved in chemical risk assessment on their experiences with apex predator data in chemical risk assessment revealed great interest in using such data. However, the respondents indicated that constraints were related to expected high costs, lack of standardisation and harmonised quality criteria for exposure assessment, data access, and regulatory acceptance/application. During the Life APEX project, we demonstrated that European sample collections (i.e. environmental specimen banks (ESBs), research collection (RCs), natural history museums (NHMs)) archive a large variety of biological samples that can be readily used for chemical analysis once appropriate quality assurance/control (QA/QC) measures have been developed and implemented. We therefore issued a second survey on sampling, processing and archiving procedures in European sample collections to derive key quality QA/QC criteria for chemical analysis. The survey revealed great differences in QA/QC measures between ESBs, NHMs and RCs. Whereas basic information such as sampling location, date and biometric data were mostly available across institutions, protocols to accompany the sampling strategy with respect to chemical analysis were only available for ESBs. For RCs, the applied QA/QC measures vary with the respective research question, whereas NHMs are generally less aware of e.g. chemical cross-contamination issues. Based on the survey we derived key indicators for assessing the quality of biota samples that can be easily implemented in online databases. Furthermore, we provide a QA/QC workflow not only for sampling and processing but also for the chemical analysis of biota samples. We focussed on comprehensive analytical techniques such as non-target screening and provided insights into subsequent storage of high-resolution chromatograms in online databases (i.e. digital sample freezing platform) to ultimately support chemicals risk assessment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36174727
pii: S0045-6535(22)03096-X
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136603
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

136603

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Alexander Badry (A)

German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), 06813, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany. Electronic address: alexander.badry@uba.de.

Heinz Rüdel (H)

Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (Fraunhofer IME), 57392, Schmallenberg, Germany.

Bernd Göckener (B)

Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (Fraunhofer IME), 57392, Schmallenberg, Germany.

Maria-Christina Nika (MC)

Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis Zografou, 15771, Athens, Greece.

Nikiforos Alygizakis (N)

Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis Zografou, 15771, Athens, Greece; Environmental Institute, Okružná 784/42, 97241, Koš, Slovak Republic.

Georgios Gkotsis (G)

Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis Zografou, 15771, Athens, Greece.

Nikolaos S Thomaidis (NS)

Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis Zografou, 15771, Athens, Greece.

Gabriele Treu (G)

German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), 06813, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.

Rene W R J Dekker (RWRJ)

Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwinweg 2, 2333, CR, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Paola Movalli (P)

Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwinweg 2, 2333, CR, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Lee A Walker (LA)

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, LA1 4PQ, United Kingdom.

Elaine D Potter (ED)

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, LA1 4PQ, United Kingdom.

Alessandra Cincinelli (A)

Department of Chemistry "Ugo Schiff", University of Florence, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.

Tania Martellini (T)

Department of Chemistry "Ugo Schiff", University of Florence, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.

Guy Duke (G)

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, MacLean Bldg, Benson Ln, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, United Kingdom.

Jaroslav Slobodnik (J)

Environmental Institute, Okružná 784/42, 97241, Koš, Slovak Republic.

Jan Koschorreck (J)

German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), 06813, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.

Articles similaires

India Carbon Sequestration Environmental Monitoring Carbon Biomass
Rivers Turkey Biodiversity Environmental Monitoring Animals
1.00
Iran Environmental Monitoring Seasons Ecosystem Forests
Nigeria Environmental Monitoring Solid Waste Waste Disposal Facilities Refuse Disposal

Classifications MeSH