Review Anal Is Is Contam Aguas

MethodsX 12 (2024) 102582
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
MethodsX
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/methodsx
Analytical methods for determining environmental contaminants

of concern in water and wastewater
Dana Kadadou a,1, Lina Tizani a,b,c,1, Habiba Alsafar c,d,e, Shadi W. Hasan a,b,∗
a
Center for Membranes and Advanced Water Technology (CMAT), Khalifa University of Science and Technology, PO Box 127788, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, PO Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
c
Center for Biotechnology (BTC), Khalifa University of Science and Technology, PO Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
d
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, PO Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
e
Emirates Bio-research Center, Ministry of Interior, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Method name: Control and prevention of environmental pollution have emerged as paramount global concerns.
Review on analytical methods used for water Anthropogenic activities, such as industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, and improper waste
and wastewater analysis. disposal, introduce a wide range of contaminants into various ecosystems. These pollutants en-
compass organic and inorganic compounds, particulates, microorganisms, and disinfection by-
Keywords:
Analytical techniques
products, posing severe threats to human health, ecosystems, and the environment. Effective
Water analysis monitoring methods are indispensable for assessing environmental quality, identifying pollution
Emerging organic pollutants sources, and implementing remedial measures. This paper suggests that the development and uti-
Persistent organic pollutants lization of highly advanced analytical tools are both essential for the analysis of contaminants in
Inorganic compounds water samples, presenting a foundational hypothesis for the review. This paper comprehensively
Particulates reviews the development and utilization of highly advanced analytical tools which is mandatory
Microorganisms for the analysis of contaminants in water samples. Depending on the specific pollutants being
Disinfection by-products
studied, the choice of analytical methods widely varies. It also reveals insights into the diverse
applications and effectiveness of these methods in assessing water quality and contaminant lev-
els. By emphasizing the critical role of the reviewed monitoring methods, this review seeks to
deepen the understanding of pollution challenges and inspire innovative monitoring solutions
that contribute to a cleaner and more sustainable global environment.
• Urgent global concerns: control and prevention of pollution from diverse sources.
• Varied contaminants, diverse methods: comprehensive review of analytical tools.
• Inspiring a sustainable future: innovative monitoring for a cleaner environment.
∗
Corresponding author at: Center for Membranes and Advanced Water Technology (CMAT), Khalifa University of Science and Technology, PO
Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.W. Hasan).
1
Authors share first authorship.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102582
Available online 24 January 2024
2215-0161/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
D. Kadadou, L. Tizani, H. Alsafar et al. MethodsX 12 (2024) 102582
Specifications table
Subject area: Environmental Science

More specific subject area: Water contamination
Name of the reviewed Review on analytical methods for monitoring of water contaminants
methodology:
Keywords: Analytical techniques; water analysis; emerging organic pollutants; persistent organic pollutants; inorganic compounds;
particulates; microorganisms; disinfection by-products.
Resource availability: Not applicable
Review question: Not applicable
Method details
Introduction
Water pollution has become a critical global challenge, threatening the availability of safe and clean water resources for human
consumption, agriculture, industry, and ecosystem preservation. Anthropogenic activities, such as industrial discharges, agricultural
runoff, and improper waste disposal, introduce a wide range of contaminants into water bodies [1]. These pollutants include organic
and inorganic compounds, particulates, microorganisms, and disinfectants and disinfection by-products (DBPs).In a study including
27 countries, river water and lake water were the most contaminated specifically with phtalate esters (PAEs), with Nigera shown
as having the highest concentration of contaminants in water ressources [2], The presence of these pollutants in water bodies can
impose severe health and environmental consequences, necessitating the implementation of effective monitoring methods to assess
water quality, identify pollution sources, and take appropriate control measures. At the same time, water scarcity has emerged as
a pressing concern worldwide, posing significant challenges to water availability and access [3]. As global population continues to
grow, urbanize, and industrialize, the demand for water is also expected to increase substantially, while freshwater supplies remain
limited and susceptible to depletion. Climate change also intensifies water scarcity, causing different precipitation patterns and more
frequent and severe droughts. In regions experiencing water scarcity, the optimization of available water resources becomes vital,
emphasizing the need for sensitive and efficient monitoring methods to ensure their sustainable and reasonable utilization.
In light of these interconnected challenges, the importance of monitoring methods for water quality assessment cannot be over-
stated. Robust and reliable analytical determination tools are necessary to detect and quantify pollutants accurately, identify pollution
sources, and develop effective strategies to protect water resources [1]. By addressing water pollution through appropriate monitor-
ing and analysis, the world will be working towards minimizing human contamination, promoting sustainable water management
practices, and ensuring access to clean and sufficient water for present and future generations. Maintaining water quality is vital for
preserving human health and the ecological balance of aquatic environments. The presence of pollutants in water sources can lead to
severe health consequences when consumed or come into contact with, making it a top priority to detect and quantify these contam-
inants accurately and in a timely manner. Additionally, water scarcity exacerbates the challenge, as it necessitates the optimization
of available water resources, emphasizing the need for precise and efficient monitoring methods to ensure their safe utilization.
Consequently, several analytical methods have been developed for the determination of pollutants in water. One of the most
powerful analytical tools utilized in analytical chemistry is chromatography, which allows for qualitative and quantitative analysis,
as well as separation under defined conditions. Chromatography can generally be categorized into gas chromatography (GC) and
liquid chromatography (LC), depending on the nature of the mobile phase used. Given that GC suffers from several drawbacks related
to time consuming procedures, LC has replaced GC in several applications. Thus, there has been rapid development in LC technologies,
leading to enhanced instruments like high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), which is widely used today and offers several
advantages including improved sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness.
This paper aims to explore and critically evaluate the diverse array of analytical determination tools used for monitoring and
analyzing water samples contaminated with organic compounds, inorganic compounds, particulates, microorganisms, disinfectants,
and disinfection by-products. By highlighting the importance of monitoring methods, the focus is to seek to underscore their role
in assessing water quality, understanding contamination patterns, and devising appropriate strategies for mitigating pollution and
preserving this invaluable resource for future generations. Through a comprehensive review of these analytical techniques, the goal is
to aspire to foster a deeper understanding of water quality challenges and inspire the advancement of innovative monitoring solutions
that can help secure clean and sustainable water supplies worldwide.
Analytical techniques
Different analytical techniques have been developed and applied for the detection of various groups of water contaminants. In
the detection of these contaminants in water, sample preparation plays a crucial role, often involving clean-up and pre-concentration
steps mandatory for the subsequent analytical procedures. Two techniques are used for sample preparation, liquid-liquid extraction
(LLE) and solid phase extraction (SPE). LLE uses two immiscibles liquids, typically one aqueous and one organic, in order to separate
compounds. LLE is valued for its versatility in handling a wide range of analytes and sample matrices. On the other hand, the principle
of SPE involves the extraction of analytes from a complex matrix, and is based on transferring the analyte to the solid phase in the
first step and then isolating it from the sample. This is followed by the recovery of the analytes back into the initial phase using a
suitable solvent to allow for analysis. LLE typically involves lower equipment costs compared to SPE, but one significant drawback of
2
LLE is its relatively high consumption of organic solvents. This makes SPE the most commonly used pioneering technique that consists
of the extraction of analytes from a complex matrix and is designed for rapid, selective sample preparation and purification prior to
the chromatographic analysis (e.g. HPLC, GC, TLC) [4]. Commercially available cartridges are commonly used in this technique. The
choice of the sorbent is of high importance to achieve a high recovery rate. However, SPE presents some disadvantages correlated to
channeling phenomena as well as blockage of the cartridges especially in complex media. This has paved the way for researchers to
explore new ways to enhance this technique.
One improvement in SPE involves using discs instead of cartridges. The discs function in a similar way as cartridges, allowing
the sample to pass through the device. For large volume samples, such as those encountered in environmental samples, the discs are
advantageous over cartridges. Discs provide shorter processing times due to their large cross-sectional area and ease interaction with
analytes. Moreover, their smaller particles size and high mechanical stability reduce channeling, a common drawback of cartridges [5].
Another area of research focus is the development of sorbents for SPE. Due to their unique physicochemical and mechanical properties,
carbon nanostructures are a material of choice to be used in SPE operations. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are extensively researched and
can be used as discs, or combined with different nanoparticles, such as magnetic particles, and can be integrated into microextraction
devices. Tomai et al. developed a novel SPE technique based on nanoporous oxidized CNT membranes. These membranes can be
designed in different sizes and shapes and consist entirely of sorbent materials. This device is particularly suitable for environmental
samples. In pesticide analysis, in addition to the sample preparation and analysis methods mentioned for organic compound, new
techniques have emerged. For this category, sample preparation is often the most critical and time-consuming step. Various extraction
methods are employed, starting from conventional techniques like solid-phase extraction (SPE) and liquid-liquid extraction (LLE,
commonly utilized for concentrating analytes and eliminating matrix interference [6]), to more sophisticated approaches that demand
reduced solvent usage. These advanced techniques include dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE), stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE),
magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE), solid-phase microextraction (SPME), and dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME).
The principle of dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) is based on adding a sorbent into the analytical solution, followed by
dispersion. In this process, the sorbent is separated from the analytes by centrifugation or filtration. dSPE offers the advantages of
simplicity and fast treatment time. Furthermore, the principle of magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE) is based on the target analyte
being adsorbed on a magnetic adsorbent, which is then separated by an external magnetic field. This technique offers high extraction
efficiency along with a high extraction capacity. Moreover, solid-phase microextraction (SPME) has the advantages of being a simple
method for preparing samples with the added benefit of using a low solvent, while being sensitive since, in this method, the analyte
is being distributed between the bulk and the fiber coating [7]. Another new technique, liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), has
been developed, which uses microliters of extraction solvent. Nevertheless, DLLME also has some disadvantages, such as the non-
environmentally friendly nature of the extraction solvents and the need for premixing before injection, limiting its applicability.
Furthermore, deep eutectic solvents (DES) have emerged as alternatives to traditional solvents due to their low volatility, thermal
stability, and low vapor pressure [8]. The solvent bar microextraction technique involves using a hollow fiber with one sealed end. This
tube is immersed in the agitated samples. This configuration minimizes solvent loss, and the extracted solvent is subsequently analyzed
using GC equipped with an electron detector. Another innovative technique for pesticide detection in water is chemiluminescence
/flow injection (CL/FI). The photochemically induced photoluminescence method uses light as a reagent, and thus eliminates the
need for polluting reagents that can harm the environment. Additionally, it offers the advantages of enhanced selectivity, sensitivity,
and reaction time. Furthermore, the flow injection setup consists of two points: injection and detection, with the analyte undergoing
a physical or chemical transformation in between. This is achieved by injecting a specific volume of the sample using a carrier
solution to a flow-through detector. This technique is both simple and inexpensive due to the fact that it employs basic pumps and
low-pressure valves. Coupling FI with CL offers the advantage of using the same instrumentation while allowing for the monitoring
of light emission from CL reactions with controlled irradiation times.
In organic compounds, chromatography is one of the most commonly used analytical methods for separating a mixture of compo-
nents based on the differences in their rates of passage through a liquid or gaseous phase. Chromatography provides both qualitative
and quantitative results. In GC, a chemically inert gas serves as the mobile phase, while in LC, a liquid solvent is used. One of the main
advantages of GC is that it requires only a small amount of the sample in order to separate complex mixtures. Nonetheless, GC suffers
from several drawbacks including the use of durable solvents for extraction and the use of potentially explosive esterification reagents.
Due to these limitations, GC has been replaced by LC in many cases. Conventional LC methods are characterized by stationary phases
like C8 and C18, particle size ranging from 3 to 5 μm, as well as column lengths that vary between 10 and 25 cm. Moreover, new
chromatographic techniques are emerging as advancements in miniaturized chromatographic methods. These techniques are based
on reducing particle size or the diameter of the inner LC column, enabling them to achieve better performance in terms of sensitivity,
efficiency, peak resolution, and shorter analysis times compared to conventional methods.
The advancement of LC methods has led to HPLC, which employs chromatographic columns with small packing particle sizes, typ-
ically in the range of 3–10 μm, in order to enhance the efficiency of chromatographic separations. This requires high pressure to allow
and maintain suitable flowrates within the system. Nowadays, HPLC is one of the most versatile and commonly used chromatographic
methods. Ultra-pure liquid chromatography (UPLC) has demonstrated higher resolution, along with both increased and decreased
response times, achieved through the use of particle sizes of 1.7 μm under high pressure operating conditions [9]. Another technol-
ogy, capillary liquid chromatography (CLC), is based on employing columns of 500 μm internal diameter, leading to lower sample
requirements and reduced flowrates. Consequently, this approach minimizes solvent consumption and enhances chromatographic
sensitivity. CLC enables efficient analysis with flowrates in the range of μL/min. Recent studies utilizing various chromatography
techniques to determine fluorinated compounds in river waters [10] have shown that UHPLC and PLC outperform HPLC in terms of
analysis time and resolution. UHPLC-MS/MS provides better MLDs compared to the other techniques. Techniques employing MS/MS
3
detectors (UHPLC-MS/MS and HPLC-MS/MS) have shown better selectivity than those using MS detectors. Nonetheless, this is asso-
ciated with higher costs. One widely used analytical methods for determining analytes in water is based on liquid chromatography
coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) or tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Generally, SPE is employed prior to these ap-
proaches. While these methods are well-established, there are still several disadvantages that need to be addressed, such as resolution
issues [10]. These analytical methods are generally used for organic compound detection that covers persistent organic polluants
(POPs), including pesticides, as well as emerging organic polluants (EOPs). A novel approach has been recently developed for antibi-
otic decomposition such as Trimethoprim, this method is based on Photocatalytic activation of persulfate (PS) and has been proven
to be effective and environmently friendly. It used CuFe-layered double hydroxide (LDH) coated graphene oxide (CuFe-LDH/ GO)
composite [11].
While GC, coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS,GC-MS/MS,HRMS, etc,), was the most conventional method for analyzing pesti-
cides in water in the 1990s, advancements in the GC-MS method, based on atmospheric pressure ionization sources, have enhanced
the capability for analyzing pesticide residues in environmental matrices while still achieving the required detection limits for analytes
(in the μg/L range) [12]. Moreover, for pesticides with more polar structures and low volatility, analyzing with GC-MS is not efficient
without a prior derivatization process. In these cases, Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) has been employed for the
analysis [13].
In inorganic compound analysis, atomic absorption spectrometry is mainly used for the analysis of metallic elements, employing
a radiant beam with a specific wavelength passing through the material. This analytical technique determines the concentration
of a specific element in a sample by leveraging the principle that atoms (and ions) absorb light at a unique wavelength [14]. In
contrast, atomic emission spectrometry relies on the emission of characteristic wavelengths. This method involves heating atoms in
the gas phase, causing electrons to transition to higher energy levels and subsequently emit wavelengths specific to each element
[14]. Calorimetry serves as a valuable quantitative analysis tool, known for its high sensitivity, good selectivity, accuracy, and wide
range of applications. The underlying working principle involves measuring the absorption of radiant energy by a strongly colored
solution at a specific wavelength, enabling the determination of the concentration of a specific compound [14].
UV-Vis spectroscopy serves as a qualitative and quantitative method used for the determination of certain inorganic compounds
capable of absorbing wavelengths in the ultraviolet and visible light spectrum. Fluorimetry, based on measuring fluorescence at a
specific wavelength, provides quantitative results, while chemiluminescence relies on the emission of a certain wavelength when the
excited species returns to the ground state, using energy acquired from chemical reactions. Furthermore, ionic chromatography (IC)
is commonly used for detecting ions in aqueous samples. This technique offers the advantages of lower detection limits, small sample
aliquots, and the elimination of interferences that other techniques suffer from. The working principle involves injecting a sample
into a liquid mobile phase, which is then pumped through two ion exchange columns, namely, separator and suppressor. These two
columns are inserted in series in the system [14].
In contrast, particulate pollutants typically lend themselves to simpler analytical techniques for qualitative and quantitative de-
tection. On the other hand, microorganisms present a distinct category of pollutants, demanding precise and prompt monitoring
in water bodies. This is of high importance for establishing a robust surveillance system, particularly for microorganisms that may
present health risks [3]. Conventional analytical techniques primarily revolve around the identification of specific microorganism
components. These conventional approaches can be broadly classified into molecular biology methods, culture-based methods, and
immunology-based methods. Over the years, a multitude of methods falling within these categories have been employed for microor-
ganism detection.
Moving on to disinfectants and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which utilize an array of chromatographs, such as GC, IC, and
HPLC, to determine their concentrations in water. Among these, direct headspace methods, which work by extracting and concentrat-
ing volatiles from debris, has emerged as a prominent choice due to its reliability, even though it requires higher sample dosage and
may prioritize consistency over absolute accuracy. Besides analyzing samples through precursors, new methods known as micro-solid
phase extraction techniques have been established to facilitate analysis through solid samples. As such, multiple methods includ-
ing GC-MS, Gas Chromatography combined with Electron Capture Detection (GC-ECD), Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization
tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS) and Ion Chromatography with Conductivity Detection (IC-CD) have been utilized for the
diagnosis of DBPs in water. All in all, the merged application of separation techniques and ionization methods has indeed simplified
the identification of numerous types of DBPs in water. While GC is considered a gold standard in DBPs identification, GC-MS faces
challenges in the detection of polar and thermally unstable DBPs. In such cases, ESI is being coupled with LC.
Organic compounds
Organic pollutants in water are chemical compounds of organic origin, natural or synthetic in nature, that can harm the environ-
ment and human health. There are several routes through which these compounds can occur in water bodies. Naturally occurring
organic compounds are often produced by living aquatic microorganisms in lakes, rivers and oceans for purposes that include commu-
nication, defense, and energy storage. Examples of these naturally occurring organic compounds are 2-methylisoborneol and geosmin.
Such occurrences are of concern due to their apparent toxicity in aquatic environments. Other organic compounds are synthetic in
nature, and commonly source from industrial activities and flow into and contaminate water bodies. As a result, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides, phenolic compounds, phthalates, and nitrogen-containing compounds have been identified as water
pollutants. VOCs can easily evaporate into the air and can have a negative impact on the environment and human health. Unfor-
tunately, VOCs are also identified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the aquatic environment. Similarly, the combustion of
organic compounds produces dioxins and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These compounds can be detected in surface
4
Fig. 1. Major classes of organic pollutants, focusing on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and emerging organic pollutants (EOPs).
waters due to their discharge from industrial waste. In addition, the disinfection of treated water can result in the presence of chlo-
rination by-products in drinking water. Therefore, there are strict regulations by the World Health Organization (WHO) to limit the
presence of organic constituents due to their negative impact on the environment and human health. The analytical techniques used
for the identification and quantification of organic compounds. The subsequent sections will list organic pollutants which are grouped
under persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and emerging organic pollutants (EOCs), as shown in Fig. 1.
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
POPs are a group of chemical compounds that are highly persistent in the environment. In other words, they do not break down
easily and can persist in the environment for many years. As a result, they pose a threat on human health and the environment.
POPs include a wide range of chemicals including aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, xylene, and ethylbenzene which are
frequently released from petroleum refineries. These pollutants have mutagenic, carcinogenic, immunotoxic, and teratogenic effects
on both lower and higher forms of life. Many pesticides, especially organochlorine pesticides (OCPS) are classified as POPs as well.
Several OCPs have been used in the agriculture to kill unwanted pests and promote crop yield in recent decades. Consequently, these
pesticides have been easily introduced as contaminants into the environment. Additionally, it has been noted that several metabolites
of DDT such as chlordane, toxaphene, and biphenyl products have been generated unintentionally, adding up to the produced toxic
contamination. Moreover, dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and dioxin among others are considered POPs which are products of
industrial activities. Such POPs have been heavily utilized during the industrial revolution period while others have been inadvertently
produced through the incineration of medical waste, industrial processes that release smoke, or other means. In general, POPs can
be classified into three types, namely hydrocarbons, pesticides, and industrial chemicals. Table 1 shows the most common controlled
classes of POPs along with their guideline limits, and detection techniques.
Emerging organic pollutants (EOPs)
Emerging organic pollutants (EOPs) are a diverse group of synthetic and naturally existing organic pollutants that have been
recently detected in water, but are still not regulated under existing environmental legislation. Because EOPs are generally challenging
to track, they are not included in water monitoring programs. It is, therefore, anticipated that EOPs will eventually build up in water
bodies if left unregulated [3]. The primary threats linked to EOPs and their by-products are due to the lack of extensive research
on the environmental and human toxicity of the majority of these compounds. Research has shown, however, that EOPs could pose
threats on human health.
The major classes of EOPs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, perfluorinated substances, and microplastics. In this review, pes-
ticides and microplastics have been discussed in Sections "Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)" and "Microorganisms". Thus, this
segment will focus on pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics and anti-inflammatories, and perfluorinated substances. Tables 2–4 list
those compounds along with their chemical structures and analytical methods.
Inorganic compounds
Inorganic water pollutants are chemical compounds that can be present in natural water sources, posing significant risks to
human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. Unlike the contamination derived from microorganisms, inorganic pollutants are typically
5
Table 1
Common persistent organic pollutants classes, names, allowable drinking water and effluent levels, and analytical detection techniques.
Class Name Drinking water Surface water Analytical technique Ref.
EPA maximum EPA maximum
contaminant level recommended
goal (mg/L) [1] level (μg/L) [3]
Hydrocarbons Benzene 0 16–58 Solid phase microextraction technique followed [4]
by GC-MS
Toluene 1 520 Solid phase microextraction technique followed [4]
by GC-MS
Xylenes 10 Solid phase microextraction technique followed [4]
by GC-MS
Polycyclic aromatic 0 Solid phase microextraction technique followed [4]
hydrocarbons by GC-MS
Alachlor 0.002 GC-MS [5]
Atrazine 0.003 Oxidized buckypaper (BP) as a sorbent [9,10]
membrane of a stir-disc solid phase extraction
module
Ethylbenzene 0.7 Solid phase microextraction technique followed
by Gas Chromatography mass spectrometry
(GS-MS)
Pesticides Carbofuran 0.04 1- LLE and a TPI on-column GC/MS method [6,14–16]
2- LC
3- LC–MS with electrospray ionization (ESI)
4- Reversed phase liquid chromatography
(RP-HPLC)
2,4-D 0.07 12,000 1- HPLC [16–20]
2- Reversed phase liquid chromatography
(RP-HPLC)
Dalapon 0.2 1- GC [21–23]
2- IC-MS
Dinoseb 0.007 1- HPLC [16,24–29]
2- GC
3- Capillary electrophoresis
4- Electrochemical methods and
kinetic-spectrophotometry
Diquat 0.02 1- Reversed phased liquid chromatography [30–33]
(HPLC) with UV detection
2- Liquid chromatography - (electrospray
ionization) mass spectrometry [LC-(ESI)MS]
3- LC-MS
4- HPLC-MS/MS
Endothall 0.1 1- GC-MS [34–36]
2- IC-MS
Endrin 0.002 0.03 GC [37]
Glyphosate 0.7 1- LC-MS/MS [38,39]
2- HPLC with fluorescence detection
3- HPLC with UV detection
4- HPLC-MS/MS
5- GC-MS/MS
6- GC with detection by flame photometry
(DFC)
Lindane 0.0002 4.4 1- Solvent bar microextraction technique using [37,40]
GC
2- GC
Methoxychlor 0.04 0.02 GC [37]
Oxamyl 0.2 1- Photo-induced chemiluminescence (PICL) [8,14,41]
detection with FI methodology
3- CEC-atmospheric pressure photoionization
(APPI)-MS system
Picloram 0.5 Reversed phase liquid chromatography [16]
(RP-HPLC)
Simazine 0.004 1- PES microextraction followed by LC-MS/MS [9,14,16]
3- Reversed phase liquid
chromatography(RP-HPLC)
Toxaphene 0.003 7E-4 GC [37]
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 400 Reversed phase liquid chromatography [16]
(RP-HPLC)
Chlordane 0.002 3.2E-4 GC [37]
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 7.9E-5 GC [37]
(continued on next page)
6
Table 1 (continued)
Class Name Drinking water Surface water Analytical technique Ref.

EPA maximum EPA maximum
contaminant level recommended
goal (mg/L) [1] level (μg/L) [3]
Industrial Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.0005 6.4E-5 1- Solid phase microextraction (SPE) and GC [42–46]
Chemicals 2- Solid phase extraction followed by GC/MS
3- Gas chromatographic electron capture mass
spectroscopy (GC-ECMS)
4- SPE and GC-MS
5- High resolution gas chromatography/high
resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS)
Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 5
o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 3000
p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 900 Capillary GC-MS [47]
1,2-Dichloroethane 0 650
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 20,000
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 4000
1,2-Dichloropropane 0 31
Epichlorohydrin 0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0 8.9 Capillary GC-MS [47]
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00000003 5.1E-9
not biodegradable and can persist in the environment for long periods. Heavy metals, such as arsenic, mercury, and cadmium,
are examples of inorganic pollutants that can accumulate in the body over time and lead to health complications such as damage
to the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. Other inorganic water pollutants are nitrates and nitrites from agricultural runoff and
sewage, fluoride from water treatment, and chlorine and chloramines added as disinfectants. Exposure to inorganic pollutants can
lead to severe health effects such as cancer, neurological damage, and developmental problems, and impact the quality of water
resources, affecting aquatic life and the use of water for drinking and recreational activities. Therefore, identifying and monitoring
inorganic water pollutants are crucial for maintaining the safety and sustainability of water resources. Table 5 shows the maximum
recommended limits of inorganic water pollutants in drinking and surface water as well as the analytical techniques used for their
detection in water.
Although inorganic water pollutants can have long-lasting health effects, they should not be de-prioritized over pollutants that
have short-term impacts. Some inorganic pollutants play crucial roles in metabolic activities, while others are purely harmful to the
environment. For instance, Hg is present in natural ores and can adsorb onto sediments and rocks due to their high organic carbon
content. Even when consumed in trace amounts, it is toxic. Arsenic and selenium are other examples of pollutants that can find their
way into water bodies due to disturbances to redox conditions caused by microbial or human activities. As such, these scarcitcan be
easily found initially in ground water and later in surface water.
Particulates
Particulates in water refer to solid or suspended materials that are present in the form of tiny particles. These particles can
originate from various sources, including natural processes such as erosion, as well as human activities such as industrial discharges,
agricultural runoff, and wastewater effluents. The types of particulates found in water can vary widely and may include sediments,
organic matter, microplastics, and pollutants. The detection of particulates in water is of significant importance for several reasons.
Firstly, particulates can have adverse effects on water quality, ecosystems, and human health. They can interfere with aquatic life,
clog water treatment systems, contribute to the spread of contaminants, and impair the aesthetic appeal of water bodies. Detecting
and monitoring particulates helps to assess the overall health and integrity of water resources and supports effective management
and remediation strategies.
A range of analytical methods is employed to detect and quantify particulates in water, including turbidity meters, particle
counters, filtration and gravimetric analysis, microscopy, spectroscopic methods, and sedimentation and centrifugation (shown in
Fig. 2). Turbidity meters are commonly used to measure the cloudiness caused by suspended particles. Particle counters provide
information on particle concentration and size distribution. While both turbidity and particle counts are optical measurements
of the quantity of particulate material, it is observed that particle counters have become more acceptable analytical tools than
turbidity meters [87]. Filtration and gravimetric analysis, on the other hand, is one of the oldest techniques used for quanti-
fying suspended particulate matter. It involves collecting and weighing particulates from filtered water samples. Moreover, mi-
croscopy allows for direct visualization and characterization of particles while spectroscopic techniques can identify specific types
of particulates based on their optical properties. Finally, sedimentation and centrifugation techniques separate particulates from
water for further analysis. These analytical tools play a crucial role in assessing and monitoring the presence and characteris-
tics of particulates in water. By employing these methods, researchers, environmental agencies, and water treatment facilities
can gather data necessary for informed decision-making, pollution control, and the preservation of water quality and ecosystem
health.
7
Table 2
Common antibiotics classes, chemical structures, and analytical detection techniques.
Class Name Structure Analytical technique Refs.
Macrolides Roxithromycin 1- LC with coulometry [48–51]

2- LC with electrochemical detection
3- LC with UV detection
Erythromycin 1- LC-MS coupled with the calibration technique [48,52]

of isotope dilution
2- LC with electrochemical detection
Tetracyclines Tetracycline 1- UHPLC with fluorescence and tandem mass [53–59]

spectrometry detection
2- Solid-phase extraction and LC-MS
3- Laponite-based dual-channel fluorescent
nanoprobe
4- Raman fingerprint strip sensor
5- HPLC coupled with DAD (diode array detection)
6- Glutathione (GSH)-protected fluorescent Au
nanoclusters (GSH-AuNCs)
7- LC-MS/MS
Oxytetracycline 1- UHPLC with fluorescence and tandem mass [53,54,56,57,59]
2- Solid-phase extraction and liquid
chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
5- LC-MS/MS
Chlorotetracycline 1- UHPLC with fluorescence and tandem mass [53,54,56,57,59]
5- LC-MS/MS
Doxycycline 1- UHPLC with fluorescence and tandem mass [48,53,54,56]
Fluoroquinolones Ofloxacin 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [60–63]

chromatography electrospray ionization tandem
mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
2- HPLC with photoinduced fluorimetric (PIF)
detection
3- ultra performance liquid
4- Chromatography electrospray tandem mass
spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS)
Ciprofloxacin 1- LC-MS coupled with the calibration technique [9,52,60–62,64,65]
of isotope dilution.
2- HPLC-MS
3- PES followed by LC-MS/MS
4- HPLC with photoinduced fluorimetric (PIF)
detection
5- Ultra performance liquid chromatography
electrospray tandem mass spectrometry
(UPLC-MS/MS)
7- Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS
8
Table 2 (continued)
Norfloxacin 1- PES followed by LC-MS/MS [9,60–62,65]

2- HPLC with photo-induced fluorimetric (PIF)
detection
(UPLC-MS/MS)
Enoxacin 1- HPLC with photoinduced fluorimetric (PIF) [60–62,65]
detection
(UPLC-MS/MS)
Enrofloxacin Ultra performance liquid chromatography [61]
(UPLC-MS/MS)
Sulfonamides Sulfamethizole 1- Electrochemical sensor based on an [66,67]

electropolymerized molecularly imprinted
polymer (MIP) film
2- HPLC- DAD
Sulfathiazole 1- Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [59,65,68]

HPLC- DAD
2- LC-MS/MS
3- UHPLC–MS–MS
Sulfamerazine 1- Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [65,67,69,70]

2- HPLC- DAD
3- HPLC-FLD
Sulfaquinoxaline 1- Oxidized buckypaper (BP) as a sorbent [10,65]

module
UHPLC–MS–MS [68]
Sulfamonomethoxine
Sulfapyridine 1- HPLC- DAD [67,68]

2- UHPLC–MS–MS
Chloramphenicols Sulfamethoxazole 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid

chromatography electrospray ionization tandem [9,10,52,59,61,64,65,69–
mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) 71]
2- LC-MS coupled with the calibration technique
of isotope dilution
3- HPLC
5- Oxidized buckypaper (BP) as a sorbent
module
(UPLC-MS/MS)
8- HPLC-FLD
9- LC-MS/MS
9
Table 2 (continued)
Sulfadiazine 1- PES followed by LC-MS/MS [9,10,59,65,67,68,70]

module
4- HPLC- DAD
5- HPLC-FLD
6- LC-MS/MS
7- UHPLC–MS–MS
Trimethoprim 1- LC-MS coupled with the calibration technique [2,9,11,52,61,72]
of isotope dilution
(UPLC-MS/MS)
Chloramphenicol 1- UHPLC-MS/MS [73,74]
2- Mini solid phase extractor (MSPE) with HPLC
3- LC-MS/MS
Thiamphenicol LC-MS/MS [74,75]
Florfenicol LC-MS/MS [74,75]
Fig. 2. Analytical methods used for the detection of particulates in water.
10
Table 3
Common NSAIDs, chemical structures, and analytical detection techniques.
NSAID Structure Analytical technique Ref.
Diclofenac 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [9,10,52,64,71,76]

of isotope dilution
3- HPLC-MS
4- Magnetic solid phase extraction method (MSPE)
using magnetic cellulose nanoparticles (MCNPs)
module
Ibuprofen 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [52,64,71,76,77]
of isotope dilution
3- HPLC-MS
module
Ketoprofen 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [9,10,64,71]
2- HPLC-MS
module
Naproxen 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [10,52,64,71,76]
of isotope dilution
3- HPLC-MS
module
Acetylsalicylate Acid
Salicylic Acid 1- Solid phase extraction followed by liquid [10,78]

chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem
mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS)
module
Acetaminophen 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [9,10,52,71,78]
of isotope dilution
3- Solid phase extraction followed by liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem
mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS)
module
11
Table 3 (continued)
NSAID Structure Analytical technique Ref.
Indomethacin 1- HPLC with UV detection [79]

2- Chemiluminescence, ELISA
Mefanamic Acid Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [65]
Table 4
Common PFAS, guideline values, and analytical detection techniques.
EPA maximum
Class Name contaminant level [80] Analytical technique Refs.
Prefluorinated PFOA 4 parts per trillion 1- LC-MS [9,64,81]

Chemicals 2- PES followed by LC-MS/MS
3- HPLC-MS/MS
4- UHPLC MS/MS
5- Capillary LC-MS
PFOS 4 ppt 1- LC-MS [9,64,82]
3- HPLC-MS/MS
4- UHPLC MS/MS
5- Capillary LC-MS
PFNA 1.0 (unitless) Hazard 1- HPLC-MS/MS [82]
Index 2- UHPLC MS/MS
3- Capillary LC-MS
PFHxS 1- HPLC-MS/MS [82]
2- UHPLC MS/MS
3- Capillary LC-MS
PFBS PES followed by LC-MS/MS [9]
HFPO-DA LC-MS [83]
Microorganisms
Water and wastewater bodies harbor a diverse array of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoa. Understand-
ing the characteristics of microorganisms in such environments is crucial for their detection, surveillance, and treatment. Amongst
these microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, and protozoa pose significant risks to human health, with bacteria and viruses being the most
extensively investigated. Domestic waste represents a major source of microorganisms in wastewater, although they can also originate
from various other sources. These microorganisms can be present in drinking water, seawater, fruits and vegetables, aerosols from
irrigation, groundwater, surface water, and marina waters. Industrial activities are another common contributor to microorganism
contamination in wastewater. Recognizing the characteristics of microorganisms and the risks they pose to public health is of utmost
importance. Infectious diseases, in particular, pose significant risks due to the facilitated spread of pathogens. The incubation pe-
riod, the time between infection and the onset of symptoms, plays a crucial role in determining the speed of pathogen transmission.
For instance, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has a long incubation period, which contributed to its rapid transmission.
Wastewater treatment is considered a primary method to address and prevent the transmission of pathogenic diseases. However, it
is vital to assess the effectiveness of actual treatment plants, especially in developing countries. This emphasizes the importance of
global detection and surveillance studies. In many cases, insufficient information is available about the pathogen or water quality to
determine potential risks to the environment and public health. Therefore, the use of reference pathogens, as recommended by the
World Health Organization (WHO), becomes necessary [88]. However, this approach can be challenging when dealing with newly
emerging enteric pathogens, which often present uncertainties.
Moreover, wastewater treatment plant weaken many viruses and bacteria during the treatment process but sometimes this is not
done entirely [89].To combat the presence of pathogens and the unexpected illnesses they may cause, several conventional wastewater
disinfection methods have been employed. Chlorination, ozonation, and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation are among the most commonly
used disinfection techniques [90]. These methods operate on different principles and may exhibit varying levels of efficiency against
specific viruses or pathogenic microorganisms. While chlorine has been the default oxidizer for treatment used for pathogens treat-
12
Table 5
Maximum recommended limits of inorganic water pollutants in drinking and surface water and their analytical detection methods.
Name EPA maximum Surface water maximum Analytical technique Ref.

contaminant level recommended level
goal (mg/L) [1] (μg/L) [3]
Antimony 0.006 640 Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]

Arsenic 0 0.14 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [84,85]
2- Mass spectroscopy
3- X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy
4- Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS)
5- Calorimetric
6- Electrochemical detection: amperometric, voltammetry
7- Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
8- Potentiometric detection
Asbestos (fiber >10 7 million fibers per
micrometers) liter (MFL)
Barium 2 1- Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]
2- Atomic emission spectrometric
1
Beryllium 0.004 64 1- Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]
2- Atomic emission spectrometric (ICP)
Cadmium 0.005 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [84–86]
6- Electrochemical detection: amperometric, voltammetry,
Chromium (total) 0.1 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [84,85]
4- Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS),
5- Calorimetric
Copper 1.3 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [84–86]
4- Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS),
9- CHEMFET
Cyanide (as free 0.2 400 Calorimetric [84]
cyanide)
Fluoride 4.0 Ion exchange chromatographic
Lead 0 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [85,86]
9- CHEMFET
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 1- Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) [85]
3- X-ray fluorescence spectroscop
Nitrate (measured as 10 Ion exchange chromatographic [84]
Nitrogen)
Nitrite (measured as 1 1- Calorimetric [84]
Nitrogen) 2- Ion exchange chromatographic
Selenium 0.05 4200 Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]
Thallium 0.0005 0.47 Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]
13
ment. This method presents some disadvantages related primarly to environmental issues. This leads to municipalities using ozone
as preferred alternative.Dealing with pathogenic diseases that are highly infectious calls for the immediate detection of pathogens in
water bodies which need to be localized in order to have a desired effect on the surveillance of pathogens. Thus, continuous detection
and monitoring of water bodies is essential to keep track of health-alarming pathogens [3]. Conventional detection methods generally
identify pathogens depending on specific constituents. The three general categories of conventional methods are the polymerase chain
reaction (PCR), culture and colony counting, and immunology-based methods. Many methods, which lie under these three categories,
have been used for the detection of pathogens over the years. Fig. 2 represents a summary of these methods.
Molecular biology methods
Molecular diagnostic methods primarily rely on the detection of nucleic acids, with the widely used technique being the PCR. It
is a well-established method that selectively amplifies specific DNA sequences, making it highly versatile for targeted amplification
from any DNA source. Through the use of primers and enzymes, new complementary DNA strands are synthesized, leading to the
repetitive amplification of the desired DNA sequence. As a result, the targeted DNA becomes highly concentrated and can be easily
detected using labeled probes. These probes generate signals that can be radioactive, colorimetric, fluorometric, or chemiluminescent,
depending on the type of molecule under investigation. It is important to note the different variations of PCR techniques available,
such as real-time PCR (R-PCR), quantitative real-time PCR (Q-RT PCR), reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and multiplex PCR. PCR
techniques offer advantages such as speed, specificity, and effectiveness. However, the automated nature of the technique contributes
to high running costs, and a sterile environment is essential due to the involvement of biochemical processes. RT-PCR remains a widely
utilized and reliable method for virus detection, often serving as a reference in experiments aiming to apply or enhance detection
techniques.
Culture-based methods
Among the conventional methods discussed, culture-based methods have the longest history and have been widely employed for
microorganism detection. These methods are known for their high success rates, minimal false results, and cost-effectiveness. However,
one drawback is the relatively long test duration, typically ranging from 18 to 72 h, due to the slow growth of microorganisms, which
can be undesirable in certain situations. Several common culture methods include gram staining, sorbitol MacConkey agar (SMAC),
CHROMagar, and rainbow agar. The choice of method often depends on the specific medium used for microorganism growth. For
instance, gram staining is used to identify bacteria at suspected infection sites, including the throat, lungs, genitals, or skin wounds.
SMAC is commonly used for E. coli detection, relying on sorbitol fermentation, though it tends to yield slower results. On the other
hand, CHROMagar employs a chromogenic substance, enabling straightforward color discrimination and finds application in the
identification of common yeast species. It is important to note that not all media are suitable for every strain, highlighting the
significance of selecting an appropriate medium to obtain desirable results (Fig. 3).
Immunology-based methods
Immunology-based methods primarily rely on the recognition of pathogens through antigen-antibody bindings. These methods
encompass various diagnostic techniques, with enzyme immunoassay (EIA), enzyme-linked fluorescent assay (ELFA), enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and flow injection immunoassay being among the most commonly used. ELISA, in particular, is
a versatile technique employed for detecting specific proteins in biological samples and has undergone numerous enhancements
resulting in multiple variations. It is an immune-chemical technique, also known as a solid-phase enzyme immunoassay, as it involves
the use of enzyme-linked antigens or antibodies. A positive result is indicated by the formation of a colored product resulting from the
reaction between the enzyme-linked protein and the substrate (biological sample). In essence, the ELISA technique can be summarized
in three steps: Antigen-antibody reaction, formation of the colored product, and signal detection and quantification. ELISA can
be employed in various methodologies such as direct ELISA, indirect ELISA, sandwich ELISA, and competitive ELISA, producing
quantitative, qualitative, or semi-quantitative data. The advantages and disadvantages of ELISA vary depending on the specific type
being used. For instance, indirect ELISA may exhibit relatively lower specificity compared to other types due to potential cross-
reactivity with a secondary antibody [91] (Table 6).
Disinfectants and disinfection by-products
Disinfectants are commonly used in water treatment and wastewater treatment processes to eliminate harmful microorganisms.
The most common disinfectants used worldwide are chlorine, UV radiation, chloride dioxide, monochloroamine, and ozone. Despite
the notable success of these disinfectants, their use can inadvertently lead to the formation of DBPs that can contaminate water and
wastewater bodies. The most common types of DBPs are THMs, HAAs, and HALs, whereas others include HKs, HNMs, and HAAms.
While DBPs generation during disinfection greatly depends on the amount of disinfectant used, researchers have deduced that some
DBPs are more toxic than others. For instance, brominated DBPs have been found to be more toxic than chlorinated ones. Neverthe-
less, multiple research suggests that out of 600 DBPs found in treated water, less than 100 of them are non-toxic in nature. When
disinfectants come into contact with organic matter present in water or wastewater, such as natural organic compounds or organic
14
Fig. 3. Microorganism conventional analytical methods (developed from Refs. [92,93]).
Table 6
Comparison between microorganism conventional analytical methods.
Analytical method Advantages Disadvantages Test duration Cost Ref.
Molecular biology methods 1- High sensitivity 1- Intensive lab work 1–4 h High [93]
2- High selectivity 2- Necessitates a sterile lab environment
3- Costly reagents needed
Culture-based methods 1- High sensitivity 1- Intensive lab work 18–72 h Low [87,94]
2- High selectivity 2- Extensive examination
3- Necessitates a sterile lab environment
Immunology-based methods 1- High sensitivity 3- Costly analysis >8 h High [88]
2- High selectivity 4- Sample enrichment is required
pollutants, chemical reactions occur, resulting in the creation of DBPs. Additionally, exposure to sunlight in surface waters or reser-
voirs can also contribute to the formation of DBPs through photolysis. Once formed, DBPs can persist in water and wastewater, posing
potential health risks to humans and aquatic organisms. Thus, it is crucial to employ careful disinfection practices and monitoring
measures to mitigate the presence of DBPs and ensure the safety of water resources. The subsequent sections will discuss the types
of DBPs and analytical methods conventionally utilized for their detection in water. Fig. 4 shows the main types of disinfectants and
disinfection by-products found in water, while Table 7 shows the multiple methods often employed for the diagnosis of DBPs in water.
Trihalomethanes (THMs)
Trihalomethanes (THMs) are a group of DBPs that are commonly found in chlorinated water. THMs are formed when chlorine, used
as a disinfectant in water treatment, reacts with natural organic matter, such as decaying vegetation, and other organic compounds
present in water sources. One of the main concerns on THMs is their volatility, which enables their easy vaporization into the air. This
property makes inhalation of THMs possible during activities such as showering or using water for household purposes. Additionally,
THMs can also be ingested through drinking water or absorbed through the skin during activities like swimming in chlorinated pools.
In terms of chemical structures, THMs are compounds that contain three halogen atoms (typically chlorine, bromine, or a combina-
tion of both) bound to a central carbon atom. The most common THMs found in water are chloroform (CHCl3), bromodichloromethane
(CHCl2Br), dibromochloromethane (CHClBr2), and bromoform (CHBr3) [95]. Exposure to high levels of THMs over a long period
of time has been associated with potential health risks. Studies have suggested links between THM exposure and adverse effects
15
Fig. 4. Main types of disinfectants and disinfection by-products found in water.
Table 7
Common disinfectants and disinfection by-products classes, guideline values, and analytical detection techniques.
Class Name Drinking water EPA Surface water Analytical technique Ref.
maximum residual maximum
disinfectant level recommended level
goal (mg/L) [1] (μg/L) [3]
Disinfectants Chloramines (as Cl2 ) 4 – 1- Amperometric titration [90]

2- DPD ferrous titrimetric method
3- DPD colorimetric method
4- UV-Vis Spectrophotometry
Chlorine (as Cl2 ) 4 – 1- Amperometric titration [91,96]
2- DPD ferrous titrimetric method
3- DPD colorimetric method Syringaldazine
(FACTS) method
4- Iodometric electrode technique
Chlorine dioxide (as ClO2 ) 0.8 – 1- Amperometric titration [96,97]
2- DPD (N,N‑diethyl-p-phenylenediamine)
ferrous titrimetric method
3- The Lissamine Green B (LGB WET)
colorimetric analytical technique
4- Chronoamperometry
THMs Bromodichloromethane 0 27 1- GC-MS [95,98,99]
Bromoform 0 120 2- GC-ECD
Dibromochloromethane 0.06 21 3- GC-NiECD
Chloroform 0.07 2000 4- Hach THM Plus method
5- P&T/GC-PID-ELCD
HAAs Dichloroacetic acid 0 – 1- GC-ECD [95,98,99]
Trichloroacetic acid 0.02 – 2- Hach THM Plus method
Monochloroacetic acid 0.07 – 3- IC-ESI-MS/MS
Bromoacetic acid – – 4- IC-CD
Dibromoacetic acid – –
HANs – – – GC-ECD
[95,98,99]
on the liver, kidneys, bladder, and the reproductive system. Some studies have also suggested an increased risk of certain types of
cancer, such as bladder cancer and colorectal cancer, although the evidence is not definitive [95]. To address the presence of THMs
in drinking water, water treatment facilities employ various strategies, such as optimizing disinfection practices, using alternative
disinfectants, or implementing advanced treatment techniques like activated carbon filtration or ozonation, which can help reduce
the formation of THMs. Regulatory authorities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States, have set
maximum allowable limits for THMs in drinking water to ensure the safety of public water supplies. Regular monitoring and testing
of water sources are conducted to ensure compliance with these standards and protect public health.
16
Haloacetic acids (HAAs)
Haloacetic acids (HAAs) are another group of DBPs that can be found in chlorinated water. Like many DBPs, HAAs are formed
when chlorine or other disinfectants react with organic matter present in water during the disinfection process. HAAs fall under the
category of organic DBPs that contain a central carbon atom bonded to a halogen atom and one or more carboxylic acid functional
groups. The halogen atoms commonly found in HAAs include chlorine, bromine, or a combination of both. The most prevalent HAAs
in drinking water are monochloroacetic acid (CH2ClCOOH), dichloroacetic acid (CHCl2COOH), trichloroacetic acid (CCl3COOH),
monobromoacetic acid (CH2BrCOOH), and dibromoacetic acid (CHBr2COOH).
Similar to THMs, exposure to HAAs can occur through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. However, HAAs are more
polar and less volatile than THMs, reducing the risks involved through inhalation. HAAs can be present in drinking water and can
also be formed in swimming pools and hot tubs treated with chlorine-based disinfectants. According to Srivastav et al., the factors
affecting the generation of HAAs include (1) increased concentration of free chlorine above 3 mg/L, (2) acidic environments of pH 6
or lower, and (3) the presence of hydrophobic natural organic matter [95].
Haloacetonitrile (HANs)
Research investigations on the presence of Haloacetonitriles (HANs) in water is limited when compared to THMs and HAAs.
Mostly, bromochloroacetonitrile, dibromodichloroacetonitrile, and trichloroacetonitrile have been the focal point of investigations.
Conclusion
Controlling and preventing environmental pollution has risen as a top-tier global priority. These contaminants, existing and
emerging ones, consist of organic and inorganic compounds, particulates, microorganisms, and disinfection by-products, all of which
pose significant threats to human health, ecosystems, and the environment. Therefore, employing effective monitoring methods is
necessary for maintaining water quality whilst implementing corrective actions when needed. In this regard, the development of
highly capable analytical technologies is deemed imperative. This paper provides an overview of the lately employed analytical
methods for detecting various contaminants in water samples. Chromatography, a powerful analytical technique, plays a pivotal role
in environmental monitoring of organic compounds, inorganic compounds, and disinfection by-products by enabling both qualitative
and quantitative analysis and precise separation. Gas and liquid chromatography are fundamental chromatographic methods, with
LC increasingly replacing GC in many applications due to its advantages. This transition along with continuous research on LC
technologies have catalyzed rapid advancements in LC instruments, exemplified by high-performance liquid chromatography, known
for its enhanced sensitivity, specificity, and cost-effectiveness. Microorganism control, on the other hand, in water effluents and bodies
rely on traditional molecular, culture, and immunology-based methods.
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.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dana Kadadou: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Lina Tizani: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Habiba Alsafar:
Writing – review & editing, Validation. Shadi W. Hasan: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Validation.
Data availability
All data published in this review is included in this manuscript.
Ethics statements
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Center for Membranes and Advanced Water Technology (CMAT) at
Khalifa University in Abu Dhabi (UAE) (Award No. RC2-2018-009). The support from the Emirates Bio-Research Center at the Ministry
of Interior in Abu Dhabi (UAE) (Award No. 8434000380) is also acknowledged.
17
References
[1] Environment Protection Agency, National primary drinking water regulations, (2009).
[2] Y. Vasseghian, M. Alimohamadi, E.N. Dragoi, C. Sonne, A global meta-analysis of phthalate esters in drinking water sources and associated health risks, Sci.
Total Environ. 903 (2023) 166846, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166846.
[3] E.P. Agency, State-specific water quality standards effective under the Clean Water Act (CWA), (n.d.).
[4] J.N. Bianchin, G. Nardini, J. Merib, A.N. Dias, E. Martendal, E. Carasek, Simultaneous determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylene in water samples using a new sampling strategy combining different extraction modes and temperatures in a single extraction solid-phase
microextra, J. Chromatogr. A 1233 (2012) 22–29, doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2012.02.022.
[5] S. Hong, A.T. Lemley, Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric determination of alachlor and its degradation products by direct aqueous injection, J. Chromatogr.
A 822 (1998) 253–261, doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(98)00625-6.
[6] T. Kawamoto, N. Makihata, Development of a simultaneous analysis method for carbofuran and its three derivative pesticides in water by GC/MS with temperature
programmable inlet on-column injection, Anal. Sci. 19 (2003) 1605–1610, doi:10.2116/analsci.19.1605.
[7] M. Nasiri, H. Ahmadzadeh, A. Amiri, Sample preparation and extraction methods for pesticides in aquatic environments: a review, TrAC - Trends Anal. Chem.
123 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.trac.2019.115772.
[8] J.L. López-Paz, M. Catalá-Icardo, A. Langa-Sánchez, Determination of N-methylcarbamate pesticides using flow injection with photoinduced chemiluminescence
detection, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 94 (2014) 606–617, doi:10.1080/03067319.2013.879295.
[9] L. Mijangos, H. Ziarrusta, M. Olivares, O. Zuloaga, M. Möder, N. Etxebarria, A. Prieto, Simultaneous determination of 41 multiclass organic pollutants in
environmental waters by means of polyethersulfone microextraction followed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 410
(2018) 615–632, doi:10.1007/s00216-017-0763-2.
[10] P. Tomai, A. Martinelli, S. Morosetti, R. Curini, S. Fanali, A. Gentili, Oxidized buckypaper for stir-disc solid phase extraction: evaluation of several classes of
environmental pollutants recovered from surface water samples, Anal. Chem. 90 (2018) 6827–6834, doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00927.
[11] Y. Vasseghian, D. Sezgin, D.C. Nguyen, H.Y. Hoang, M. Sari Yilmaz, A hybrid nanocomposite based on CuFe layered double hydroxide coated graphene oxide
for photocatalytic degradation of trimethoprim, Chemosphere 322 (2023), doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138243.
[12] C. Campanale, C. Massarelli, D. Losacco, D. Bisaccia, M. Triozzi, V.F. Uricchio, The monitoring of pesticides in water matrices and the analytical criticalities: a
review, TrAC - Trends Anal. Chem. 144 (2021), doi:10.1016/j.trac.2021.116423.
[13] J. Casado, D. Santillo, P. Johnston, Multi-residue analysis of pesticides in surface water by liquid chromatography quadrupole-Orbitrap high resolution tandem
mass spectrometry, Anal. Chim. Acta 1024 (2018) 1–17, doi:10.1016/j.aca.2018.04.026.
[14] A. Belmonte Vega, A. Garrido Frenich, J.L. Martínez Vidal, Monitoring of pesticides in agricultural water and soil samples from Andalusia by liquid chromatog-
raphy coupled to mass spectrometry, Anal. Chim. Acta 538 (2005) 117–127, doi:10.1016/j.aca.2005.02.003.
[15] J.F. Huertas-Pérez, A.M. García-Campaña, Determination of N-methylcarbamate pesticides in water and vegetable samples by HPLC with post-column chemilu-
minescence detection using the luminol reaction, Anal. Chim. Acta 630 (2008) 194–204, doi:10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.047.
[16] K. Vandecasteele, I. Gaus, W. Debreuck, K. Walraevens, Identification and quantification of 77 pesticides in groundwater using solid phase coupled to liquid-liquid
microextraction and reversed-phase liquid chromatography, Anal. Chem. 72 (2000) 3093–3101, doi:10.1021/ac991359c.
[17] L. Velkoska-Markovska, B. Petanovska-Ilievska, Quantitative Determination of 2, 4-D in Pesticides Monosan Herbi and Dma-6, J. Agric. Food Environ. Sci. JAFES
67 (2016) 62–67.
[18] S. James, Yaya E.Ele, B.S. Chandravanshi, F. Zewge, Determination of 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in water, sediment and soil using high performance liquid
chromatography, Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 37 (2023) 251–263, doi:10.4314/bcse.v37i2.1.
[19] X. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Wan, X. Chen, Y. Li, Determination of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in rat serum for pharmacokinetic studies with a simple
HPLC method, PLOS One 13 (2018) 1–10, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191149.
[20] A. Santilio, S. Girolimetti, V. Picardo, Simple and rapid high-performance liquid chromatography method for simultaneous determination of picloram and 2,4-D
in pesticide formulations, Analytica 3 (2022) 430–438, doi:10.3390/analytica3040029.
[21] Y. Xie, Analyzing haloacetic acids using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, Water Res. 35 (2001) 1599–1602, doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00397-3.
[22] J.W. Hodgeson, Determination of haloacetic acids and dalapon in drinking water by liquid-liquid microextraction, derivatization and gas chromatography with
electron capture detection, EPA method 552.3 (2003).
[23] S. Wu, T. Anumol, J. Gandhi, S.A. Snyder, Analysis of haloacetic acids, bromate, and dalapon in natural waters by ion chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry,
J. Chromatogr. A 1487 (2017) 100–107, doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2017.01.006.
[24] S.Y. Szeto, P.M. Price, High-performance liquid chromatography method for the determination of dinoseb: application to the analysis of residues in raspberries,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 39 (1991) 1614–1617, doi:10.1021/jf00009a015.
[25] M. Pedrero, B. Casado, F.J.M. de Villena, J.M. Pingarrón, Determination of dinoseb by adsorptive stripping voltammetry using a mercury film electrode, Fresenius.
J. Anal. Chem. 349 (1994) 546–551, doi:10.1007/BF00323992.
[26] A. Espinosa-Mansilla, A.Z. Madera, F. Salinas, Use of a stopped-flow pneumatic mixing module to analyze dinitrophenol pesticides. Simultaneous determination
of dinoseb and dinobuton, J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (1999) 1976–1980, doi:10.1021/jf980821b.
[27] S. Morales, R. Cela, Highly selective and efficient determination of US Environmental Protection Agency priority phenols employing solid-phase extraction and
non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis, J. Chromatogr. A 896 (2000) 95–104, doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00581-1.
[28] K. Sirisha, S. Mallipattu, S.R.J. Reddy, Differential pulse adsorptive stripping voltammetric determination of chlorpyrifos at a sepiolite modified carbon paste
electrode, Anal. Lett. 40 (2007) 1939–1950, doi:10.1080/00032710701384766.
[29] J.A. Arancibia, G.M. Delfa, C.E. Boschetti, G.M. Escandar, A.C. Olivieri, Application of partial least-squares spectrophotometric-multivariate calibration to the
determination of 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb) and 2,6-dinitro-p-cresol in industrial and water samples containing hydrocarbons, Anal. Chim. Acta.
553 (2005) 141–147, doi:10.1016/j.aca.2005.08.017.
[30] C. Jing, X. Qun, J. Rohrer, Sensitive and rapid determination of paraquat and diquat in tap and environmental waters, Thermo Fisher Scientific (2024) Applica-
tions, 2016.
[31] J.W. Hodgeson, W.J. Bashe, J.W. Eichelberger, J.W. Munch, Method 549.2: determination of diquat and paraquat in drinking water by liquid-solid extraction
and high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection, EPA Rep. 0 (1997) 1–21.
[32] M. Takino, S. Daishima, K. Yamaguchi, Determination of diquat and paraquat in water by liquid chromatography/electrospray-mass spectrometry using volatile
ion-pairing reagents, Anal. Sci. 16 (2000) 707–711, doi:10.2116/analsci.16.707.
[33] X.P. Lee, T. Kumazawa, M. Fujishiro, C. Hasegawa, T. Arinobu, H. Seno, A. Ishii, K. Sato, Determination of paraquat and diquat in human body fluids by
high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, J. Mass Spectrom. 39 (2004) 1147–1152, doi:10.1002/jms.695.
[34] J.J. Ameel, R.P. Axler, C.J. Owen, K.E. Johnson, B. Guyton, The determination of Hydrothol 191 (amine salt of endothall) in eutrophic wastewater ponds,
Synthesis 11 (1997) 1273–1276 (Stuttg).
[35] D. Barceló, Official methods of analysis of priority pesticides in water using gas chromatographic techniques, Tech. Instrum. Anal. Chem. 13 (1993) 149–180,
doi:10.1016/S0167-9244(08)70125-2.
[36] J. Hu, J. Rohrer, Determination of four polar pesticides in drinking water by IC-MS, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (2020)
[37] A. Caruso, M. Santoro, Detection of organochlorine pesticides by GC-ECD following U.S. EPA method 8081, Detect. Organochlor. Pestic. by GC-ECD Follow. U.S.
EPA Method 8081. (2014) 4.
[38] H. Zhang, J. Dou, R. Miao, J. Hu, Z. Huo, F. Zhang, W. Ji, An analytical method for the determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphoric acid us-
ing an anionic polar pesticide column and the application in urine and serum from glyphosate poisoning patients, Anal. Methods 15 (2023) 1668–1673,
doi:10.1039/d3ay00039g.
[39] P.C. Pires Rosa, Brief review analytical methods for the determination of glyphosate, MOJ Toxicol. 4 (2018) 86–89, doi:10.15406/mojt.2018.04.00088.
18
[40] C. Vergel, E.J. Guerrero, C. Mendiguchía, C. Moreno, Determination of organochloride and triazine pesticides in natural waters by solvent bar microextraction,
Anal. Lett. 47 (2014) 2209–2220, doi:10.1080/00032719.2014.902462.
[41] C. Gu, A. Shamsi, Capillary electrochromatography-atmospheric pressure ionization mass spectrometry of pesticides using a surfactant- bound monolithic column,
Brain Lang. 88 (2004) 1–20, doi:10.1002/elps.200900739.Capillary.
[42] S. Zhang, Q. Zhang, S. Darisaw, O. Ehie, G. Wang, Simultaneous quantification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in Mississippi river water, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Chemosphere 66 (2007) 1057–1069,
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.06.067.
[43] Y.S. Ong, R.A. Hites, Determination of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in water: a low-solvent method, Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (1995) 1259–1266,
doi:10.1021/es00005a018.
[44] G.C. Stoll, R. da Silva Carreira, C.G. Massone, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in water: method development and application to river samples from a populated
tropical urban area, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 412 (2020) 2477–2486, doi:10.1007/s00216-020-02468-0.
[45] J. Ferrario, C. Byrne, A.E. Dupuy, Background contamination by coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in trace level high resolution gas chromatogra-
phy/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) analytical procedures, Chemosphere 34 (1997) 2451–2465, doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00083-0.
[46] D.W. Potter, J. Pawliszyn, Rapid determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls in water using solid-phase microextraction and
GC/MS, Environ. Sci. Technol. 28 (1994) 298–305, doi:10.1021/es00051a017.
[47] M. Fielding, T.M. Gibson, H.A. James, Levels of trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and p-dichlorobenzene in groundwaters, Environ. Technol. Lett. 2 (1981)
545–550, doi:10.1080/09593338009384086.
[48] N. Grgurinovich, A. Matthews, Analysis of erythromycin and roxithromycin in plasma or serum by high-performance liquid chromatography using electrochemical
detection, J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl. 433 (1988) 298–304, doi:10.1016/S0378-4347(00)80612-X.
[49] M. Hedenmo, B.M. Eriksson, Liquid chromatographic determination of the macrolide antibiotics roxithromycin and clarithromycin in plasma by automated
solid-phase extraction and electrochemical detection, J. Chromatogr. A 692 (1995) 161–166, doi:10.1016/0021-9673(94)00610-L.
[50] F. Demotes-Mainaird, G. Vincon, C. Jarry, H. Albin, Micro-method for the determination of roxithromycin in human plasma and urine by high-performance
liquid chromatography, J. Chromatogr. A 490 (1989) 115–123, doi:10.1016/s0378-4347(00)82766-8.
[51] F.N. Kamau, H.K. Chepkwony, J.K. Ngugi, D. Debremaeker, E. Roets, J. Hoogmartens, Isocratic liquid chromatographic method for the analysis of azithromycin
and its structurally related substances in bulk samples, J. Chromatogr. Sci. 40 (2002) 529–533, doi:10.1093/chromsci/40.9.529.
[52] B.J. Vanderford, J.E. Drewes, A. Eaton, Y.C. Guo, A. Haghani, C. Hoppe-Jones, M.P. Schluesener, S.A. Snyder, T. Ternes, C.J. Wood, Results of an interlaboratory
comparison of analytical methods for contaminants of emerging concern in water, Anal. Chem. 86 (2014) 774–782, doi:10.1021/ac403274a.
[53] K. Škrášková, L.H.M.L.M. Santos, D. Šatínský, A. Pena, M.C.B.S.M. Montenegro, P. Solich, L. Nováková, Fast and sensitive UHPLC methods with fluorescence
and tandem mass spectrometry detection for the determination of tetracycline antibiotics in surface waters, J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci.
927 (2013) 201–208, doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2012.12.032.
[54] J. Zhu, D.D. Snow, D.A. Cassada, S.J. Monson, R.F. Spalding, Analysis of oxytetracycline, tetracycline, and chlortetracycline in water using solid-phase extraction
and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, J. Chromatogr. A 928 (2001) 177–186, doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(01)01139-6.
[55] J. Xu, S. Guo, L. Jia, T. Zhu, X. Chen, T. Zhao, A smartphone-integrated method for visual detection of tetracycline, Chem. Eng. J. 416 (2021) 127741,
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.127741.
[56] W.H. Tsai, T.C. Huang, J.J. Huang, Y.H. Hsue, H.Y. Chuang, Dispersive solid-phase microextraction method for sample extraction in the analysis of four
tetracyclines in water and milk samples by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection, J. Chromatogr. A 1216 (2009) 2263–2269,
doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2009.01.034.
[57] J. Qian, C. Xing, Y. Ge, R. Li, A. Li, W. Yan, Gold nanostars-enhanced Raman fingerprint strip for rapid detection of trace tetracycline in water samples,
Spectrochim. Acta - Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 232 (2020) 118146, doi:10.1016/j.saa.2020.118146.
[58] D. Liu, X. Pan, W. Mu, C. Li, X. Han, Detection of tetracycline in water using glutathione-protected fluorescent gold nanoclusters, Anal. Sci. 35 (2019) 367–370,
doi:10.2116/analsci.18P392.
[59] J.W. Kim, Y.K. Hong, S.H. Ryu, O.K. Kwon, Y.B. Lee, S.C. Kim, Development of analytical method for veterinary antibiotics and monitoring of residuals in
agricultural environment, Appl. Biol. Chem. 66 (2023), doi:10.1186/s13765-023-00777-3.
[60] A. Espinosa-Mansilla, A. Muñoz De La Peña, D. González Gómez, F. Salinas, HPLC determination of enoxacin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and ofloxacin with
photoinduced fluorimetric (PIF) detection and multiemission scanning: application to urine and serum, J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 822
(2005) 185–193, doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2005.05.045.
[61] F. Tamtam, F. Mercier, J. Eurin, M. Chevreuil, B.Le Bot, Ultra performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry performance evaluation for analysis
of antibiotics in natural waters, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 393 (2009) 1709–1718, doi:10.1007/s00216-008-2576-9.
[62] V.F. Samanidou, C.E. Demetriou, I.N. Papadoyannis, Direct determination of four fluoroquinolones, enoxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin, in
pharmaceuticals and blood serum by HPLC, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 375 (2003) 623–629, doi:10.1007/s00216-003-1749-9.
[63] M. Ouda, D. Kadadou, B. Swaidan, A. Al-Othman, S. Al-Asheh, F. Banat, S.W. Hasan, Emerging contaminants in the water bodies of the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA): a critical review, Sci. Total Environ. 754 (2021) 142177, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142177.
[64] F. Riva, E. Zuccato, C. Pacciani, A. Colombo, S. Castiglioni, A multi-residue analytical method for extraction and analysis of pharmaceuticals and other selected
emerging contaminants in sewage sludge, Anal. Methods 13 (2021) 526–535, doi:10.1039/d0ay02027c.
[65] Y. Zhang, L. Lin, Y. Li, Q. Zeng, S. Guo, F. Nkinahamira, C.P. Yu, Q. Sun, Determination of 38 pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water by lyophilization
combined with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, Anal. Methods 13 (2021) 299–310, doi:10.1039/d0ay02022b.
[66] J. Kong, X. Xu, Y. Ma, J. Miao, X. Bian, Rapid and sensitive detection of sulfamethizole using a reusable molecularly imprinted electrochemical sensor, Foods
(2023) 12, doi:10.3390/foods12081693.
[67] J.M.K.J.K. Premarathne, D.A. Satharasinghe, A.R.C. Gunasena, D.M.S. Munasinghe, P. Abeynayake, Establishment of a method to detect sulfonamide residues in
chicken meat and eggs by high-performance liquid chromatography, Food Control 72 (2017) 276–282, doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.12.012.
[68] R. Liu, P. He, Z. Li, R. Li, Simultaneous determination of 16 sulfonamides in animal feeds by UHPLC-MS-MS, J. Chromatogr. Sci. 49 (2011) 640–644,
doi:10.1093/chrsci/49.8.640.
[69] Z. Osiński, E. Patyra, K. Kwiatek, HPLC-FLD-based method for the detection of sulfonamides in organic fertilizers collected from Poland, Molecules 27 (2022),
doi:10.3390/molecules27062031.
[70] E. Patyra, M. Przeniosło-Siwczynska, K. Kwiatek, Determination of sulfonamides in feeds by high-performance liquid chromatography after fluorescamine pre-
column derivatization, Molecules 24 (2019), doi:10.3390/molecules24030452.
[71] B. Huidobro-López, I. López-Heras, C. Alonso-Alonso, V. Martínez-Hernández, L. Nozal, I. de Bustamante, Analytical method to monitor contaminants of emerging
concern in water and soil samples from a non-conventional wastewater treatment system, J. Chromatogr. A 1671 (2022), doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2022.463006.
[72] Y. Vasseghian, D. Sezgin, D.C. Nguyen, H.Y. Hoang, M.Sari Yilmaz, A hybrid nanocomposite based on CuFe layered double hydroxide coated graphene oxide for
photocatalytic degradation of trimethoprim, Chemosphere 322 (2023) 138243, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138243.
[73] Y. Li, X. Liu, R. Zhang, D.G. ZomPa, P. Luo, L. Tang, X. Liu, Y. Zhou, S. Wen, Analysis of chloramphenicol in drinking water using an evaporation preparative
step and isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, Acta Chromatogr. 30 (2018) 17–20, doi:10.1556/1326.2017.28404.
[74] A.P. Pfenning, J.E. Roybal, H.S. Rupp, S.B. Turnipseed, S.A. Gonzales, J.A. Hurlbut, Simultaneous determination of residues of chloramphenicol, flor-
fenicol, florfenicol amine, and thiamphenicol in shrimp tissue by gas chromatography with electron capture detection, J. AOAC Int. 83 (2000) 26–30,
doi:10.1093/jaoac/83.1.26.
[75] H.N. Jung, D.H. Park, Y.J. Choi, S.H. Kang, H.J. Cho, J.M. Choi, J.H. Shim, A.A. Zaky, A.M. Abd El-Aty, H.C. Shin, Simultaneous quantification of chloramphenicol,
thiamphenicol, florfenicol, and florfenicol amine in animal and aquaculture products using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, Front. Nutr. 8
(2022) 1–10, doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.812803.
[76] F. Abujaber, M. Zougagh, S. Jodeh, Á. Ríos, F.J. Guzmán Bernardo, R.C. Rodríguez Martín-Doimeadios, Magnetic cellulose nanoparticles coated with ionic liquid
19
as a new material for the simple and fast monitoring of emerging pollutants in waters by magnetic solid phase extraction, Microchem. J. 137 (2018) 490–495,
doi:10.1016/j.microc.2017.12.007.
[77] J. Płotka-Wasylka, N. Szczepańska, M. de la Guardia, J. Namieśnik, Modern trends in solid phase extraction: new sorbent media, TrAC - Trends Anal. Chem. 77
(2016) 23–43, doi:10.1016/j.trac.2015.10.010.
[78] N.A. Al-Odaini, M.P. Zakaria, M.I. Yaziz, S. Surif, Multi-residue analytical method for human pharmaceuticals and synthetic hormones in river wa-
ter and sewage effluents by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, J. Chromatogr. A 1217 (2010) 6791–6806,
doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2010.08.033.
[79] L. Nováková, L. Matysová, L. Havlíková, P. Solich, Development and validation of HPLC method for determination of indomethacin and its two degradation
products in topical gel, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 37 (2005) 899–905, doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2004.09.012.
[80] Office of Water, Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Environmental Protection Agency, 2021.
[81] A.I. López-Lorente, B.M. Simonet, M. Valcárcel, The potential of carbon nanotube membranes for analytical separations, Anal. Chem. 82 (2010) 5399–5407,
doi:10.1021/ac902629n.
[82] M. Onghena, Y. Moliner-Martinez, Y. Picó, P. Campíns-Falcó, D. Barceló, Analysis of 18 perfluorinated compounds in river waters: comparison of high per-
formance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and capillary liquid
chromatography-mass spectrom, J. Chromatogr. A 1244 (2012) 88–97, doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2012.04.056.
[83] L. Mullin, D.R. Katz, N. Riddell, R. Plumb, J.A. Burgess, L.W.Y. Yeung, I.E. Jogsten, Analysis of hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA) by liq-
uid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS): review of current approaches and environmental levels, TrAC - Trends Anal. Chem. 118 (2019) 828–839,
doi:10.1016/j.trac.2019.05.015.
[84] M.J. Fishman, L.C. Friedman, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments, US Dep. Inter. (1989) 1–14.
[85] C. Sharma, Y.S. Negi, Methods of inorganic pollutants detection in water, INC, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818965-8.00007-X.
[86] P.L.H.M. Cobben, R.J.M. Egberink, J.G. Bonier, P. Bergveld, W. Verboom, D.N. Reinhoudt, Transduction of selective recognition of heavy metal ions by chemically
modified field effect transistors (CHEMFETs), J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114 (1992) 10573–10582, doi:10.1021/ja00052a063.
[87] B. Priyanka, R.K. Patil, S. Dwarakanath, A review on detection methods used for foodborne pathogens, Indian J. Med. Res. (2016) 327–338,
doi:10.4103/0971-5916.198677.
[88] K.Z. Masoodi, S.M. Lone, R.S. Rasool, ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), Adv. Methods Mol. Biol. Biotechnol. (2021) 127–131,
doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-824449-4.00022-0.
[89] I. Papajová, J. Šmigová, G. Gregová, J. Šoltys, J. Venglovský, J. Papaj, T. Szabóová, N. Dančová, L. Ihnacik, I. Schusterová, J. Sušinková, J. Raková, I. Rege-
cová, Effect of wastewater treatment on bacterial community, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and endoparasites, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 (2022),
doi:10.3390/ijerph19052750.
[90] S. Hossain, C.W.K. Chow, G.A. Hewa, D. Cook, M. Harris, Spectrophotometric online detection of drinking water disinfectant: a machine learning approach,
Sensors 20 (2020) 1–30 (Switzerland), doi:10.3390/s20226671.
[91] R. Pan, T.Y. Zhang, Z.X. Zheng, J. Ai, T. Ye, H.X. Zhao, C.Y. Hu, Y.L. Tang, J.J. Fan, B. Geng, B. Xu, Insight into mixed chlorine/chloramines conversion and
associated water quality variability in drinking water distribution systems, Sci. Total Environ. 880 (2023) 163297, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163297.
[92] M.E.E. Alahi, S.C. Mukhopadhyay, Detection methodologies for pathogen and toxins: a review, Sensors (2017) 1–20, doi:10.3390/s17081885.
[93] J.M. Wages, Polymerase chain reaction in: Encyclopedia of Analytical Science, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 243–250. ISBN 9780123693976.
[94] S. Kumar, M. Nehra, J. Mehta, N. Dilbaghi, G. Marrazza, A. Kaushik, Point-of-care strategies for detection of waterborne pathogens, Sensors 19 (2019) 1–17,
doi:10.3390/s19204476.
[95] A.L. Srivastav, N. Patel, V.K. Chaudhary, Disinfection by-products in drinking water: occurrence, toxicity and abatement, Environdisinfection by-products drink.
Water Occur, Toxic. Abatementmental Pollut. 267 (2020) 115474, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115474.
[96] R.B. Baird, A.D. Eaton, E.W. Rice, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 2017. ISBN
9780875532875.
[97] T.A. Ammar, K.Y. Abid, A.A. El-Bindary, A.Z. El-Sonbati, Comparison of commercial analytical techniques for measuring chlorine dioxide in urban desalinated
drinking water, J. Water Health 13 (2015) 970–984, doi:10.2166/wh.2015.012.
[98] M. Yang, H.K. Liberatore, X. Zhang, Current methods for analyzing drinking water disinfection byproducts, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal. 7 (2019) 98–107,
doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.12.006.
[99] D.J. Munch, D.P. Hautman, Determination of Chlorination Disinfection Byproducts, Chlorinated Solvents, and Halogenated Pesticides/Herbicides in Drinking
Water by Liquid-Liquid extraction and Gas Chromatography with Electron-Capture Detection, 1995 Natl. Expo. Res. Lab. Off. Res. Dev., doi:10.1093/chrom-
sci/35.5.221.
20

Review Anal Is Is Contam Aguas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Anal Is Is Contam Aguas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MethodsX 12 (2024) 102582

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Analytical methods for determining environmental contaminants

Subject area: Environmental Science

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

Emerging organic pollutants (EOPs)

Class Name Drinking water Surface water Analytical technique Ref.

Class Name Structure Analytical technique Refs.

Macrolides Roxithromycin 1- LC with coulometry [48–51]

Erythromycin 1- LC-MS coupled with the calibration technique [48,52]

Tetracyclines Tetracycline 1- UHPLC with ﬂuorescence and tandem mass [53–59]

Fluoroquinolones Oﬂoxacin 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [60–63]

Class Name Structure Analytical technique Refs.

Norﬂoxacin 1- PES followed by LC-MS/MS [9,60–62,65]

Sulfonamides Sulfamethizole 1- Electrochemical sensor based on an [66,67]

Sulfathiazole 1- Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [59,65,68]

Sulfamerazine 1- Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [65,67,69,70]

Sulfaquinoxaline 1- Oxidized buckypaper (BP) as a sorbent [10,65]

Sulfapyridine 1- HPLC- DAD [67,68]

Chloramphenicols Sulfamethoxazole 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid

Class Name Structure Analytical technique Refs.

Sulfadiazine 1- PES followed by LC-MS/MS [9,10,59,65,67,68,70]

Thiamphenicol LC-MS/MS [74,75]

Florfenicol LC-MS/MS [74,75]

Fig. 2. Analytical methods used for the detection of particulates in water.

NSAID Structure Analytical technique Ref.

Diclofenac 1- Solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid [9,10,52,64,71,76]

Salicylic Acid 1- Solid phase extraction followed by liquid [10,78]

NSAID Structure Analytical technique Ref.

Indomethacin 1- HPLC with UV detection [79]

Mefanamic Acid Lyophilization combined with LC-MS/MS [65]

Preﬂuorinated PFOA 4 parts per trillion 1- LC-MS [9,64,81]

Name EPA maximum Surface water maximum Analytical technique Ref.

Antimony 0.006 640 Atomic absorption spectrometric [84]

Molecular biology methods

Disinfectants and disinfection by-products

Fig. 3. Microorganism conventional analytical methods (developed from Refs. [92,93]).

Analytical method Advantages Disadvantages Test duration Cost Ref.

Fig. 4. Main types of disinfectants and disinfection by-products found in water.

Disinfectants Chloramines (as Cl2 ) 4 – 1- Amperometric titration [90]

Haloacetic acids (HAAs)

Declaration of competing interest

CRediT authorship contribution statement

All data published in this review is included in this manuscript.

You might also like