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

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

Determination of 56 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in top predators and their prey from Northern Europe by LC-MS/MS

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of emerging substances that have proved to be persistent and highly bioaccumulative. They are broadly used in various applications and are known for their long-distance migration and toxicity. In this study, 65 recent specimens of a terrestrial apex predator (Common buzzard), freshwater and marine apex predators (Eurasian otter, harbour porpoise, grey seal, harbour seal) and their potential prey (bream, roach, herring, eelpout) from northern Europe (United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) were analyzed for the presence of legacy and emerging PFAS, employing a highly sensitive liquid chromatography electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS) method. 56 compounds from 14 classes were measured; 13 perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), 7 perfluoroalkyl sulphonic acids (PFSAs), 3 perfluorooctane sulfonamides (FOSAs), 4 perfluoroalkylphosphonic acids (PFAPAs), 3 perfluoroalkylphosphinic acids (PFPi's), 5 telomer alcohols (FTOHs), 2 mono-substituted polyfluorinated phosphate esters (PAPs), 2 di-substituted polyfluorinated phosphate esters (diPAPs), 6 saturated fluorotelomer acids (FTAS), 3 unsaturated fluorotelomer acids (FTUAs), 2 N-Alkyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanols (FOSEs), 3 fluorotelomer sulphonic acids (FTSAs), 2 perfluoroether carboxylic acids (PFECAs) and 1 chlorinated perfluoroether sulphonic acid (Cl-PFESA). All samples were lyophilized before analysis, in order to enhance extraction efficiency, improve the precision and achieve lower detection limits. The analytes were extracted from the dry matrices through generic methods of extraction, using an accelerated solvent extraction (ASE), followed by clean-up through solid phase extraction (SPE). Method detection limits and method quantification limits ranged from 0.02 to 1.25 ng/g wet weight (ww) and from 0.05 to 3.79 ng/g (ww), respectively. Recovery ranged from 40 to 137%. Method precision ranged from 3 to 20 %RSD. The sum of PFAS concentration in apex predators livers ranged from 0.2 to 20.2 μg/g (ww), whereas in the fish species muscle tissues it ranged from 16 to 325 ng/g (ww). All analyzed specimens were primarily contaminated with PFOS, while the three PFPi's included in this study exhibited frequency of appearance (FoA) 100 %. C9 to C13 PFCAs were found at high concentrations in apex predator livers, while the overall PFAS levels in fish fillets also exceeded ecotoxicological thresholds. The findings of our study show a clear association between the PFAS concentrations in apex predators and the geographical origin of the specimens, with samples that were collected in urban and agricultural zones being highly contaminated compared to samples from pristine or semi-pristine areas. The high variety of PFAS and the different PFAS composition in the apex predators and their prey (AP&P) samples is alarming and strengthens the importance of PFAS monitoring across the food chain