Julia Bachtin
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Interests
Julia Bachtin has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Benjamin Becker
Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG), Koblenz, Germany
2 shared publications - Christel Möhlenkamp
Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG), Koblenz, Germany
2 shared publications - Christian Kochleus
Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG), Koblenz, Germany
2 shared publications - Denise Spira
Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG), Koblenz, Germany
2 shared publications - Stefan Meinecke
German Environment Agency (UBA), Berlin, Germany
2 shared publications - Etienne L. M. Vermeirssen
Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Überlandstrasse 133, CH-8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 12 August 2024
- Published by Springer Nature in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Vol. 31 (39) , 51844-51857
Modelling passive sampling of hydrophilic compounds under time-variable aqueous concentrations
Passive sampling is a crucial method for evaluating concentrations of hydrophilic organic compounds in the aquatic environment, but it is insufficiently understood to what extent passive samplers capture the intermittent emissions that frequently occur for this group of compounds. In the present study, silicone sheets and styrene-divinyl benzene-reversed phase sulfonated extraction disks with and without a polyethersulfone membrane were exposed under semi-field conditions in a 31 m3 flume at three different flow velocities. Natural processes and spiking/dilution measures caused aqueous concentrations to vary strongly with time. The data were analyzed using two analytical models that account for these time-variable concentrations: a sampling rate model and a diffusion model. The diffusion model generally gave a better fit of the data than the sampling rate model, but the difference in residual errors was quite small (median errors of 19 vs. 25% for silicone and 22 vs. 25% for SDB-RPS samplers). The sampling rate model was therefore adequate enough to evaluate the time-integrative capabilities of the samplers. Sampler performance was best for SDB-RPS samplers with a polyethersulfone membrane, despite the occurrence of lag times for some compounds (0.1 to 0.4 days). Sampling rates for this design also spanned a narrower range (80 to 110 mL/day) than SDB-RPS samplers without a membrane (100 to 660 mL/day). The effect of biofouling was similar for all compounds and was consistent with a biofouling layer thickness of 150 µm.
- 12 August 2024
- Published by Springer Nature in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Vol. 31 (39) , 51844-51857
Open AccessModelling passive sampling of hydrophilic compounds under time-variable aqueous concentrations
Passive sampling is a crucial method for evaluating concentrations of hydrophilic organic compounds in the aquatic environment, but it is insufficiently understood to what extent passive samplers capture the intermittent emissions that frequently occur for this group of compounds. In the present study, silicone sheets and styrene-divinyl benzene-reversed phase sulfonated extraction disks with and without a polyethersulfone membrane were exposed under semi-field conditions in a 31 m3 flume at three different flow velocities. Natural processes and spiking/dilution measures caused aqueous concentrations to vary strongly with time. The data were analyzed using two analytical models that account for these time-variable concentrations: a sampling rate model and a diffusion model. The diffusion model generally gave a better fit of the data than the sampling rate model, but the difference in residual errors was quite small (median errors of 19 vs. 25% for silicone and 22 vs. 25% for SDB-RPS samplers). The sampling rate model was therefore adequate enough to evaluate the time-integrative capabilities of the samplers. Sampler performance was best for SDB-RPS samplers with a polyethersulfone membrane, despite the occurrence of lag times for some compounds (0.1 to 0.4 days). Sampling rates for this design also spanned a narrower range (80 to 110 mL/day) than SDB-RPS samplers without a membrane (100 to 660 mL/day). The effect of biofouling was similar for all compounds and was consistent with a biofouling layer thickness of 150 µm.
- Open Access
- 12 January 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Vol. 28 (9) , 11697-11707
Passive sampler phases for pesticides: evaluation of AttractSPE™ SDB-RPS and HLB versus Empore™ SDB-RPS
In this study, three different passive sampling receiving phases were evaluated, with a main focus on the comparability of established styrene-divinylbenzene reversed phase sulfonated (SDB-RPS) sampling phase from Empore™ (E-RPS) and novel AttractSPE™ (A-RPS). Furthermore, AttractSPE™ hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) disks were tested. To support sampling phase selection for ongoing monitoring needs, it is important to have information on the characteristics of alternative phases. Three sets of passive samplers (days 1–7, days 8–14, and days 1–14) were exposed to a continuously exchanged mixture of creek and rainwater in a stream channel system under controlled conditions. The system was spiked with nine pesticides in two peak scenarios, with log KOW values ranging from approx. − 1 to 5. Three analytes were continuously spiked at a low concentration. All three sampling phases turned out to be suitable for the chosen analytes, and, in general, uptake rates were similar for all three materials, particularly for SDB-RPS phases. Exceptions concerned bentazon, where E-RPS sampled less than 20% compared with the other phases, and nicosulfuron, where HLB sampled noticeably more than both SDB-RPS phases. All three phases will work for environmental monitoring. They are very similar, but differences indicate one cannot just use literature calibration data and transfer these from one SDB phase to another, though for most compounds, it may work fine. Graphical abstract
- 12 January 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Vol. 28 (9) , 11697-11707
Open AccessPassive sampler phases for pesticides: evaluation of AttractSPE™ SDB-RPS and HLB versus Empore™ SDB-RPS
In this study, three different passive sampling receiving phases were evaluated, with a main focus on the comparability of established styrene-divinylbenzene reversed phase sulfonated (SDB-RPS) sampling phase from Empore™ (E-RPS) and novel AttractSPE™ (A-RPS). Furthermore, AttractSPE™ hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) disks were tested. To support sampling phase selection for ongoing monitoring needs, it is important to have information on the characteristics of alternative phases. Three sets of passive samplers (days 1–7, days 8–14, and days 1–14) were exposed to a continuously exchanged mixture of creek and rainwater in a stream channel system under controlled conditions. The system was spiked with nine pesticides in two peak scenarios, with log KOW values ranging from approx. − 1 to 5. Three analytes were continuously spiked at a low concentration. All three sampling phases turned out to be suitable for the chosen analytes, and, in general, uptake rates were similar for all three materials, particularly for SDB-RPS phases. Exceptions concerned bentazon, where E-RPS sampled less than 20% compared with the other phases, and nicosulfuron, where HLB sampled noticeably more than both SDB-RPS phases. All three phases will work for environmental monitoring. They are very similar, but differences indicate one cannot just use literature calibration data and transfer these from one SDB phase to another, though for most compounds, it may work fine. Graphical abstract