Is Active Moss Biomonitoring Comparable to Air Filter Standard Sampling?

4Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Recently, significant attention has been paid to air quality awareness and its impact on human health, especially in urban agglomerations. Many types of dust samplers for air quality monitoring are used by governmental environmental monitoring agencies. However, these techniques are associated with high costs; as a consequence, biological methods such as active moss biomonitoring are being developed. The main disadvantages of such techniques are the lack of standardization of the preparation procedures and the lack of reliable comparisons of results with data from instrumental analyses. Our study aimed to compare the results obtained from active biomonitoring with the use of three moss species: Pleurozium schreberi, Sphagnum fallax and Dicranum polysetum. Samples were exposed via the moss-bag technique to measure the concentrations of analytes (Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd, Hg and Pb) which had accumulated among the total suspended particulates (TSP) collected from the filters of a dust collector in the city of Opole (Opole voivodeship, Poland). With regard to the physicochemical and biological traits of the mosses, their assessed lifetime and actual photochemical efficiency (yield) following exposure were meagre, which may have been related to the change of environment and their exposure to pollutants. When comparing the results obtained by the two methods used to monitor air pollution, the biomonitoring method was found to be incompletely consistent with the reference method. Biological monitoring using mosses must be carefully considered depending on the monitoring objectives, the required level of sensitivity and quality of measurement and the type of pollutant.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Świsłowski, P., Nowak, A., Wacławek, S., Ziembik, Z., & Rajfur, M. (2022). Is Active Moss Biomonitoring Comparable to Air Filter Standard Sampling? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084706

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free