Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 769708, 15 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/769708

Review Article

Occurrence of Surface Active Agents in the Environment

Ewa Olkowska,¹ Marek Ruman,² and Żaneta Polkowska¹

¹Chemical Faculty, Gdansk University of Technology, G. Narutowicza 11/12 Street, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland

²Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Silesia, Będzińska 60 Street, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland

Received 11 August 2013; Revised 11 December 2013; Accepted 12 December 2013; Published 16 January 2014

Academic Editor: Sinem Göktürk

Copyright © 2014 Ewa Olkowska et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Due to the specific structure of surfactants molecules they are applied in different areas of human activity (industry, household). After using and discharging from wastewater treatment plants as effluent stream, surface active agents (SAAs) are emitted to various elements of the environment (atmosphere, waters, and solid phases), where they can undergo numerous physic-chemical processes (e.g., sorption, degradation) and freely migrate. Additionally, SAAs present in the environment can be accumulated in living organisms (bioaccumulation), what can have a negative effect on biotic elements of ecosystems (e.g., toxicity, disturbance of endocrine equilibrium). They also cause increaseing solubility of organic pollutants in aqueous phase, their migration, and accumulation in different environmental compartments. Moreover, surfactants found in aerosols can affect formation and development of clouds, which is associated with cooling effect in the atmosphere and climate changes. The environmental fate of SAAs is still unknown and recognition of this problem will contribute to protection of living organisms as well as preservation of quality and balance of various ecosystems. This work contains basic information about surfactants and overview of pollution of different ecosystems caused by them (their classification and properties, areas of use, their presence, and behavior in the environment).

1. Introduction

Surface active agents (SAAs, surfactants) are a group of compounds with specific chemical composition of their molecules (one part soluble in polar medium: hydrophilic and second in nonpolar medium: hydrophobic). The main classification of surfactants is based on charge of hydrophilic part of their molecules: cationic, anionic, and nonionic compounds [1].

Occurrence of polar and nonpolar parts in the SAAs molecules gives them special properties against different medium. Surfactants are characterized by tendency to absorb at different types of surfaces or interfaces. Another property of the SAAs is ability to association in solution and formation of micelles [2]. During the process of formulation micelles surface active agents are adsorbed at boundary phases to remove hydrophobic parts from water to reduce energy of system [3].

Due to the specific chemical structure of surfactants molecules they are applied in different areas of human activity. During formulation of households or industrial products compounds from the group of surfactants are used because their presence leads to improving efficiency of the following processes:

(i)wetting/waterproofing,(ii)de- or foaming,(iii)de- or emulsification,(iv)dispersion or flocculation of solids particles in liquid phases,(v)solubilization of non-/sparingly soluble reagents in solvents,(vi)increase or decrease of viscosity of solution phases [4].

In Table 1 general areas of surfactants application are presented.

Table 1: The areas of surfactants application [93–97].

Type of surfactants

Cationic
Anionic
Nonionic

(i) Disinfectants and antiseptic agents

(ii) Ingredient of cosmetics, medicine, laundry     detergents

(iii) Fabric softeners

(iv) Antistatic agents

(v) Corrosion inhibitors

(vi) Flotation agents
(i) Household detergents and surface cleaners

(ii) Shampoos

(iii) Hand dishwashing liquids

(iv) Laundry detergents

(v) Personal care products

(vi) Optical brighteners

(vii) Dyes

(viii) Dispersant, wetting, and suspending agents

(ix) Ingredient of pesticides and     pharmaceutical products
(i) Household and industrial detergents

(ii) Emulsifiers, wetting and dispersing agents

(iii) Cleaning products

(iv) Cosmetics

(v) Paints

(vi) Preservative coatings

(vii) Ingredient of petroleum products

(viii) Ingredient of pesticides

(ix) In textiles, pulp, and paper industry

In 2008 the annual global production of surface active agents was about 13 million metric tons. The expected growth of production of that class of compounds is forecasted as 2.8% annually to 2012. Approximately 65% of total production corresponds to compounds classified as anionic surfactants [3], second and third places in global production corresponds to nonionic and cationic compounds, respectively.

After use, compounds from the group of surfactants are emitted to various elements of the environment (gas, liquid, and solid phases), where they can undergo numerous physical and chemical processes. Therefore, the specific properties of those chemical compounds cause increasing their mobility and unrestrained circulation in the environment. Those processes might significantly contribute to disrupting the water cycle within various ecosystems; hence, it is essential to obtain answers to what levels of concentrations surfactants are present in the environment. Investigation of environmental fate of surface active agents can help increase level of knowledge about pollutants migration pathways and better protect living organisms or different ecosystems. In recent years the interest of SAA has increased and scientists have started to estimate the possible effects of those compounds on the environmental balance [5, 6].

In this paper, basic information about surface active agents (classification, their properties, and areas of use) and their fate after discharging to wastewater treatment plants are mentioned. The brief review of sorption and degradation processes of surfactants in water systems is presented. Such information can be useful during investigation of their presence and behavior in environment. Moreover, the analytical protocols used for determining total concentration of surfactants or individual analytes from particular group of SAA in environmental samples are described. This work contains overview of contamination of different ecosystems caused by surfactants (also research data of levels of SAA in atmospheric deposition samples collected in urban and nonurban areas). Possible impact of compounds from the group of SAA on biotic and abiotic elements of the environment (especially as a result of their occurrence in atmospheric waters) is presented.

2. Emission Pollutants into the Environment and Their Fate

Surface active agents are one of the most common applied compounds in industrial, agricultural, and household activities and after use a huge number of surfactants (and/or their degradation products) are discarded to wastewater-treatment plants (WWTP). In nonurban areas (there is no WWTP) wastewaters that contained various classes of surface active agents are discarded directly to surface waters and they might be dispersed into different elements of environment. In wastewater treatment plants compounds from group of SAAs are completely or partially removed by a combination of different processes (mainly by sorption and aerobically biodegradation) and their degradation pathways were investigated [7, 8].

Chemical compounds from this group are degraded during secondary treatment processes and under optimized conditions about 90–95% of initial SAAs concentration contained in influent streams can be eliminated (depending on efficiency of WWTPs) [9]. In should be noticed that considerable part of pollutants is removed as sewage sludge (from 15% to more than 90%) [10, 11]. Moreover, some surface active agents can be transformed to more toxic degradation products (e.g., degradation products of compounds from the group of alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEO)).

After appropriate processes in WWTP effluents and sewage sludge, in which different types of surfactants or their degradation products (several g/L or g/kg) can occur, are discharged into surface waters or used as fertilizer in agricultural areas, respectively. Such practices lead to emission of surfactants and their metabolites into different parts of the environment (soils, ground waters, surface waters, and living organisms) [9, 12]. In recent years the amount of literature data concerning on surfactants occurrence and their concentration in environmental samples has been markedly increased.

If compounds from the group of SAAs are present in water ecosystems, they can also undergo sorption and aerobic/anaerobic degradation processes. Those processes are responsible for elimination and transport of pollutants to water systems. Sorption processes inhibit also degradation of chemical compounds because their bioavailability can be reduced. In Table 2 data concerning surfactants sorption process in environmental samples are presented. Research allows observing relationship between higher salinity of water samples and higher sorption percentages for compounds from the group of LAS onto suspended solids (as calcium and magnesium salts).

Table 2: Sorption percentages or occurrence of surfactants in environmental samples.

Type of analyte
Type of sample
Sorption percentages (%) or concentration
The literature

CSAA

    DTDMAC
Solids/river water
Higher in solid
[98]

    CTAB
Solid
~87
[99]

ASAA

    AES
Suspended solids/river water
5–19
[13]

    LAS
Suspended solids/river water
<3

Suspended solids/estuaries water
11–59
[23]

Suspended solids/sea water
30–59

    C₁₀LAS
Liquid/solid
Higher in water
[14]

    C₁₃LAS
Solid/liquid
Higher in solid

    SPC
Solid
<1
[100]

    Short-chain SPC
Liquid/solid
Higher in water
[14]

NSAA

    AEO
Particulate matter
65–100
[13]

    NPEO
Estuaries
25–75
[101]

    NPE₁₋₂O, NP
Sediment and suspended solids/liquid
Higher in solids
[14]

    NPEC
Liquid/solid
Higher in water

Generally, the higher concentrations of less polar compounds from the group of surfactants (e.g., C₁₃LAS, NP, and O) were observed in sediment or suspended solid samples. The higher concentrations of more polar compounds (e.g., C₁₀LAS, short-chain SPC, and NPEC) were observed in the dissolved form [13–15]. Sorption process is relative to hydrophobic nature of compounds:

(i)more polar anionic SAAs were estimated in the dissolved phases;(ii)less polar cationic and nonionic SAAs were estimated in the particulate phases (their transport will be associated with suspended solids) [15].

Also other environmental factors like pH, salinity, carbon, or clay content of the particulate phase can have influence on sorption processes [8, 16].

Degradation of surface active agents caused by microbiological organisms (biodegradation) is the primary transformation taking place in different ecosystems to reduce impact on living organisms. Biodegradation is an important process not only in wastewater treatment plants but also in the environment. During this process microorganisms are able to utilize surfactants as substrates to produce energy and nutrients or cometabolize them by microbial metabolic reactions. There are many factors (e.g., chemical structure of analytes, physiochemical parameters of ecosystems like temperature, light, and salinity) that affect the efficiency of biodegradation of compounds from the group of surfactant in the environment. Most of compounds from this group can be rapidly degraded by microorganisms in ecosystems in the presence of oxygen (according to the current legislation), while some of them (e.g., LAS, DTDMAC) may be persistent under anaerobic conditions [8, 15, 17]. In Table 3 research data from aerobic degradation assay carried out on target compounds are presented.

Table 3: Research data of aerobic biodegradation assay of selected surfactants.

Type of analytes
Type of sample
Degradation product
Half life or removal efficiency (%/h)
The literature

C₁₈TMAC
Activated sludge

50/2.5
[102]

C₁₆DMAC
Sea water

50/>360
[103]

QAC
Trimethylamine, dimethylamine, and methylamine
50/72–192

DT, TT, HT

BDD; BDT BDH

50/72–120

50/96–192

50/>360
[20]

DEEDMAC
Sludge, soil, and river water

99/24
[104]

LAS
Surface waters
Mono- and

dicarboxylic SPC
50/10–15 h

—/96–120

—/168/25°C

—/600/13°C
[24, 105]

50/24

70–90/168
[106]

56–76/720
[107]

Sludge amended soils 
50/168–792
[10, 108–110]

Wastewater

Wastewater
72.2–100/—
[31]

AES
Alcohols, aldehydes, fatty acids, and sulfur
75.1–98.2/—
[31, 111]

SAS
63.5–93.3/—
[29]

NPEO
NPEC, NP, OP, APDECs
50–80/96–576
[32–34]

NPE₉
River water

River sediment

—/2304

—/<240
[35]

NPE
River water
NPE₂, NPE₁, NPEC₁, and NPEC₂
68/720/7°C

96/720/25°C
[112]

AEO

79.4–99.7/—
[31]

Fresh water,

activated sludge
Fatty acids, polyethylene glycols
64–~100/72–96
[18, 39, 113–116]

Branched AEO
CAEOs
44/720
[24]

TMAC: tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium chloride; DMAC: dodecyl trimethyl ammonium chloride; QAC: quaternary ammonium compounds; DT: dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide; TT: tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide; HT: hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide; BDD: dodecyl benzyl dimethy ammonium bromide; BDT: tetradecyl benzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; BDH: hexadecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; DEEDMAC: diethyl ester dimethyl ammonium chloride; LAS: linear alkylbenzene sulfonates; AES: alkyl ethoxysulfates; SAS: secondary alkane sulfonate; NPEC: nonylphenoxy-monocarboxylates; NP: nonylphenol, OP: octylphenol; APDEC: alkylphenol diethoxycarboxylates; CAEO: alkylcarboxylate metabolites; AEO: alcohol ethoxylates.

Cationic surfactants are aerobic biodegradable compounds that characterized different degradation mechanisms. The degradation pathway for alkyl trimethyl or dimethyl ammonium compounds (TMAC and DMAC) is initialed by N-dealkylation and followed by N-demethylation reaction (trimethylamine, dimethylamine, and methylamine were identified as the intermediates of alkyl trimethyl ammonium salts in activated sludge) [18]. Cationic surfactants containing a quaternary ammonium (QAC) often have strong biocidal properties [19]. The length of alkyl chain has an important role in the fate and biological effects of these compounds in the environment. The aerobic biodegradability of compounds from the group of QACs decreases with the number of nonmethyl alkyl groups (e.g., R₄N⁺ < R₃MeN⁺ < R₂Me₂N⁺ < RMe₃N⁺ < Me₄N⁺; Me—methyl group) and substitue them with a benzyl group [20, 21]. The biodegradation was not observed for ditallow dimethyl ammonium chloride (DTDMAC) in anaerobic screening assay and this compound was replaced by diethyl ester dimethyl ammonium chloride (DEEDMAC) [22].

Analytes from the group of LAS contained longer alkyl chains and benzene group in external position is more susceptible to biological degradation. Mono- and dicarboxylic sulfophenyl acids (SPC), LAS biodegradation intermediates having an alkyl chain length of 4 to 13, are formed during the following stages: -oxidation of the alkyl chain terminal carbon, successive -oxidation, and further desuphonation [7, 23–26].

For example, it can be observed that in surface waters primary degradation (compounds that lost their chemical structure and properties) of compounds from the group of LAS is completed after 4 days; the average half-life of some analytes is 10–24 h and 56–90% of mineralization can be finished from 7 days up to 30 days [8]. Compounds from the group of fatty alcohol sulphates (AS) undergo rapidly primary and ultimate biodegradation process under aerobic and anaerobic conditions [7, 8, 21]. The degradation process involves the enzymatic cleavage of the sulphate ester bonds to give mixture of inorganic and organic compounds (sulphate and fatty alcohol). During further stages, alcohol is oxidized to aldehyde and next to fatty acid (-oxidation pathway) [27]. Biodegradation of compounds from the group of SDS was reported in Antarctic coastal waters with half lives of 160 to 460 h [28]. Removal efficiency in WWTP of homologues from the group of SAS was estimated from 64 to more that 99% (due to a combination of degradation in the active sludge unit (84%) and sorption processes onto sludge (16%)). The degradation process is depending on length of alkyl chain in SAS homologues due to decreasing solubility for longer chains in polar medium (shorter alkyl chain = higher degradation percentage). In addition, long alkyl chain of SAS compounds is characterized by a about three times higher tendency to sorption onto sludge surfaces compared with short chain compounds [29, 30]. For other anionic surfactant like AES removal efficiency from influent water was achieved about 98% [31].

Degradation process of nonionic surfactants was investigated mainly using compounds from the group of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Their primary biodegradation is relatively fast (from 4 to 24 days) and their mineralization is typically from 50 to 80% [32–34]. Degradability of NPEO compounds with lower molecular weight is easier than that with higher molecular weight [35]. It was confirmed that during biodegradation process the ethoxylated chain becomes progressive shorter as a result of hydrolysis and next oxidations reactions, leading to short-chain NPEs with one or two ethoxylate groups [32, 36]. Besides, oxidation reaction of the ethoxylated chain can occur more often than hydrolysis (NPECs are the most often found metabolites: 69–98%) and NPEC compounds can be degraded to NPE₂C [33–35]. Alkylphenol diethoxycarboxylates can be also formed as a consequence of -oxidation and later -oxidation reaction of the alkyl chain [34]. In different types of environmental samples were detected metabolites of NPEO compounds (NP, O, and NPEC) [8, 37, 38]. Degradation of compounds from the group of alcohol polyethoxylates (AEO) was also investigated. Biodegradation processes can be more efficient for analytes with shorter alkyl and/or ethoxylated chains. In this process fatty acids and polyethylene glycols (PEG: slower biodegradation with production of carboxylic acids) can be formed as a consequence of central cleavage of molecule and undergo -oxidation and later -oxidation reaction of the alkyl chain [39, 40]. Branched compounds from the group of AEO are characterized by slower degradation and it involves -oxidation and successive -oxidation reactions of the alkyl chain [24].

Therefore, surfactants occurred in water systems can be degraded easily (half-lives from hours to few days) depending on their properties and environmental parameters. Compounds from the group of SAA can undergo such processes like attachment to suspended solids and accumulation in sediments. In conditions with lack of oxygen (starting in depth of few cm) surfactants can be only degraded by anaerobic pathways. Generally, in anaerobic condition processes are slower or they are not observed (e.g., DTDMAC) and pollutants occurred longer in sediment [8, 13]. However, during laboratory experiments acceptable degradation percent of LAS has been observed with use of anoxic marine sediments (up to 79% in 165 days). The following stages of anaerobic degradation pathway for LAS have been reported: initial reaction metabolites (generated via the addition of fumarate); their biotransformation into sulfophenyl carboxylic acids, and progressive degradation by -oxidation reactions [41–43].

3. Levels of Surfactants in Different Part of Environment

For different reasons, it is important to detect, identify, and monitor levels of surfactants in aquatic environments. Prior analytics of pollutants from the group of SAAs in environmental samples pose new challenges. The searching for new tools and new sources for obtaining information about degree of pollution different environmental compartments is dictated by toxicological considerations, the desire to increase the accuracy of the description of the environment, and the study and protection of aquatic ecosystems balance. It is imperative to have the appropriate analytical tools (standard analytical methodologies or their modification) in order to monitor the presence of surface active agents in various environmental samples. The determination of SAAs in such samples causes a lot of problems, mainly because of [1, 6]

(i)the complex composition of environmental samples—interfering components which increased or reduced the identified levels of analytes,(ii)the low concentrations of individual surfactants in such samples,(iii)the diverse chemical structures of surfactants—moreover commercially available surfactants are mixtures containing twenty or more individual compounds,(iv)the amphiphilic nature of surfactants (a consequence of their chemical structure),(v)the limited availability of commercial standard solutions of surfactants (also isotope-labelled analytes).

The complex and frequently variable matrix composition of environmental samples and the trace levels of SAAs mean that suitable isolation and/or preconcentration techniques have to be applied at the sample preparation stage. As a consequence of amphiphilic nature of surfactants molecules during preparation stage an internal standard has to be added to the sample before the solvent extraction (for estimating the losses of analytes), which problematic because of lack of available commercial standards. Moreover, the analytical methodologies enabling the determination of a wide range of SAAs present at different levels in environmental samples should be validated against certified reference materials. Nowadays, only liquid reference materials are available on the market; they can be used to validate methodologies for determining total contents of ionic (cationic or anionic) and nonionic surfactants. On the other hand, there are no reference materials suitable for validating entire analytical procedures. Those problems have influence on quality control and quality assurance of measurement results and they might cause difficulties in obtainment of the reliable analytical information [44, 45]. Currently, despite an increase in the amount of information about the concentration of compounds of the group of SAAs in environmental samples, the knowledge about degree of pollution caused by surfactants is too low and it is still impossible to determine how they can affect the diversity of ecosystems.

The determination of total concentration of ionic and nonionic surfactants in different types of liquid/solid samples can be carried with use of standard analytical methodologies (including liquid-liquid extraction/solid-liquid extraction or Soxhlet extraction, resp.). Cationic surfactants can be determined as sum of substances that form ion pairs with disulfine blue (DiSB) and isolated with use of appropriated extraction technique. Next, the absorbance of the organic extract is measured spectrophotometrically [46]. Total concentration of compounds from the group of anionic surfactants can be evaluated as substances which react with methylene blue (MB). At final determination stage spectrophotometrical technique can be employed to measure total concentration of anionic surfactants in solvent extract [47]. The total concentration of nonionic surfactants can be determined with use of the same analytical technique as before but with the application of different reagents [48].

For determining the individual surfactants belonging to different classes of chemical compounds should be applied modification of the available analytical procedures with use of isolation or/and preconcentration techniques at sample preparation stage (e.g., liquid-liquid extraction; solid phase extraction; solid phase microextraction) and chromatographic techniques coupled with different detection systems (e.g., GC-MS or HPLC-CD, HPLC-MS) at the final determination stage. Intensive researches in this direction are carried out in a few research centers located only in Spain, Germany, USA, China, and so forth. Gas chromatography (GC) is limited to volatile analytes and this requirement meets only low molecular mass nonionic surfactants (contain low number of ethoxylated groups). This technique is suitable during determination of concentration of other nonionic and anionic after derivatization processes with specific agents. In the literature data not mentioned about application of GC technique to separate cationic SAAs. Presently, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is the most often used analytical technique during analysis of surface active agents from all classes compounds (their homologs, oligomers, and isomers) in environmental samples. In most cases, derivatization processes of analytes are not necessary, because LC technique is suitable for determining level of low-volatility analytes with large molecules. It gives the possibility of excluding this operation from analytical procedures and simplifies them—due to the Green Analytical Chemistry (GAC) concept. An undoubted advantage of HPLC technique is that surfactants levels can be measured in a very short time. For determining the concentration of individual analytes from group of surfactants in appropriate prepared solvent extracts the following types of detectors can be used: fluorescence (FLD), ultraviolet (UV), conductometric (CD), mass spectrometry (MS) or their combinations [1, 6]. Mass spectrometer is universal detector, which can be used in qualitative and quantitative determination of wide range of trace analytes in single analysis. But this detection technique has several disadvantages (high cost of equipment and its operation; highly qualified staff; high purity of reagents). According to these drawbacks if it is possible, other detector should be used. For example, ion chromatographer coupled to conductometric detector can be applied to determinate individual ionic (cationic and anionic) surfactants in solvent extracts, for example [49]. To investigate other groups of SAA compounds (with chromophores groups in their molecules) in appropriate extracts can be involved ion chromatographer coupled to UV detector (compounds from the group of LAS—data under preparation by our research group). Other analytical tool used to determine surface active agents coupled to IC equipment is evaporative light scattering detectors (ELS). This device can detect almost all relatively nonvolatile analytes and is insensitive for gradient condition of analysis [50–52].

Analysis of the literature data confirmed that surface active agents are presented in various elements of the environment, but researchers focused mainly on determination of levels of anionic and nonionic analytes. Thus, due to the very limited literature data on the determination of cationic SAAs, which are characterized by higher toxicity to living organisms and undergo sorption onto solid surfaces. Additionally, commercial available surfactants are mixtures of various homologues and/or isomers and their determination in environmental samples becomes more problematic. Those aspects indicate the need to develop new methodologies with the use of more selective and specific analytical tools.

The ranges of concentrations or mean values of compounds from different groups of surfactants determined in solid and liquid environmental samples are presented in Table 4. Easily, it can be noticed that there is lack of research describing the problems of determining surface active agents (both total concentration or contents of individual analytes) in aerosol samples, atmospheric precipitation, and atmospheric deposits samples (e.g., dew, hoarfrost, and fog). Similarly the process of SAAs transformation in the snowpack deposited on the ground as well as the transfer of the deposited SAAs to surface waters has not been satisfactory recognized yet with hardly any publications on this topic. Studies on degree of environmental contamination caused by surfactants should be analyzed in mentioned type of samples, because atmospheric deposition is considered as a major source of various pollutants.

Table 4: The levels of different classes of surfactants in solid and liquid environmental samples (prepared on data published in [1, 3, 117–119] and laboratory testes).

Type of analytes
Type/source of sample
Range of concentration

Soils (μg/kg)

Anionic
LAS, SPC, PFOA, PFOS
Forest area
3.28–50000

Total
Soil surface
330 ± 170a

Nonionic
AEO
Urban area
69–329

NPEO, OPEO, NP, OP
Forest area
87–500

OPEO, NP, OP
Agricultural area
200–229000

Dusts (μg/kg)

Anionic
LAS
Indoor dust (public buildings)
0.5–1500000

Street dust
5.0–7.7

Sediments (mg/kg)

Cationic
Total
River, marine sediment
5–50

DDAC, BAC, ATAC, DTDMAC
n.d–42300

Anionic
LAS, AES, AS TPS, PFOA, PFOS
Lake, river, and marine sediment
0.0002–3.4

PFOA, PFOS
Wetland
n.d.–0.0307

Nonionic
NPE, NP, OP, NPEO, OPEO, AEO, NPEC
River, lake, and marine sediment
<MDL–1170

Sewage sludge (mg/kg)

Cationic
DTDMAC, DHTDMAC
Germany, Switzerland
150–5870

Anionic
LAS, CDEA, SAS, AES, AS, PFOA, PFOS
Germany, Spain, and Switzerland
n.d.–7510

Nonionic
NPEO, AE, NPEC, NP, OP, PEG
USA, Canada, Germany, and Spain
n.d.–601

Sludge (mg/kg)

Cationic
DDAC, BAC, ATAC
Austria
n.d.–3.6

Anionic
PFOA, PFOS
China, USA
n.d.–7.3

Nonionic
NPEO, OPEO, AE, NPEC, NP
France, Spain, and USA
n.d.–654

Atmospheric waters (μg/L)

Cationic
Total
Atmospheric water
1.0–11.7b

Aerosols
26.1–129.6b

Anionic
Total
Aerosols
14.9–229.1b

Atmospheric water, and cloud water
n.d.–932.2b

PFOA, PFOS
Rain, snow, and street runoff
0.0001–0.182

Nonionic
NP
Rain, snow
n.d.–0.95

Cationic
Total
Dew (urban/rural area)
270/230c

Hoarfrost (urban/rural area)
280/240c

Anionic
Total
Dew (urban/rural area)
320/300c

Hoarfrost (urban/rural area)
440/280c

Nonionic
Total
Dew (urban/rural area)
770/740c

Hoarfrost (urban/rural area)
990/830c

Ground/well/mineral water (μg/L) (for PFOA and PFOS—(ng/L))

Cationic
Total
Ground water
500–1300

Anionic
DATS, PFOA, PFOS
Ground, raw, and tap water
n.d.–133

Total
Tap, mineral, and well water
20–193

Nonionic
NPEO, OPEO, NPEC, OPEC, NP, OP
Ground, tap, raw water
n.d.–100

Surface water (μg/L) (for PFOA and PFOS—(ng/L))

Cationic
Total
Sea water
11–210d

DTDMAC, DEEDMAC, DEQ, BAC, DTMABr, DDABr, DBDMAC, ATAC, DDAC
Surface, river, and sea water
n.d.–75

Anionic
Total
River water, and sea water
5–150 (5–360e)

LAS, AES, AS, SPC, DATS, PFOA, PFOS
River, lake, and sea water
n.d.–2210000

Nonionic
Total
River water
27–222

NPEO, OPEO, C12–16EO, NPEC, OPEC, NP, OP
River water, lake water
n.d.–14

Wastewaters (μg/L)

Cationic
Total
China
374–2116

DDAC, BAC, ATAC, CTAB
Austria, Algeria, Spain, and USA
n.d.–49

Anionic
Total
Canada
120–9340

LAS, PFOA, PFOS
Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan, and China
0.0087–1630

Nonionic
Sum
China
374–2116

NPEO, OPEO, C12–16EO, NP, OP, PEG, NPEC, OPEC
USA, Spain, France, Austria, Italy, Canada, Russia, and Japan
n.d.–2340

Sewage (μg/L)

Cationic
DTDMAC, DEEDMAC

DEQ
Germany
n.d.–140

Anionic
LAS, DATS
Italy
0.52–2360

Nonionic
NPEO, NP
0.3–208

(μM/kg; bpmol/m³; cmean value; dμmol/L; epmol/L.

Accordingly, for the first time the total concentration of various groups of SAAs has been determined in atmospheric deposits samples collected during different seasons on Polish territory (Table 4—section “ATMOSPHERIC WATERS”). To fulfill this research aim, known analytical procedures (with modification) were applied. Next step in investigation of surfactants fate in the environment should be determination of their individual levels in collected samples with the use of appropriate analytical protocols.

It should be noticed that surface active agents also can be derived from natural sources, particularly from phytoplankton activities. The presence of those organisms can be observed in the surface of the euphotic zone, where chemical exchange with the atmosphere is possible. Such processes may have significant influence on the boundary between the hydrosphere and the atmosphere (this aspect will be presented in further part of paper) [53, 54].

4. Impact of Surfactants on Living Organisms

A fraction of surfactant from influent stream can be emitted to the environment via wastewater treatment plant effluent discharge into surface waters. In aquatic ecosystems amount of compounds from the group of SAAs can be reduced by different processes (dilution, bio- and photodegradation, and sorption to suspended solids and to sediments [55]. Application of sewage sludge (containing surfactant and other pollutants) on agricultural lands as fertilizers has an impact on terrestrial living organism and plants [8].

Cationic SAAs, because of positive charge of their molecules, are strongly sorbed to the negatively charged solid surfaces of sludge, soil, sediments, metals, plastics, and cell membranes (susceptibility to accumulation and bioaccumulation). Cationic surface active agents exhibit specific properties that may prevent (or retard) the growth or cause mortality of microorganisms. These properties allows for appling them as disinfectants and antiseptic agents in different products. On the other hand, the occurrence of cationic surfactants in aquatic ecosystems is very dangereous for aquatic organisms or, in case of humans, may cause irritation or burns to the skin, eyes and respiratory system [8, 56]. Anionic compounds can be accumulated in aquatic organisms and interact with their cell membranes, proteins, and enzymes. It causes the disturbances of their biological functions, cell lysis, or even death. Additionally, decreasing surface tension properties of anionic surfactants makes easier migration processes of other toxic pollutants into living organisms [57–59]. The most often applied group of nonionic surfactants (nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates) undergoes a quick degradation in wastewater treatment plants into short-chain alkylphenol ethoxylates and carboxylated derivatives. Nonionic compounds undergo bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms and cause chronic toxicity to them. Moreover, it should be noticed that some products of APEO degradation are dangerous also due to their estrogenic properties [60]. The cationic and nonionic surfactants can have influence on sorption processes and transport of some pharmaceutical compounds in living organisms, potentially reducing the rate of their migration through the subsurface [61].

Some compounds from the group of surfactants have a low biodegradability or their degradation products are more toxic than initial compounds or even become endocrine disruptor compounds (EDC). The toxicity properties of compounds from the group of surfactants can be used to estimate their environmental risks. In Table 5 the literature data of toxicity for different classes of surfactants to different test organisms are collected.

Table 5: Toxicity for different classes of surfactants on different test organisms [8].

Test organism
Analyte
Parameter
Mean value

mg/L or mg/kg

Aquatic organisms

    Daphnia magna
DEEDMAC
LC₅₀/24 h
14.8

TMABr
IC₅₀/24 h
0.14

BDMAC
0.13

LAS

1.22–13.9f

NPEO₉
LC₅₀/48 h
14

NP

0.19

    Dunaliella sp. (green alga)
TMAC
EC₅₀/24 h
0.79

LAS
3.5

    Salmo gairdneri (rainbow trout)
TMAC

1.21

LAS

3.63

AS

33.61

AES

10.84

C₁₂EO₆

22.38

OPEO₆

6.44

    Gambusia affinis (mosquito fish)
TMAC

8.24

AS
EC₅₀/48 h
40.15

AES
13.64

C₁₂EO₆

29.26

OPEO₆

9.65

    Carassius auratus (gold fish)
TMAC

3.58

AS

38.04

AES

12.35

C₁₂EO₆

28.02

OPEO₆

9.24

Terrestial organisms

    Bush beans, radish, and grasses

NOEC/76 days
27

    Potatoes

16

    Sorghum
LAS
EC₅₀/21 days
167

    Sunflower

289

    Mung bean

316

Data for different homologues of LAS compounds.

Chemical compounds (EDC) that occurred in the environment can present disruption properties of normal functioning of hormonal system in living organism [62]. In 1938 for the first time data about recognition of estrogenic properties of p-n-alkylphenol were published. Further research data shows that compounds from OP, NP, NPnEO (, 9, 40), and NP₁EC have estrogenic activities against different living organisms [63–67]. In investigation of endocrine disruption effect mixtures of cationic, anionic, nonionic surfactants and some of their degradation products were also tested. Parent compounds have no estrogenic properties for tested organism but for their degradation products (OP, NP, NP₁EC, NP₂EC, and NP₂EO) were observed positive results [68].

5. Impact of Surfactants on Abiotic Part of Environment

In previous section of article information about sorption and degradation processes of surfactants in wastewater treatment plants or in the environment is presented. Herein, other important aspects of impact of compounds from the group of surfactants on different part of abiotic environment will be reviewed. So far, an atmospheric input of compounds from the group of surfactants to aquatic environment has not been considered yet. However, evaporation processes of semivolatile compounds (anionic and nonionic surfactants or product of their degradation) from surface waters, soils and vegetation have been recognized as a significant source for such contaminants in the atmosphere [69].

Compounds from the group of SAAs are able to interact on processes that occurred at different interfaces. They can also have influence on processes between air and water interfaces (e.g., suppression of evaporation processes, modification of the surface temperature field during free surface flows, inflection on gas transport and reduction of momentum transport from air to water, and damping of surface waves). Rain droplets contain surfactants monolayer is one of the example mentioned type of interfaces. But processes in this area are still under investigation. Nowadays, scientists believe that there are two mechanisms of surfactant amount reduction on a water surface. First, rain drop can split into many small drops covered with surface active agents. These drops can be transported away from the surface of water by moving air masses. Secondly, bubbles can be formed during rain drop impacts and they will move to water surface, burst, and lead to transporting pollutants to the air [70–74].

Moreover, the occurrence of surfactants in abiotic environment might disturb equilibrium of different compartments. Surfactants are able to form films on aqueous surfaces decreasing the surface tension. It potentially hinders water evaporation and gaseous transportation across the aqueous interface. Those compounds can also increase the solubility of organic compounds in the aqueous phase (increasing mobility of toxic agents in different ecosystems). In the environment this specific system can be observed as a thin boundary between the water basin (e.g., ocean) and the atmosphere, named as sea-surface microlayer (SML). The formation of SML is complicated and it is unknown which physical and chemical processes have influence on migration of chemical compounds in this boundary. For several times occurrence of surface active agents in SML has been proved. Research in this area has shown that SAAs (consist of low-molecular-weight carbonyl compounds) can be also generated in microlayer by microorganisms. In surface water those compounds are produced photochemically from the degradation of refractory dissolved organic matter (e.g., humic substances) and they are taken up quickly by microorganisms [75–77].

Accumulation of surfactants at surface of water can be toxic for marine and freshwater organisms. Some of compounds from the group of surfactants can lead to chronic toxicity or estrogenic responses towards aquatic species [54, 78–82]. At the sea surface surfactants play a role in the recycling and long-range transport of pollutants via marine aerosols. Heavy metals (as pollutants from crustal and urban sources) enriched on the sea surface were found to interact with the surface-active organic matter and become transferred into marine spray [83–85].

The early studies of surfactants in rain water and atmospheric aerosols found that their concentrations were too low to have any effect upon the cloud physical process at high dilution [86]. More concentrated surface active substances or in different mediums may influence the state of the gas-liquid interfaces of atmospheric particles and droplets. Models of cloud formation based on laboratory research suggest that organic compounds significantly provide a decries in surface tension (determining droplet population). Surface tension, which is one of the factors that controls the vapor pressure of small droplets, is the consequence of intermolecular attractive forces tending to minimize the surface area of the liquid [87]. Some compounds from the group of surfactants found in tropospheric aerosol can affect the formation and development of clouds. They might participate in generation of more cloud water due to the reduction of surface tension in a droplet and behave like cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in the atmosphere. The amount of CCN increases the albedo effect and influences climate change in certain areas (due to relation with cooling effect in the atmosphere) [85, 88–90].

As a result of the intensification of certain types of human activity an upward trend is observed in the content of surfactants in the environmental compartments. Due to their widespread use and freely migration between phases, surfactants and products of their degradation have been detected at various concentrations in different part of abiotic and biotic environment. The occurrence of surface active agents was confirmed in atmospheric precipitation and deposits, surface waters, sediments, soils, and living organisms. Compounds from the group of surfactants have been detected in samples (abiotic: air, snow, lake water, and sediment; biotic: marine and terrestrial organisms) from the areas of residence and economic exploitation by humans and from remote regions like the Antarctic as well. Antarctic ecosystems are sensitive to anthropogenic modifications and highly susceptible to human impact. The global source refers to long-range atmospheric transportation of pollutants (e.g., anionic surfactants) from lower latitude area, but their transport pathways are not well understood [91].

Thus, it is widely accepted that SAAs play an important role of anthropogenic pollutant emission, having versatile environmental consequences. On the other hand, review of the literature also shows that we are far from understanding the environmental fate of surfactants. There is lack of data on composition, properties, and behavior of the organic material (especially surfactants) in the atmosphere or other environmental compartments [1, 92]. The analysis of atmospheric precipitation and deposits is one of the important aspects of the assessment of the degree of environmental pollution caused by surfactants. Both atmospheric precipitation and deposits are considered as a major diffuse source of various types of contaminants. Compounds released into the atmosphere are present in the gaseous phases, in the aerosol phases, or are adsorbed on surface of suspended particles. Two major deposition mechanisms of those pollutants are distinguished, that is, wet (with rain and snow) or dry removal. Deposition is controlled by the distribution of chemical compounds between different phases and their physicochemical properties. On the other hand, the strong dependence was observed between SAAs concentration and deposition on the existing emission background and meteorological conditions, particularly wind direction, sunlight (photodegradation), rain/snowfall, and so forth [92]. Therefore, it is essential to keep control of the content of those compounds in specific environmental samples (e.g., atmospheric precipitation and deposits) and identify parameters that may affect content of surfactants in the different ecosystems.

6. Conclusions

Compounds from the group of surfactants are widely applied in different areas of human activities and after use they are discharging to wastewater treatment plant. After appropriated processes (sorption, degradation), they can be emitted to surface waters with effluent streams. In aquatic ecosystems surfactants and their degradation products undergo similar processes as in WWTPs. Compounds from the group of SAAs can also affect living organisms and abiotic parts of the environment. They can be toxic for different types of organisms or disturb their endocrine balance. Moreover, they can interact with different interfaces (water-air, soil/sediment-water) and change natural processes in those systems.

During last decades in environmental samples different types of surfactant were determined using analytical protocols depending on what information is required (total concentration of surfactants or individual analytes from appropriated group of SAAs compounds). But it is still imperative to develop new analytical procedure for investigation analytes from the group of SAAs that occurred in ecosystems to make them easier, less cost-consuming, and more safe for biotic and abiotic elements of the environment. Research data confirmed that they are able to spread between waters, soils, atmosphere, and living organisms from different geographic regions. But we are far from understanding migration pathways and their behavior of those pollutants, their impact on different ecosystems and living organisms. There is a need to investigate those processes in environment to protect abiotic and biotic part of the environment.

Abbreviations

AE: | Alcohol ethoxylates
AES: | Alcohol ethoxysulfates
AEO: | Alcohol polyethoxylates
APDEC: | Alkylphenol diethoxycarboxylates
APEO: | Alkylphenol ethoxylates
AS: | Fatty alcohol sulphates
ASAA: | Anionic surface active agent
ATAC/ATABr: | Alkyl trimethyl ammonium chloride/bromide
BAC: | Benzalkonium chloride
BDD: | Dodecyl benzyl dimethy ammonium bromide
BDH: | Hexadecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
BDT: | Tetradecyl benzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
C₁₂₋₁₆EO: | Alkyl ethoxylates
CD: | Conductivity detection
CDEA: | Alkyl carboxylated metabolites
CCN: | Cloud condensation nuclei
CSAA: | Cationic surface active agent
CTAB: | Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide
DATS: | Dialkyltetralin sulphonates
DBDMAC: | Dodecyl benzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
DDAC: | Dodecyl ammonium chloride
DDABr: | Dodecyl ammonium bromide
DEEDMAC: | Diethyl ester dimethyl ammonium chloride
DEQ: | Diesterquaternary
DHTDMAC: | Dihydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride
DiSB: | Disulfine blue
DMAC: | Dodecyl trimethyl ammonium chloride
DMABr/DT: | Dodecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide
DTDMAC: | Ditallow dimethyl ammonium chloride
EC: | Effective concentration
EDC: | Endocrine disruptor compounds
ELS: | Evaporative light scattering detector
FLD: | Fluorescence detector
GAC: | Green analytical chemistry
GC: | Gas chromatography
HPLC: | High performance liquid chromatography
HT: | Hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide
IC: | Inhibitory concentration
LAS: | Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates
LC: | Lethal concentration
MB: | Methylene blue
MS: | Mass spectrometry
NOEC: | No observed effect concentration
NP: | Nonylphenol
NPEC: | Nonylphenoxy-monocarboxylates
NPE/NPEO: | Nonylphenol ethoxylates
NSAA: | Nonionic surface active agent
OPEC: | Octylphenoxy-monocarboxylates
PEG: | Polyethylene glycol
PFOA: | Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS: | Perfluorooctane sulfonate
SAA: | Surface active agents
SAS: | Secondary alkane sulfonate
SDS: | Sodium dodecyl sulfate
SML: | Sea-surface microlayer
SPC: | Carboxylic sulfophenyl acids
TMAC: | Tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium chloride
TMABr/TT: | Tetradecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide
TPS: | Tetradecyl dimethyl ammonium propanesulfonate
QAC: | Quaternary ammonium compounds
UV: | Ultra-violet detector
WWTP: | Wastewater-treatment plants.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work has been financially supported by the National Science Centre (DEC-2012/05/N/ST4/01995).

References

E. Olkowska, Z. Polkowska, and J. Namieśnik, “Analytics of surfactants in the environment: problems and challenges,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 5667–5700, 2011.

T. F. Tadros, Applied Surfactants: Principles and Applications, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2005.

E. Olkowska, M. Ruman, A. Kowalska, and Ż. Polkowska, “Determination of surfactants in environmental samples. Part II. Anionic compounds,” Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 331–342, 2013.

M. J. Rosen and M. Dahanayake, Industrial Utilization of Surfactants: Principles and Practice, American Oil Chemists' Society, Champaign, Ill, USA, 2000.

J. Sukhapan and P. Brimblecombe, “Ionic surface active compounds in atmospheric aerosols,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2, pp. 1138–1146, 2002.

E. Olkowska, Z. Polkowska, and J. Namieśnik, “Analytical procedures for the determination of surfactants in environmental samples,” Talanta, vol. 88, pp. 1–13, 2012.

M. J. Scott and M. N. Jones, “The biodegradation of surfactants in the environment,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1508, no. 1-2, pp. 235–251, 2000.

G.-G. Ying, “Fate, behavior and effects of surfactants and their degradation products in the environment,” Environment International, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 417–431, 2006.

S. Gonzalez, M. Petrovic, and D. Barcelo, “Advanced liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) methods applied to wastewater removal and the fate of surfactants in the environmentTrends in Analytical Chemistry,” vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 116–124, 2007.

J. L. Berna, J. Ferrer, A. Moreno, D. Prats, and F. Ruiz Bevia, “The fate of LAS in the environment,” Tenside Surfactants Deterg, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 101–107, 1989.

M. Ahel, W. Giger, and M. Koch, “Behaviour of alkylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants in the aquatic environment—I. Occurrence and transformation in sewage treatment,” Water Research, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1131–1142, 1994.

M. Petrovic and D. Barcelo, in Emerging Organic Pollutants in Wastewaters and Sludges, D. Barcelo, Ed., Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2004.

P. A. Lara-Martín, A. Gómez-Parra, and E. González-Mazo, “Reactivity and fate of synthetic surfactants in aquatic environments,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 684–695, 2008.

M. Petrovic, A. R. Fernández-Alba, F. Borrull, R. M. Marce, E. G. Mazo, and D. Barceló, “Occurrence and distribution of nonionic surfactants, their degradation products, and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates in coastal waters and sediments in Spain,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 2002.

P. A. Lara-Martin, A. Gomez-Parra, and E. Gonzalez-Mazo, “Sources, transport and reactivity of anionic and non-ionic surfactants in several aquatic ecosystems in SW Spain: a comparative study,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 36–45, 2008.

M. T. Garcia, E. Campos, F. Munoz, M. Dalmau, and J. Sanchez-Leal, “Adsorption of cationic surfactants on biosolids,” Jornadas del Comite Espanol de la Detergencia, vol. 27, p. 343, 1997.

R. M. Mann and M. R. Boddy, “Biodegradation of a nonylphenol ethoxylate by the autochthonous microflora in lake water with observations on the influence of light,” Chemosphere, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1361–1369, 2000.

N. Nishiyama, Y. Toshima, and Y. Ikeda, “Biodegradation of alkylmethylammonium salts in activated sludge,” Chemosphere, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 593–603, 1995.

B. Baleux and P. Caumette, “Biodegradation of some cationic surfactants,” Water Research, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 833–841, 1977.

M. T. García, I. Ribosa, T. Guindulain, J. Sánchez-Leal, and J. Vives-Rego, “Fate and effect of monoalkyl quaternary ammonium surfactants in the aquatic environment,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 169–175, 2001.

R. D. Swisher, Surfactant Biodegradation, vol. 18 of Surfactant Science Series, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 1987.

M. T. García, E. Campos, J. Sánchez-Leal, and I. Ribosa, “Anaerobic degradation and toxicity of commercial cationic surfactants in anaerobic screening tests,” Chemosphere, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 705–710, 2000.

E. González-Mazo, J. M. Forja, and A. Gómez-Parra, “Fate and distribution of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates in the littoral environment,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1636–1641, 1998.

J. A. Perales, M. A. Manzano, D. Sales, and J. A. Quiroga, “Biodegradation kinetics of LAS in river water,” International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 155–160, 1999.

J. S. Yadav, D. L. Lawrence, B. A. Nuck, T. W. Federle, and C. A. Reddy, “Biotransformation of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) by Phanerochaete chrysosporium: oxidation of alkyl side-chain,” Biodegradation, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 443–453, 2001.

J. M. Navas, E. González-Mazo, A. Wenzel, A. Gómez-Parra, and H. Segner, “Linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and intermediate products from their degradation are not estrogenic,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 880–884, 1999.

O. R. T. Thomas and G. F. White, “Metabolic pathway for the biodegradation of sodium dodecyl sulfate by Pseudomonas s. C12B,” Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 318–327, 1989.

A. L. George, “Seasonal factors affecting surfactant biodegradation in Antarctic coastal waters: comparison of a polluted and pristine site,” Marine Environmental Research, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 403–415, 2002.

J. A. Field, T. M. Field, T. Poiger, H. Siegrist, and W. Giger, “Fate of secondary alkane sulfonate surfactants during municipal wastewater treatment,” Water Research, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1301–1307, 1995.

R. M. Baena-Nogueras, E. González-Mazo, and P. A. Lara-Martín, “Determination and occurrence of secondary alkane sulfonates (SAS) in aquatic environments,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 176, pp. 151–157, 2013.

D. C. Mcavoy, S. D. Dyer, N. J. Fendinger, W. S. Eckhoff, D. L. Lawrence, and W. M. Begley, “Removal of alcohol ethoxylates, alkyl ethoxylate sulfates, and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates in wastewater treatment,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1705–1711, 1998.

T. L. Potter, K. Simmons, J. Wu, M. Sanchez-Olvera, P. Kostecki, and E. Calabrese, “Static die-away of a nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactant in estuarine water samples,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 113–118, 1999.

C. A. Staples, C. G. Naylor, J. B. Williams, and W. E. Gledhill, “Ultimate biodegradation of alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants and their biodegradation intermediates,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 2450–2455, 2001.

N. Jonkers, T. P. Knepper, and P. De Voogt, “Aerobic biodegration studies of nonylphenol ethoxylates in river water using liquid chromatography—electrospray tandem mass spectrometry,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 335–340, 2001.

K. Yoshimura, “Biodegradation and fish toxicity of nonionic surfactants,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1590–1596, 1986.

W. Giger, P. H. Brunner, and C. Schaffner, “4-Nonylphenol in sewage sludge: accumulation of toxic metabolites from nonionic surfactants,” Science, vol. 225, no. 4662, pp. 623–625, 1984.

P. L. Ferguson, C. R. Iden, and B. J. Brownawell, “Analysis of nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates in environmental samples by mixed-mode high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 938, no. 1-2, pp. 79–91, 2001.

D. Y. Shang, M. G. Ikonomou, and R. W. MacDonald, “Quantitative determination of nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants in marine sediment using normal-phase liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 849, no. 2, pp. 467–482, 1999.

A. Marcomini, M. Zanette, G. Pojana, and M. J.-F. Suter, “Behavior of aliphatic alcohol polyethoxylates and their metabolites under standardized aerobic biodegradation conditions,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 549–554, 2000.

I. Reznickova, J. Hoffmann, and K. Komarek, “Biodegradation of technical mixtures of oxyethylenated aliphatic alcohols in an aqueous environment,” Chemosphere, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 83–87, 2002.

P. A. Lara-Martin, A. Gomez-Parra, T. Köchling, J. L. Sanz, R. Amils, and E. Gonzalez-Mazo, “Anaerobic degradation of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates in coastal marine sedimentsEnvironmental Science and Technology,” vol. 41, pp. 3573–3579, 2007.

P. A. Lara-Martin, A. Gomez-Parra, T. Köchling, J. L. Sanz, and E. Gonzalez-Mazo, “Monitoring the primary biodegradation of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and their coproducts in anoxic sediments using liquid chromatography−mass spectrometryEnvironmental Science and Technology,” vol. 41, pp. 3580–3586, 2007.

P. A. Lara-Martín, A. Gómez-Parra, J. L. Sanz, and E. González-Mazo, “Anaerobic degradation pathway of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (IAS) in sulfate-reducing marine sediments,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1670–1676, 2010.

C. Vogt and K. Heinig, “Trace analysis of surfactants using chromatographic and electrophoretic techniques,” Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, vol. 363, no. 7, pp. 612–618, 1999.

Y. Chen, Z. Guo, X. Wang, and C. Qiu, “Sample preparation,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1184, no. 1-2, pp. 191–219, 2008.

DIN, 38409-20 German standard methods for the examination of water, waste water and sludge, parameters characterizing effects and substances (group H), determination of substances that react with disulfine blue (H 20)

APHA, 5540 C—American Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Method 5540C

Polish standard: PN-72/C-04550. 03

E. Olkowska, Ż. Polkowska, and J. Namieśnik, “A solid phase extraction-ion chromatography with conductivity detection procedure for determining cationic surfactants in surface water samples,” Talanta, vol. 116, pp. 210–216, 2013.

A. J. Wilkes, G. Walraven, and J.-M. Talbot, “HPLC analysis of quaternary ammonium surfactants with the evaporative light scattering detector,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 609–613, 1992.

M. C. Allgeier, M. A. Nussbaum, and D. S. Risley, “Comparison of an evaporative light-scattering detector and a chemiluminescent nitrogen detector for analyzing compounds lacking a sufficient UV chromophore,” LC-GC North America, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 376–381, 2003.

T. P. Knepper, P. de Voogt, and D. Barcelo, Analysis and Fate of Surfactants in the Aquatic Environment, Elsevier, 2003.

M. A. Wedyan and M. R. Preston, “The coupling of surface seawater organic nitrogen and the marine aerosol as inferred from enantiomer-specific amino acid analysis,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 42, no. 37, pp. 8698–8705, 2008.

R. N. Roslan, N. M. Hanif, M. R. Othman et al., “Surfactants in the sea-surface microlayer and their contribution to atmospheric aerosols around coastal areas of the Malaysian Peninsula,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1584–1590, 2010.

E. Saouter, C. Pittinger, and T. Feijtel, “Aquatic environmental impact of detergents: from simple to more sophisticated models,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 153–159, 2001.

T. Madsen, B. H. Boyd, D. Nylén, A. R. Pedersen, G. I. Petersen, and S. Flemming, “Environmental Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and Cosmetic Detergent Products Environmental Project No. 615,” Miloprojekt, Danish Environmental Pollution Agency, 2001

Y. Nomura, K. Ikebukuro, K. Yokoyama et al., “Application of a linear alkylbenzene sulfonate biosensor to river water monitoring,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1047–1053, 1998.

J. Jensen, “Fate and effects of linear alkylbenzene sulphonates (LAS) in the terrestrial environment,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 226, no. 2-3, pp. 93–111, 1999.

C. Bliefert, Umweltchemie, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 1994.

J. E. Loyo-Rosales, C. P. Rice, and A. Torrents, “Octyl and nonylphenol ethoxylates and carboxylates in wastewater and sediments by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry,” Chemosphere, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 2118–2127, 2007.

A. C. Hari, R. A. Paruchuri, D. A. Sabatini, and T. C. G. Kibbey, “Effects of pH and cationic and nonionic surfactants on the adsorption of pharmaceutical to a natural aquifer material,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2592–2598, 2005.

G.-G. Ying and R. S. Kookana, “Endocrine disruption: an Australian perspective,” Water, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 53–57, 2002.

E. C. Dodds, L. Goldberg, W. Lawson, and B. Robinson, “Œstrogenic activity of certain synthetic compounds,” Nature, vol. 141, no. 3562, pp. 247–248, 1938.

B. Thiele, K. Günther, and M. J. Schwuger, “Alkylphenol ethoxylates: trace analysis and environmental behavior,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 3247–3272, 1997.

G. C. Mueller and U. H. Kim, “Displacement of estradiol from estrogen receptors by simple alkyl phenols,” Endocrinology, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 1429–1435, 1978.

S. Jobling, D. Sheahan, J. A. Osborne, P. Matthiessen, and J. P. Sumpter, “Inhibition of testicular growth in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to estrogenic alkylphenolic chemicals,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 15, p. 194, 1996.

A. M. Soto, H. Justicia, J. W. Wray, and C. Sonnenschein, “p-Nonyl-phenol: an estrogenic xenobiotic released from “modified” polystyrene,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 92, pp. 167–173, 1991.

E. J. Routledge and J. P. Sumpter, “Estrogenic activity of surfactants and some of their degradation products assessed using a recombinant yeast screen,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 15, pp. 241–248, 1996.

E. D. Nelson, L. L. McDonell, and J. E. Baker, “Diffusive exchange of gaseous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls across the air-water interface of the chesapeake bay,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 32, p. 912, 1998.

A. J. Szeri, R. L. Stefan, and J. R. Saylor, “Surfactant scavenging by microbubble clouds: consequences for capillary JR wave damping,” in Fluid Mechanics and the Environment, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001.

R. L. Stefan and A. J. Szeri, “Surfactant scavenging and surface deposition by rising bubbles,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 212, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1999.

J. R. Saylor, G. B. Smith, and K. A. Flack, “The effect of a surfactant monolayer on the temperature field of a water surface undergoing evaporation,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 43, no. 17, pp. 3073–3086, 2000.

J. R. Saylor, G. B. Smith, and K. A. Flack, “Infrared imaging of the surface temperature field of water during film spreading,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 597–602, 2000.

J. R. Saylor, “The fate of soluble and insoluble surfactant monolayers subjected to drop impacts,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 540–547, 2003.

D. J. Kieber and K. Mopper, “Photochemical formation of glyoxylic and pyruvic acids in seawater,” Marine Chemistry, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 135–149, 1987.

R. J. Kieber, X. Z. Xianliang Zhou, and K. Mopper, “Formation of carbonyl compounds from UV-induced photodegradation of humic substances in natural waters: fate of riverine carbon in the sea,” Limnology & Oceanography, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1503–1515, 1990.

K. Mopper, X. Zhou, R. J. Kieber, D. J. Kieber, R. J. Sikorski, and R. D. Jones, “Photochemical degradation of dissolved organic carbon and its impact on the oceanic carbon cycle,” Nature, vol. 353, no. 6339, pp. 60–62, 1991.

O. Wurl and J. P. Obbard, “A review of pollutants in the sea-surface microlayer (SML): a unique habitat for marine organisms,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 48, no. 11-12, pp. 1016–1030, 2004.

Z. Zhang, L. Liu, C. Liu, and W. Cai, “Studies on the sea surface microlayer: II. The layer of sudden change of physical and chemical properties,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 264, no. 1, pp. 148–159, 2003.

A. M. Stortini, T. Martellini, M. Del Bubba, L. Lepri, G. Capodaglio, and A. Cincinelli, “n-Alkanes, PAHs and surfactants in the sea surface microlayer and sea water samples of the Gerlache Inlet sea (Antarctica),” Microchemical Journal, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 37–43, 2009.

M. H. I. Comber, T. D. Williams, and K. M. Stewart, “The effects of nonylphenol on Daphnia magna,” Water Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 273–276, 1993.

S. Jobling and J. P. Sumpter, “Detergent components in sewage effluent are weakly oestrogenic to fish: an in vitro study using rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hepatocytes,” Aquatic Toxicology, vol. 27, no. 3-4, pp. 361–372, 1993.

C. Oppo, S. Bellandi, N. Degli Innocenti et al., “Surfactant components of marine organic matter as agents for biogeochemical fractionation and pollutant transport via marine aerosols,” Marine Chemistry, vol. 63, no. 3-4, pp. 235–253, 1999.

G. B. Ellison, A. F. Tuck, and V. Vaida, “Atmospheric processing of organic aerosols,” Journal of Geophysical Research D, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 11633–11641, 1999.

W. Seidl and G. Hänel, “Surface-active substances on rainwater and atmospheric particles,” Pure and Applied Geophysics PAGEOPH, vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 1077–1093, 1983.

B. Cosovic, P. O. Leko, and Z. Kozaraca, “Rainwater dissolved organic carbon: characterization of surface active substances by electrochemical method,” Electroanalysis, vol. 19, p. 2077, 2007.

I. Taraniuk, A. B. Kostinski, and Y. Rudich, “Enrichment of surface-active compounds in coalescing cloud drops,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 35, no. 19, Article ID L19810, 2008.

G. C. Roberts, P. Artaxo, J. Zhou, E. Swietlicki, and M. O. Andreae, “Sensitivity of CCN spectra on chemical and physical properties of aerosol: a case study from the Amazon Basin,” Journal of Geophysical Research D, vol. 107, no. 20, pp. XCXLI–XCXLII, 2002.

A. Tabazadeh, “Organic aggregate formation in aerosols and its impact on the physicochemical properties of atmospheric particles,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 39, no. 30, pp. 5472–5480, 2005.

M. T. Latif, N. Y. Anuwar, T. Srithawirat, I. S. Razak, and N. A. Ramli, “Composition of levoglucosan and surfactants in atmospheric aerosols from biomass burning,” Aerosol and Air Quality Research, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 837–845, 2011.

Z. Zhao, Z. Xie, A. Möller et al., “Distribution and long-range transport of polyfluoroalkyl substances in the Arctic, Atlantic Ocean and Antarctic coast,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 117, pp. 71–77, 2012.

M. S. Holt, “Sources of chemical contaminants and routes into the freshwater environment,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. S21–S27, 2000.

B. Thiele, “Surfactants,” in Chromatographic Analysis of the Environment, L. M. L. Nollet, Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2005.

J. Cross and E. J. Singer, Cationic Surfactants—Analytical and Biological Evaluation New York:, M. Dekker, 1994.

H. Sütterlin, R. Alexy, A. Coker, and K. Kümmerer, “Mixtures of quaternary ammonium compounds and anionic organic compounds in the aquatic environment: elimination and biodegradability in the closed bottle test monitored by LC–MS/MS,” Chemosphere, vol. 72, no. 3, p. 479, 2008.

S. S. Talmage, “Environmental and human safety of major surfactants: alcohol ethoxylates and alkylphenol ethoxylates,” A Report to the Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1994.

C. G. Naylor, J. P. Mieure, W. J. Adams et al., “Alkylphenol ethoxylates in the environment,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 695–703, 1992.

E. Martínez-Carballo, C. González-Barreiro, A. Sitka, N. Kreuzinger, S. Scharf, and O. Gans, “Determination of selected quaternary ammonium compounds by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. Part II. Application to sediment and sludge samples in Austria,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 543–547, 2007.

S. Koner, A. Pal, and A. Adak, “Utilization of silica gel waste for adsorption of cationic surfactant and adsolubilization of organics from textile wastewater: a case study,” Desalination, vol. 276, no. 1–3, pp. 142–147, 2011.

V. M. Leon, M. Saez, E. Gonzalez-Mazo, and A. Gomez-Parra, “Occurrence and distribution of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and sulfophenylcarboxylic acids in several Iberian littoral ecosystems,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 288, no. 3, p. 215, 2002.

M. A. Blackburn, S. J. Kirby, and M. J. Waldock, “Concentrations of alkyphenol polyethoxylates entering UK estuaries,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 109–118, 1999.

L. M. Games, J. E. King, and R. J. Larson, “Fate and distribution of a quaternary ammonium surfactant, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride (OTAC), in wastewater treatment,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 483–488, 1982.

M. T. García, E. Campos, J. Sanchez-Leal, and I. Ribosa, “Effect of the alkyl chain length on the anaerobic biodegradability and toxicity of quaternary ammonium based surfactants,” Chemosphere, vol. 38, no. 15, pp. 3473–3483, 1999.

S. T. Giolando, R. A. Rapaport, R. J. Larson, T. W. Federle, M. Stalmans, and P. Masscheleyn, “Environmental fate and effects of DEEDMAC: a new rapidly biodegradable cationic surfactant for use in fabric softeners,” Chemosphere, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1067–1083, 1995.

A. Di Corcia, F. Casassa, C. Crescenzi, A. Marcomini, and R. Samperi, “Investigation of the fate of linear alkyl benzenesulfonates and coproducts in a laboratory biodegradation test by using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 33, no. 22, pp. 4112–4118, 1999.

R. J. Larson, “Structure-activity relationships for biodegradation of linear alkylbenzenesulfonates,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1241–1246, 1990.

A. M. Nielsen, L. N. Britton, C. E. Beall, T. P. Mccormick, and G. L. Russell, “Biodegradation of coproducts of commercial linear akylbenzene sulfonate,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 3397–3404, 1997.

K. Figge and P. Schoberl, “LAS and the application of sewage sludge in agriculture,” Tenside Surfactants Detergents, vol. 26, pp. 122–128, 1989.

M. S. Holt, E. Matthijs, and J. Waters, “The concentrations and fate of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate in sludge amended soils,” Water Research, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 749–759, 1989.

J. Waters, M. S. Holt, and E. Matthijs, “Fate of LAS in sludge amended soils,” Tenside, Surfactants, Detergents, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 129–135, 1989.

G. F. White, “Multiple interactions in riverine biofilms—surfactant adsorption, bacterial attachment and biodegradation,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 1995.

M. A. Manzano, J. A. Perales, D. Sales, and J. M. Quiroga, “The effect of temperature on the biodegradation of a nonylphenol polyethoxylate in river water,” Water Research, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2593–2600, 1999.

A. Szymanski, B. Wyrwas, Z. Swit, T. Jaroszynski, and Z. Lukaszewski, “Biodegradation of fatty alcohol ethoxylates in the continuous flow activated sludge test,” Water Research, vol. 34, no. 16, pp. 4101–4109, 2000.

G. Pojana, G. Cassani, and A. Marcomini, “Determination, aerobic biodegradation and environmental occurrence of aliphatic alcohol polyethoxylate sulfates (AES),” International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 729–738, 2004.

L. Kravetz, J. P. Salanitro, P. B. Dorn, and K. F. Guin, “Influence of hydrophobe type and extent of branching on environmental response factors of nonionic surfactants,” Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 610–618, 1991.

R. D. Vashon and B. S. Schwab, “Mineralization of linear alcohol ethoxylates and linear alcohol ethoxy sulfates at trace concentrations in estuarine waterEnvironmental Science & Technology,” vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 433–436, 1982.

E. Olkowska, M. Ruman, A. Kowalska, and Ż. Polkowska, “Determination of surfactants in environmental samples. Part I,” Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2013.

E. Olkowska, M. Ruman, A. Kowalska, and Z. Polkowska, “Determination of surfactants in environmental samples. Part III. Non-ionic compounds,” Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 449–461, 2013.

E. Olkowska, Ż. Polkowska, and J. Namieśnik, “Występowanie surfaktantów w próbkach środowiskowych,” Wiadomości Chemiczne, no. 9-10, pp. 809–830, 2010.