Neonicotinoids are one of the newest groups of systemic pesticides, effective on a wide range of invertebrate pests. The success of neonicotinoids can be assessed according to the amount used, for example, in the Czech Republic, which now accounts for 1/3 of the insecticide market. The European Union (EU) has a relatively interesting attitude towards neonicotinoids. Three neonicotinoid substances (imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam) were severely restricted in 2013. In 2019, imidacloprid and clothianidin were banned, while thiamethoxam and thiacloprid were banned in 2020. In 2022, another substance, sulfoxaflor, was banned. Therefore, only two neonicotinoid substances (acetamiprid and flupyradifurone) are approved for outdoor use in the EU. Neonicotinoids enter aquatic ecosystems in many ways. In European rivers, neonicotinoids usually occur in nanograms per litre. Due to the low toxicity of neonicotinoids to standard test species, they were not expected to significantly impact the aquatic ecosystem until later studies showed that aquatic invertebrates, especially insects, are much more sensitive to neonicotinoids. In addition to the lethal effects, many studies point to sublethal impacts - reduced reproductive capacity, initiation of downstream drift of organisms, reduced ability to eat, or a change in feeding strategies. Neonicotinoids can affect individuals, populations, and entire ecosystems.

• Klíčová slova
• acetamiprid, aquatic ecosystems, flupyradifurone, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors agonists, thiacloprid, toxicity,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• přehledy MeSH

A conventional evaluation methodology for drinking water pollution focuses on analysing hundreds of compounds, usually by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. High-resolution mass spectrometry allows comprehensive evaluation of all detected signals (compounds) based on their elemental composition, intensity, and numbers. We combined target analysis of 192 emerging micropollutants with nontarget (NT) full-scan/MS/MS methods to describe the impact of treatment steps in detail and assess drinking water treatment efficiency without compound identification. The removal efficiency based on target analytes ranged from - 143 to 97%, depending on the treatment section, technologies, and season. The same effect calculated for all signals detected in raw water by the NT method ranged between 19 and 65%. Ozonation increased the removal of micropollutants from the raw water but simultaneously caused the formation of new compounds. Moreover, ozonation byproducts showed higher persistence than products formed during other types of treatment. We evaluated chlorinated and brominated organics detected by specific isotopic patterns within the developed workflow. These compounds indicated anthropogenic raw water pollution but also potential treatment byproducts. We could match some of these compounds with libraries available in the software. We can conclude that passive sampling combined with nontargeted analysis shows to be a promising approach for water treatment control, especially for long-term monitoring of changes in technology lines because passive sampling dramatically reduces the number of samples and provides time-weighted average information for 2 to 4 weeks.

• Klíčová slova
• Drinking water treatment, Log2FoldChange, Nontarget analysis, Organic micropollutants, Removal efficiency, Treatment effect,
• MeSH
• chemické látky znečišťující vodu * analýza   MeSH
• čištění vody * metody   MeSH
• monitorování životního prostředí metody   MeSH
• ozon * analýza   MeSH
• pitná voda * analýza   MeSH
• tandemová hmotnostní spektrometrie metody   MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• Názvy látek
• chemické látky znečišťující vodu * MeSH
• ozon * MeSH
• pitná voda * MeSH