In this study, we compare combustion ion chromatography (CIC) and high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS) with respect to their applicability for determining organically bound fluorine sum parameters. Extractable (EOF) and adsorbable (AOF) organically bound fluorine as well as total fluorine (TF) were measured in samples from river Spree in Berlin, Germany, to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques used as well as the two established fluorine sum parameters AOF and EOF. TF concentrations determined via HR-CS-GFMAS and CIC were comparable between 148 and 270 μg/L. On average, AOF concentrations were higher than EOF concentrations, with AOF making up 0.14–0.81% of TF (determined using CIC) and EOF 0.04–0.28% of TF (determined using HR-CS-GFMAS). The results obtained by the two independent methods were in good agreement. It turned out that HR-CS-GFMAS is a more sensitive and precise method for fluorine analysis compared to CIC. EOF and AOF are comparable tools in risk evaluation for the emerging pollutants per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances; however, EOF is much faster to conduct.

在这项研究中，我们比较了燃烧离子色谱法 (CIC) 和高分辨率连续源-石墨炉分子吸收光谱法 (HR-CS-GFMAS) 在测定有机结合氟总和参数方面的适用性。在德国柏林施普雷河的样品中测量可萃取 (EOF) 和可吸附 (AOF) 有机结合氟以及总氟 (TF)，以揭示所使用的两种技术以及两种已确立的氟的优缺点和参数 AOF 和 EOF。通过 HR-CS-GFMAS 和 CIC 测定的 TF 浓度在 148 和 270 μg/L 之间相当。平均而言，AOF 浓度高于 EOF 浓度，AOF 占 TF 的 0.14-0.81%（使用 CIC 确定），EOF 占 TF 的 0.04-0.28%（使用 HR-CS-GFMAS 确定）。两种独立方法得到的结果非常吻合。事实证明，与 CIC 相比，HR-CS-GFMAS 是一种更灵敏、更精确的氟分析方法。EOF 和 AOF 是新兴污染物全氟和多氟烷基物质风险评估的可比工具；但是，EOF 的执行速度要快得多。