Environ Sci Pollut Res 
Ô Springer 
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved. 
(KB2, MB1), and at the Odra mouth (PB1-3). No spatial 
trends could be identified for KB2 and MB1, because of the 
short sampling period (2001-2005) and the high variability. 
Also, PB1-3 did not show any trends because of the high 
variability of the data. For ATR, PFOA and PFOS elevated 
values have been observed at PB1-3, only at the beginning of 
the investigations (2001 and 2002 for ATR; 2005 for the 
PFASs) (Fig. 7a, b). In later years, these elevated values were 
not observed any longer. Thus, a significant decrease in input 
concentrations, by the Odra, might be assumed for these 
compounds. 
Comparison with the North Sea and German Bight 
Levels of polar organic micropollutants of the Baltic Sea were 
related to the monitoring data of the German Bight (North 
Sea) (Loewe 2009; Theobald et al. 2011; Loewe et al. 
2013). Median micropollutant concentrations of the Baltic 
Sea were compared to median concentrations detected in 
coastal waters of the German Bight (salinity (S) < 32), the 
outer German Bight, and the central North Sea (with S > 
34) (Fig. 8, Tab. S13). It was observed that concentrations 
of most contaminants were higher in the coastal waters of 
the German Bight than in the Baltic Sea. The ratio between 
the coastal German Bight and the Baltic Sea ranges from 0.2 
to 14.7, indicating that the contaminant pattern considerably 
differs between these two regions (Tab. S13). In comparison 
to the open North Sea (S > 34), micropollutant concentrations 
in the Baltic Sea were 1.4 and 35.1 times higher (at max. 80.5 
times higher), hence, demonstrating that the Baltic Sea is far 
from reaching “clean” open seawater state (Tab. S13). The 
complex former BENZTRI and the pharmaceutical CARB 
are the most dominant anthropogenic compounds in the coast 
al area of the German Bight and are introduced by the rivers 
Elbe and Rhine (Loewe 2009; Theobald et al. 2011; Loewe 
et al. 2013). Their concentrations are high in the Baltic Sea as 
well, where the major input is the Odra. 
The PFASs show similar patterns in the North and Baltic 
Sea. Flowever, in coastal areas of the German Bight, the me 
dian concentrations are about 2 to 3 times higher (Fig. 8). This 
circumstance was also observed by Ahrens et al. (2009,2010). 
They reported that higher sums of PFASs were detected at 
German near-coastal stations than in the Baltic Sea or the open 
North Sea. Importance of this is that PFBS, a replacement 
compound for PFOA and PFOS, is even 12.3 times higher 
in the German Bight (Tab. S13). 
Among the triazine herbicides, there are distinct differences 
in the individual compound patterns. ATR and SIM concen 
trations are significantly higher in the Baltic Sea than the 
German Bight (2.4 and 6.1 times higher, respectively) (Fig. 
8). These are clearly old burdens, which are slowly washed 
out from the semi-enclosed maritime area of the Baltic Sea. 
Flowever, even in the open North Sea, these compounds still 
show relatively high concentrations (max. 1.1 ng/L and max. 
0.5 ng/L, respectively. Tab. S13), demonstrating their high 
persistence in the environment. Among the still licensed tri- 
azines, TERB is the dominating herbicide in the German 
Bight (1.9 ng/L), whereas it is much lower (0.6 ng/L) in the 
Baltic Sea (Fig. 8, Tab. S13). On the other side, the concen 
tration of PROM is higher in the Baltic Sea (0.4 ng/L) than in 
the German Bight (0.08 ng/L). Among the phenylurea herbi 
cides, DIU shows the highest concentrations in both seas 
Fig. 8 Comparison of median 
pollutant concentration of the 
Baltic Sea with those of the 
German Bight (GB) at coastal 
stations (S < 32) and the open sea 
region (S > 34). Data: see Tab. 
S13