Anionic surfactants are important components of many products used in everyday life in all households. They are also applied in various industrial fields at a very large scale. Since they have a negative influence on the environment, it is an imperative to monitor their concentration in aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, it is of great importance to develop new methods for the determination of a wide spectra of anionic surfactants in complex environmental samples in a short time. A comprehensive review of potentiometric sensors for the determination of anionic surfactants in the last 50 years is given with special concern to papers published since 2000, but noting some earlier published important papers. The latest development in use of new ionophores, polymer formulations, and nanomaterials is presented. Additionally, the application of new potentiometric sensors in batch mode or in miniaturized microfluidic methods is discussed.

Surfactant liquid-membrane type sensors are usually made of a PVC, ionophore and a plasticizer. Plasticizers soften the PVC. Due to their lipophilicity, they influence the ion exchange across the membrane, ionophore solubility, membrane resistance and, consequently, the analytical signal. We used the DMI-TPB as an ionophore, six different plasticizers [2-nitrophenyl-octyl-ether (P1), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (P2), bis(2-ethylhexyl) sebacate (P3), 2-nitrophenyl phenyl ether (P4), dibutyl phthalate (P5) and dibutyl sebacate (P6)] and a PVC to produce ionic surfactant sensors. Sensor formulation with P1 showed the best potentiometric response to four usually used cationic surfactant, with the lowest LOD, 7 × 10⁻⁷ M; and potentiometric titration curves with well-defined and sharp inflexion points. The sensor with P6 showed the lowest analytical performances. Surfactant sensor with P1 was selected for quantification of cationic surfactant in model solutions and commercial samples of disinfectants and antiseptics. It showed high accuracy and precision in all determinations, with recovery from 98.2 to 99.6, and good agreement with the results obtained with surfactant sensor used as a referent one, and a standard two-phase titration method. RDS values were lower than 0.5% for all determinations.

(1) Background: Radon concentrations in the environment are generally very low. However, radon concentrations can be high indoors and can cause some serious health issues. The main source of indoor radon (homes, buildings and other residential objects) can be soil under the house, while other sources can be construction materials, groundwater and natural gas. Radon accumulates mainly in the lower levels of the buildings (especially low-ventilated underground levels and basements). (2) Methods: in this paper, we have measured the indoor radon concentrations at 15 locations in various objects (basements and ground floor/1st floor rooms) in the area of northern Croatia. (3) Results: the results show a higher concentration of radon in the basement area in comparison to values measured in the ground floor and first-floor rooms. The arithmetic mean (AM) and geometric mean (GM) of basement rooms were 70.9 ± 38.8 Bq/m³ and 61.2 ± 2.2 Bq/m³ compared to ground floor and first-floor rooms 42.5 ± 30.8 Bq/m³ and 32.8 ± 2.9 Bq/m³, respectively. (4) Conclusions: results obtained (AM and GM values) are within the maximal allowed values (300 Bq/m³) according to the Euroatom Directive. However, there are periods when maximum radon concentration exceeds 300 Bq/m³. Indoor radon concentrations vary with the occupancy of the rooms and it is evident that the ventilation has significant effect on the reduction of concentration.