Literature DB >> 15487792

Passive air sampling using semipermeable membrane devices at different wind-speeds in situ calibrated by performance reference compounds.

Hanna S Söderström1, Per-Anders Bergqvist.   

Abstract

Semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) are passive samplers used to measure the vapor phase of organic pollutants in air. This study tested whether extremely high wind-speeds during a 21-day sampling increased the sampling rates of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and whether the release of performance reference compounds (PRCs) was related to the uptakes at different wind-speeds. Five samplers were deployed in an indoor, unheated, and dark wind tunnel with different wind-speeds at each site (6-50 m s(-1)). In addition, one sampler was deployed outside the wind tunnel and one outside the building. To test whether a sampler, designed to reduce the wind-speeds, decreased the uptake and release rates, each sampler in the wind tunnel included two SPMDs positioned inside a protective device and one unprotected SPMD outside the device. The highest amounts of PAHs and PCBs were found in the SPMDs exposed to the assumed highest wind-speeds. Thus, the SPMD sampling rates increased with increasing wind-speeds, indicating that the uptake was largely controlled by the boundary layer at the membrane-air interface. The coefficient of variance (introduced by the 21-day sampling and the chemical analysis) for the air concentrations of three PAHs and three PCBs, calculated using the PRC data, was 28-46%. Thus, the PRCs had a high ability to predict site effects of wind and assess the actual sampling situation. Comparison between protected and unprotected SPMDs showed that the sampler design reduced the wind-speed inside the devices and thereby the uptake and release rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15487792     DOI: 10.1021/es049637z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  5 in total

1.  PAH and OPAH Flux during the Deepwater Horizon Incident.

Authors:  Lane G Tidwell; Sarah E Allan; Steven G O'Connell; Kevin A Hobbie; Brian W Smith; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Environmental and individual PAH exposures near rural natural gas extraction.

Authors:  L Blair Paulik; Kevin A Hobbie; Diana Rohlman; Brian W Smith; Richard P Scott; Laurel Kincl; Erin N Haynes; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 8.071

3.  Evaluation of passive sampling of gaseous mercury using different sorbing materials.

Authors:  Huiming Lin; Wei Zhang; Chunyan Deng; Yingdong Tong; Qianggong Zhang; Xuejun Wang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Two sampling strategies for an overview of pesticide contamination in an agriculture-extensive headwater stream.

Authors:  Robin Guibal; Sophie Lissalde; Julie Leblanc; Karine Cleries; Adeline Charriau; Gaëlle Poulier; Nicolas Mazzella; Jean-Pierre Rebillard; Yoann Brizard; Gilles Guibaud
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and oxygenated PAH (OPAH) air-water exchange during the deepwater horizon oil spill.

Authors:  Lane G Tidwell; Sarah E Allan; Steven G O'Connell; Kevin A Hobbie; Brian W Smith; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 9.028

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.