Literature DB >> 25947122

Effect of interferents on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors.

Ryan F LeBouf1, Christopher C Coffey.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Direct-reading organic vapor monitors are often used to measure volatile organic compound concentrations in complex chemical gas mixtures. However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of multiple gases on monitor performance, even though it is known that monitor sensitivity may vary by chemical. This study investigated the effects of interferents on the performance of the MIRAN SapphIRe Portable Ambient Air Analyzer (SAP) and Century Portable Toxic Vapor Analyzer (TVA-1000) when sampling a specific agent of interest (cyclohexane). The TVA-1000 contained a dual detector: a photoionization detector (PID) and a flame ionization detector (FID). Three devices of each monitor were challenged with different combinations of cyclohexane and potential interferent vapors (hexane, methyl ethyl ketone, trichloroethylene, and toluene) at 21°C and 90% relative humidity (RH), an extreme environmental condition. Five replicates at four target concentrations were tested: 30, 150, 300, and 475 ppm. Multiple proportions of cyclohexane to interferent enabled the determination of the interferent effect on monitor performance. The monitor concentrations were compared to reference concentrations measured using NIOSH Method 1500. Three scenarios were investigated: no response factor, cyclohexane response factor, and weighted-mixed response factor applied. False negatives occurred more frequently for PID (21.1%), followed by FID (4.8%) and SAP (0.2%). Measurements from all monitors generally had a positive bias compared to the reference measurements. Some monitor measurements exceeded twice the reference concentrations: PID (36.8%), SAP (19.8%), and FID (6.3%). Evaluation of the 95% confidence intervals indicated that performance of all monitors varied by concentration. In addition, the performance of the PID and SAP varied by presence of an interfering compound, especially toluene and hexane for the PID and trichloroethylene for the SAP. Variability and bias associated with all these monitors preclude supplanting traditional sorbent-based tube methods for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs), especially for compliance monitoring. IMPLICATIONS: Industrial hygienists need to use care when using any of the three monitor detection types to measure the concentration of unknown chemical mixtures. Monitor performance is affected by the presence of interferents. Application of manufacturer recommended response factors may not adequately scale measurements to minimize monitor bias when compared to standard reference methods. Users should calibrate their monitors to a known reference method prior to use, if possible. Each of the monitors has its own limitations, which should be considered to ensure quality measurements are reported.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25947122      PMCID: PMC4657743          DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2014.986308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc        ISSN: 1096-2247            Impact factor:   2.235


  6 in total

1.  Determination of short-term exposure with a direct reading photoionization detector.

Authors:  P Poirot; I Subra; F Gérardin; V Baudin; S Grossmann; M Héry
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2004-01

2.  Measurement capability of field portable organic vapor monitoring instruments under different experimental conditions.

Authors:  Christopher C Coffey; Terri A Pearce; Robert B Lawrence; Judith B Hudnall; James E Slaven; Stephen B Martin
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Effect of calibration environment on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors.

Authors:  Ryan F LeBouf; James E Slaven; Christopher C Coffey
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.235

4.  Effect of calibration and environmental condition on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors.

Authors:  Christopher Coffey; Ryan LeBouf; Larry Lee; James Slaven; Stephen Martin
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.155

5.  An evaluation of the response of some portable, direct-reading 10.2 eV and 11.8 eV photoionization detectors, and a flame ionization gas chromatograph for organic vapors in high humidity atmospheres.

Authors:  J B Barsky; S S Que Hee; C S Clark
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1985-01

6.  Field evaluation of a portable photoionization detector for assessing exposure to solvent mixtures.

Authors:  J D Coy; P L Bigelow; R M Buchan; J D Tessari; J O Parnell
Journal:  AIHAJ       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr
  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Peaks, Means, and Determinants of Real-Time TVOC Exposures Associated with Cleaning and Disinfecting Tasks in Healthcare Settings.

Authors:  M Abbas Virji; Xiaoming Liang; Feng-Chiao Su; Ryan F LeBouf; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Marcia L Stanton; Paul K Henneberger; E Andres Houseman
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 2.179

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.