Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

NIOSHTIC-2 Publications Search

Search Results

Comparison of Aqueous Headspace Air Standard vs SUMMA Canister Air Standard for Volatile Organic Compound Field Screening.

Authors
Wang-H; Clifford-WS
Source
NIOSH 1991 Feb:415-422
Link
NIOSHTIC No.
00210429
Abstract
Comparisons were made between aqueous headspace standards and SUMMA canister standards using a portable gas chromatograph (GC), and between SUMMA canister analytical results from the portable GC and GC/mass spectrometry (MS). According to results of both the theoretical and experimental studies, the aqueous headspace standard is a suitable volatile organic compound (VOC) sta ndard for ambient air field screening analysis. The field screening headspace standard was easy to prepare with materials that were readily available in any laboratory. Little time for preparation was required and the cost was minimal. Canister standards were highly accurate for most of the VOCs and reflected real concentrations of the VOCs inside. The canisters were easily stored and transported, and were reusable. The VOC concentration in canisters remained stable over the normal field condition ambient temperature from -20 to 40 degrees-C. The time dependent canister stability tests showed that canister VOC standards have long term stability. Compared to aqueous headspace standards, canister standards were relatively expensive. This method would be suitable only for those laboratories which have a canister analysis set up.
Keywords
Organic-solvents; Air-quality-monitoring; Chemical-analysis; Analytical-chemistry; Chromatographic-analysis; Spectrographic-analysis; Environmental-contamination; Analytical-processes;
Publication Date
19910212
Document Type
Conference/Symposia Proceedings;
Fiscal Year
1991
NTIS Accession No.
NTIS Price
Source Name
Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals. Second International Symposium, February 12-14, 1991. Sponsored by U.S. EPA; U.S. DOE; U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency; U.S. Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center; U.S.A.F.; Florida State Univ.; National Environmental Technology Applications Corp.; and NIOSH
State
ME; FL;
TOP