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

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

Authors
Coffey-CC; Pearce-TA; Lawrence-RB; Hudnall-JB; Slaven-JE; Martin-SB Jr.
Source
J Occup Environ Hyg 2009 Jan; 6(1):1-8
NIOSHTIC No.
20034703
Abstract
The performance of field portable direct-reading organic vapor monitors (DROVMs) was evaluated under a variety of experimental conditions. Four of the DROVMs had photoionization detectors (ppbRAE, IAQRAE, MultiRAE, and Century Toxic Vapor Analyzer), one had a flame ionization detector (Century Toxic Vapor Analyzer), and one was a single-beam infrared spectrophotometer (SapphIRe). Four of each DROVM (two Century Toxic Vapor Analyzers and SapphIRes) were tested. The DROVMs were evaluated at three temperatures (4C, 21C, and 38C), three relative humidities (30%, 60%, and 90%), and two hexane concentrations (5 ppm and 100 ppm). These conditions were selected to provide a range within the operational parameters of all the instruments. At least four replicate trials were performed across the 18 experimental conditions (3 temperatures 3 relative humidities 2 concentrations). To evaluate performance, the 4-hr time-weighted average readings from the DROVMs in a given trial were compared with the average of two charcoal tube concentrations using pairwise comparison. The pairwise comparison criterion was +/-25% measurement agreement between each individual DROVM and the DROVMs as a group and the average charcoal tube concentration. The ppbRAE group performed the best with 40% of all readings meeting the comparison criterion followed by the SapphIRe group at 39%. Among individual DROVMs, the best performer was a SapphIRe, with 57% of its readings meeting the criterion. The data was further analyzed by temperature, humidity, and concentration. The results indicated the performance of some DROVMs may be affected by temperature, humidity, and/or concentration. The ppbRAE group performed best at 21C with the percentage of readings meeting the criterion increasing to 63%. At the 5 ppm concentration, 44% of the ppbRAE group readings met the criterion, while at 100 ppm, only 35% did. The results indicate that monitors can be used as survey tools. Based on the data, the inconsistent performance of these DROVMs may not allow them to be used for determining compliance with occupational exposure limits.
Keywords
Organic-vapors; Monitors; Gases; Measurement-equipment; Ionization; Gas-detectors; Analytical-instruments; Toxic-gases; Toxic-vapors; Infrared-spectrophotometry; Equipment-reliability; Hexanes; Temperature-effects; Humidity; Performance-capability; Author Keywords: direct-reading organic vapor monitors; gases; performance
Contact
Christopher C. Coffey, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown,WV26505- 2888
CODEN
JOEHA2
Publication Date
20090101
Document Type
Journal Article
Email Address
ccoffey@cdc.gov
Fiscal Year
2009
NTIS Accession No.
NTIS Price
Issue of Publication
1
ISSN
1545-9624
NIOSH Division
DRDS
Source Name
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
State
WV
TOP