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

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

Authors
LeBouf-RF; Slaven-JE; Coffey-CC
Source
J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2013 May; 63(5):528-533
NIOSHTIC No.
20042656
Abstract
The performance of two direct-reading organic vapor monitors (monitors) when calibrated at different environmental conditions was compared with charcoal tube results. Three MIRAN SapphIRe portable ambient air analyzers (SAP) and three Century portable toxic vapor analyzers (TVAs) were evaluated. Prior to sampling, the monitors were calibrated per the manufacturer's instructions using methane for the TVA flame ionization detector (FID) and isobutylene for the photoionization detector (PID), whereas the SapphIRe instruments were zeroed and the instrument's manufacturer-supplied library was used. For the first series of tests ("Part 1 - Same condition"), the monitors were calibrated under the same environmental conditions as those present during sampling. They were then challenged with four cyclohexane concentrations (30, 150, 300, and 475 ppm) under two extreme environmental conditions: 5 degrees C and 30% relative humidity (RH) (same/cold) and 38 degrees C and 90% RH (same/hot). For the second series of tests ("Part 2 - Different condition"), the monitors were calibrated at approximately normal indoor environmental conditions (21 degrees C and 50% RH) and sampled at extreme environmental conditions (different/cold and different/hot). The monitor readings from the two methods were compared with the actual cyclohexane concentration determined from charcoal tubes using ratios and root mean square errors. A number of monitor failures, both below detection limit values in the presence of a known challenge concentration and erroneously high measurements, occurred in each part: same condition 20.7% (149/720) and different condition 42.4% (305/720), with a majority of the failures (>78%) during the hot and humid conditions. All monitors performed best at the same/cold, followed by the same/hot, in terms of closeness to the reference standard method and low within-monitor variability. The ranked choice of monitors for same/cold is PID > SAP > FID; for different/cold FID > PID > SAP; for same/hot SAP > PID > FID; and for different/hot PID > SAP (FID not included due to 100% failure rate).
Keywords
Analytical-models; Analytical-methods; Sampling; Humidity; Monitors; Measurement-equipment; Analytical-instruments; Sampling-equipment; Organic-vapors; Environmental-factors; Equipment-reliability; Testing-equipment; Air-monitoring; Air-sampling-equipment; Toxic-vapors; Flame-ionization-methods; Relative-humidity; Air-temperature; Temperature-effects; Environmental-technology; Vapor-detectors; Failure-analysis; Hot-environments; Cold-environments
Contact
Ryan F. LeBouf, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
CODEN
AIWAE2
CAS No.
115-11-7; 74-82-8; 110-82-7
Publication Date
20130501
Document Type
Journal Article
Email Address
rlebouf@cdc.gov
Fiscal Year
2013
NTIS Accession No.
NTIS Price
Identifying No.
B20130612
Issue of Publication
5
ISSN
1096-2247
NIOSH Division
DRDS; NPPTL
Priority Area
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Manufacturing
Source Name
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
State
WV; IN
TOP