Short-term monitoring of formaldehyde: comparison of two direct-reading instruments to a laboratory-based method.
Hirst-DVL; Gressel-MG; Flanders-WD
J Occup Environ Hyg 2011 Jun; 8(6):357-363
Airborne formaldehyde concentrations can be measured using several different techniques, including laboratory-based methods and direct-reading instruments. Two commercially available direct-reading instruments, an RKI Instruments Model FP-30 and a PPM Technology Formaldemeter htV, were compared with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Method 2016 in different test environments to determine if these direct-reading instruments can provide comparable results. The methods yielded the following mean concentrations for 47 samples: NIOSH Method 2016, 0.37 ppm; FP-30, 0.29 ppm; and htV, 0.34 ppm. Results from both of the direct-reading instruments were correlated with the laboratory-based method (R2 = 0.78 for FP-30, and 0.902 for htV). Comparison of the means of the three methods showed that on average the FP-30 instrument (p < 0.001) differed statistically from NIOSH Method 2016, whereas the htV (p = 0.15) was not statistically different from the NIOSH method. Sensitivity and specificity tests demonstrated that the FP-30 had sensitivity above 60% to detect formaldehyde concentrations at all the cutoff levels tested, whereas the htV appeared to have greater sensitivity above 88% for the levels evaluated.
Air-sampling-techniques; Electrochemical-analysis; Environmental-technology; Formaldehydes; Laboratory-testing; Measurement-equipment; Quantitative-analysis; Sampling-methods; Sensitivity-testing; Statistical-analysis; Testing-equipment; Photoelectric-cells; Photometry; Air-samplers; Air-sampling-equipment; Liquid-chromatography; Sampling-methods;
Author Keywords: air sampling; direct-reading monitors; formaldehyde; instrument comparison
Deborah Hirst, CDC/NIOSH/DART, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS R-5, Cincinnati, OH 45226
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene