Abstract
The standard method to evaluate human exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is in general performed by sampling the air on sorbents followed by liquid extraction and detection using laboratory gas chromatograph (GC). The conventional method is time and labor intensive and employs a toxic solvent which adds a risk factor as well as waste. Hence, there have been increasing demands for portable GC instruments which allow near real-time, in-situ analysis. In this study, the potential use of a prototype, dual column portable GC (protoGC) with flame ionization detector (FID) was examined by comparing its performance with a conventional GC laboratory method. Four target concentration levels (1x, 2x, 4x, and 8x; x = 1.12 ± 0.01 ppm) of toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-, m-, and p-xylene were generated in an exposure chamber (24 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 5% RH). The challenge atmosphere was directly sampled and analyzed with protoGC while for the conventional method it was sampled on a sorbent tube and analyzed with a laboratory GC/FID. The results of protoGC correlated well with the conventional method (r = 0.991–0.999), indicating that protoGC has comparable performance with the conventional method within the test conditions. Although two-way ANOVA showed significant differences in mean concentrations between the methods, the differences were small. protoGC would be useful to monitor VOCs in air with high temporal resolution or to quickly determine the safety of the environment of interest due to the substantial time savings in sampling and analysis. Further examinations at various environmental conditions and other analytes will be necessary to thoroughly evaluate its performance.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Birmingham, USA (GRID:grid.265892.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 0634 4187)
2 CMS Field Products, Pelham, USA (GRID:grid.265892.2)
3 Louisiana State University, Department of Environmental Sciences, Baton Rouge, USA (GRID:grid.64337.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 0662 7451)





