Using long-term air monitoring of semi-volatile organic compounds to evaluate the uncertainty in polyurethane-disk passive sampler-derived air concentrations
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2017 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Environmental Pollution |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749116321649 |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.030 |
| Field | Environment influence on health |
| Keywords | Passive sampling; Air monitoring; Data interpretation; Data comparability; Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) |
| Description | Much effort has been made to standardise sampling procedures, laboratory analysis, data analysis, etc. for semi volatile organic contaminants (SVOCs). Yet there are some unresolved issues in regards to comparing measurements from one of the most commonly used passive samplers (PAS), the polyurethane foam (PUF) disk PAS (PUF-PAS), between monitoring networks or different studies. One such issue is that there is no universal means to derive a sampling rate (R-s) or to calculate air concentrations (Cab(air)) from PUF-PAS measurements for SVOCs. C-air was calculated from PUF-PAS measurements from a long-term monitoring program at a site in central Europe applying current understanding of passive sampling theory coupled with a consideration for the sampling of particle associated compounds. Cair were assessed against concurrent active air sampler (AAS) measurements. Use of "site-based/sampler-specific" variables: R-s, calculated using a site calibration, provided similar results for most gas-phase SVOCs to air concentrations derived using "default" values (commonly accepted R-s). Individual monthly PUF-PAS-derived air concentrations for the majority of the target compounds were significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) test; p < 0.05) to AAS regardless of the input values (site/sampler based or default) used to calculate them. However, annual average PUF-PAS-derived air concentrations were within the same order of magnitude as AAS measurements except for the particle-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Underestimation of PUF-derived air concentrations for particle-phase PAHs was attributed to a potential overestimation of the particle infiltration into the PUF-PAS chamber and underestimation of the particle bound fraction of PAHs. |
| Related projects: |
|