• P-ISSN1225-0163
  • E-ISSN2288-8985
  • SCOPUS, ESCI, KCI

Article Detail

Home > Article Detail
  • P-ISSN 1225-0163
  • E-ISSN 2288-8985

A comparative analysis of volatile organic compound levels in field samples between different gas chromatographic approaches

Analytical Science and Technology / Analytical Science and Technology, (P)1225-0163; (E)2288-8985
2010, v.23 no.5, pp.465-476
https://doi.org/10.5806/AST.2010.23.5.465



  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

In this study, a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, p-xylene,styrene, and methyl ethyl ketone were analyzed from samples collected in ambient air and under the field conditions. These samples were analyzed independently by two different set-ups for VOC analyses, i.e., between [1] gas chromatography/flame ionization detector with tube sampling - (F-T system) and [2] gas chromatography/mass spectrometer with bag sampling (M-B system). The analytical results derived by both systems showed fairly similar patterns in relative sense but with moderately large differences in absolute sense. The results of M-B system were high relative to F-T system with the F-T/M-B ratio below 1. If the relative biases of the two measurement techniques are derived in terms of percent difference (PD) in concentration values, the results were generally above 35% on average. A student t-test was applied to investigate the statistical significance of those differences between the systems. The results of both analytical systems were different at 95% confidence level for toluene, p-xylene, styrene, and methyl ethyl ketone (P < 0.043). However, F-T and M-B systems showed strong correlations for toluene and p-xylene. The observed bias is explained in large part by such factors as the differences in standard phases used for each system and the chemical loss inside the bag sampler.

keywords
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), analytical bias, gas chromatography, percent difference


Reference

1

1. I.-F. Hung, S.-A. Lee and R.-K. Chen, J. Chromatogr. B, 706, 352-357(1998).

2

2. H. Jorquera and B. Rappenglück, Atmos. Environ., 38, 4243-4263 (2004).

3

3. M. A. Parra, D. Elustondo, R. Bermejo and J. M. Santamaria, Sci. Total Environ., 407, 999-1009(2009).

4

4. S. Kato, Y. Miyakawa, T. Kaneko and Y. Kajii, Int. J. Mass Spectrom., 235, 103-110(2004).

5

5. 환경부, 악취방지법(2005).

6

6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ‘Compendium of method for the determination of toxic organic compounds in ambient air (method TO-14 and TO-17)’, 2nd Ed, 1999.

7

7. C.-H. Wu, C.-T. Feng, Y.-S. Lo, T.-Y. Lin and J.-G. L, Chemosphere, 56, 71-80(2004).

8

8. M. Clement, S. Arzel, L.Bot, R. Seux and M. Millet, Chemosphere, 40, 49-56(2000).

9

9. D. A. Skoog, F. J. Holler and T. A. Nieman, ‘Principles of Instrumental Analysis’, 5th Ed., 498-534 and 706-707, Brooks/Cole, 1998.

10

10. 안지원, 홍원필, 이은희, 김기현, 한국대기환경학회지, 26(3), 305-317(2010).

11

11. K.-H. Kim, S.-I. Oh, and Y.-J. Choi, Talanta, 64, 518- 527(2004).

12

12. K.-H. Kim and R. Pal, Envion. Monit. Assess., 161, 295-299(2010).

상단으로 이동

Analytical Science and Technology