RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Field method comparison between passive air samplers and continuous monitors for VOCs and NO2 in El Paso, Texas
Mukerjee, S., Smith, LA., Norris, GA., Morandi, MT., Gonzales, M., Noble, C., Neas, LM., & Ozkaynak, AH. (2004). Field method comparison between passive air samplers and continuous monitors for VOCs and NO2 in El Paso, Texas. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 54(3), 307-319.
This study evaluates the performance of Model 3300 Ogawa Passive Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Samplers and 3M 3520 Organic Vapor Monitors (OVMs) by comparing integrated passive sampling concentrations to averaged hourly NO, and volatile organic compound (VOC) measurements at two sites in El Paso, TX. Sampling periods were three time intervals (3-day weekend, 4-day weekday, and 7-day weekly) for three consecutive weeks. OVM concentrations were corrected for ambient pressure to account for higher elevation. Precise results (<5% relative standard deviation, RSD) were found for NO, measurements from collocated Ogawa samplers. Reproducibility was lower from duplicate OVMs for BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene isomers) VOCs ( greater than or equal to7% RSD for 2-day samples) with better precision for longer sampling periods. Comparison of Ogawa NO2 samplers with chemiluminescence measurements averaged over the same time period suggested potential calibration problems with the chemiluminescence analyzer. For BTEX species, generally good agreement was obtained between OVMs and automated-gas chromatograph (auto-GC) measurements. The OVMs successfully tracked increasing levels of VOCs recorded by the auto-GCs. However, except for toluene, OVM BTEX measurements generally exceeded their continuous counterparts with a mean bias of 5-10%. Although interpretation of the study results was limited due to small sample sizes, diffusion barrier influences caused by shelters that housed OVMs and differences in sampling heights between OVMs and auto-GC inlet may explain the overestimation