Nonvolatile, semivolatile, or volatile: Redefining volatile for volatile organic compounds

Abstract

Although widely used in air quality regulatory frameworks, the term “volatile organic compound” (VOC) is poorly defined. Numerous standardized tests are currently used in regulations to determine VOC content (and thus volatility), but in many cases the tests do not agree with each other, nor do they always accurately represent actual evaporation rates under ambient conditions. The parameters (time, temperature, reference material, column polarity, etc.) used in the definitions and the associated test methods were created without a significant evaluation of volatilization characteristics in real world settings. Not only do these differences lead to varying VOC content results, but occasionally they conflict with one another. An ambient evaporation study of selected compounds and a few formulated products was conducted and the results were compared to several current VOC test methodologies: SCAQMD Method 313 (M313), ASTM Standard Test Method E 1868-10 (E1868), and U.S. EPA Reference Method 24 (M24). The ambient evaporation study showed a definite distinction between nonvolatile, semivolatile, and volatile compounds. Some low vapor pressure (LVP) solvents, currently considered exempt as VOCs by some methods, volatilize at ambient conditions nearly as rapidly as the traditional high-volatility solvents they are meant to replace. Conversely, bio-based and heavy hydrocarbons did not readily volatilize, though they often are calculated as VOCs in some traditional test methods. The study suggests that regulatory standards should be reevaluated to more accurately reflect real-world emission from the use of VOC containing products.

Implications:

The definition of VOC in current test methods may lead to regulations that exclude otherwise viable alternatives or allow substitutions of chemicals that may limit the environmental benefits sought in the regulation. A study was conducted to examine volatility of several compounds and a few formulated products under several current VOC test methodologies and ambient evaporation. This paper provides ample evidence to warrant a reevaluation of regulatory standards and provides a framework for progressive developments based on reasonable and scientifically justifiable definitions of VOCs.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank and recognize the analytical expertise of the SCAQMD laboratory staff, Joan Niertit and Rudy Eden. Gratitude and appreciation is extended to Heather Farr for her organizational and planning expertise.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Uyên-Uyên T. Võ

Uyên-Uyên T. Võ is an air quality chemist in the Science and Technology Advancement division at the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Diamond Bar, CA.

Michael P. Morris

Michael P. Morris is an air quality specialist in the Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources division at the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Diamond Bar, CA.