Performance of commercial nonmethane hydrocarbon analyzers in monitoring oxygenated volatile organic compounds emitted from animal feeding operations

Figures & data

Table 1. List of compounds used to evaluate nonmethane hydrocarbon analyzers, the system utilized to prepare the standard, and the type of test conducted

Compound	System^a	Test^b	Compound	System	Test	Compound	System	Test
Acetone	S/D	I/M	2,3-Butanedione	S	I	Propane	S/D	I/M
Acetonitrile	S	I	Benzene	D	M	2-Propanol	D	M
Acetic acid	D	I	Benzyl chloride	D	M	n-Propanol	S/D	I/M
Butanoic acid	D	I	Carbon disulfide	S/D	I/M	Propylene	D	M
2-Butanone	S/D	I/M	Carbon tetrachloride	D	M	Styrene	D	M
n-Butanol	S	I/M	Carbonyl sulfide	D	I/M	Tetrahydrofuran	D	M
Bromodichloromethane	D	M	Chlorobenzene	D	M	Toluene	D	M
Bromoform	D	M	Chloroform	D	M	Trichloroethylene	D	M
Bromomethane	D	M	Chloromethane	D	M	Tetrachloroethene	D	M
1,3-Butadiene	D	M	Cyclohexane	D	M	1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluroethane	D	M
Dibromochloromethane	D	M	1,4-Dioxane	D	M	Trichlorofluoromethane	D	M
Dichlorodifluromethane	D	M	Ethanol	S/D	I/M	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane	D	M
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene	D	M	Ethyl acetate	S/D	I/M	1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene	D	M
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene	D	M	Ethylbenzene	D	M	1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene	D	M
1,2-Dichloropropane	D	M	4-Ethyltoluene	D	M	1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene	D	M
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene	D	M	Heptane	D	M	1,1,1-Trichloroehtane	D	M
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene	D	M	Hexane	S/D	I/M	1,1,2-Trichloroehtane	D	M
1,2-Dibromethane	D	M	2-Hexanone	D	M	Vinyl acetate	D	M
1,2-Dichloromethane	D	M	Hexchloro-1,3-butadine	D	M	Vinyl chloride	D	M
1,3-Dichlorobenzene	D	M	Methanethiol	D	I/M	m-Xylene	D	M
1,2-Dichloroehtane	D	M	Methylene Chloride	D	M	o-Xylene	D	M
1,1-Dichloroehtane	D	M	4-Methyl-2-pentanone	D	M	p-Xylene	D	M
1,4- Dichlorobenzene	D	M	Methyl-tert-butyl ether	D	M
Notes: ^aSystem, system used to create gas standard; D, dynamic; S, static.
^bTest, type of test used to evaluate the detector; M, standard mixture; I, individual compound standard.

Figure 1. Schematic of commercial broiler house with location of samplers.

Table 2. Results of laboratory evaluation of nonmethane hydrocarbon analyzers with individual compound standards ranging from 0.2 to 10 ppmv carbon equivalents; measured results represent average values measured across the concentration range

				Nonmethane hydrocarbon analyzers, carbon equivalent (ppmv C)^f
Class	Compounds	CarbonEquil^a	Theoretical expected FID^b	GC/FID^c	PA-IR^d	PID^e
Acid
	Acetic acid	2	1.00	0.48 (0.02)
	Butanoic acid	4	3.00	0.76 (0.05)
Alcohol
	Methanol	1	0.40	0.31 (0.04)	0.76 (0.24)	0.01 (0.006)
	Ethanol	2	1.40	0.76 (0.05)	2.81 (0.56)	0.21 (0.04)
	n-Propanol	3	2.40	2.17 (0.47)	4.94 (0.34)	1.40 (0.02)
	n-Butanol	4	3.40	2.30 (0.26)	2.25 (0.45)	1.16 (0.07)
Ketone
	Acetone	3	2.00	0.92 (0.12)	3.84 (0.65)	2.28 (0.21)
	2-Butanone	4	3.00	2.24 (0.12)	1.00 (0.14)	2.70 (0.18)
	2,3-Butanedione	4	2.00	1.00 (0.14)	3.44 (0.75)
Nitrile
	Acetonitrile	2	1.30	0.42 (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	0.004 (0.006)
Ester
	Ethyl acetate	3	1.71	1.63 (0.09)
Alkane
	Propane	3	3.00	3.00 (0.46)	2.60 (1.06)	0.22 (0.14)
	Hexane	6	6.00	5.95 (0.40)
Sulfides and thiol
	Methane thiol	1	1.00	1.09 (0.08)		4.59 (0.41)
	Carbon disulfide	1	0.00	0.01 (0.002)		1.72 (0.12)
	Carbonyl sulfide	1	0.00	ND		0.01 (0.01)
Notes: ^aCarbonEquil, carbon equivalence.
^bValues in this column were expected values for an FID detector corrected for their effective carbon number based on published effective carbon number reduction values (Sternberg et al., 1962; Dietz, 1967; Jorgensen et al., 1990; Yan et al., 1991).
^cGC/FID, gas chromatography/flame ionization detector.
^dPA-IR, photoacoustic-infrared.
^ePID, photoionization detector.
^fCarbon equivalent (ppmv C); numbers in parentheses are standard error in the measured value.

Table 3. Previously published values of GC/FID effective carbon number reduction by functional group

Functional group	Sternberg et al. (1962)	Dietz (1967)	Jorgensen et al. (1990)	Yan et al. (1991)
Alcohol (primary)	−0.6	−0.56	−0.64
Aliphatic	−0.0	−0.08	−0.08
Carbonyl	−1.0	−1.08	−0.80
Carboxyl	−1.0	−1.13
Ester	−0.25		−1.29
Ether and furans	−1.0		−0.78
Nitrile	−0.7		−0.42
Sulfides,			−0.00	−0.00
N-heterocyclic			−0.62

Figure 2. Comparison response between known VOC concentrations of individual compounds (C Equiv), expected FID response (Exp FID), and calculated response for GC-FID, PA-IR, and PID NMHC analyzers. All concentrations are given in ppmv carbon, and error bars are the standard error of the mean.

Figure 3. Response of the GC/FID based NMHC analyzer for individual compounds and compound mixtures: (a) individual compounds and (b) mixtures of compounds.

Figure 4. Comparison of measured FID response (ppmv C) to standard mixtures with calculated carbon equivalents; theoretically expected FID response, and the expected FID response adjusted for bias related to instrument mini column limitations. Error bars are the standard error of the mean.

Figure 5. Results of TO-15 and TO-17 analyses of VOCs measured at a poultry production facility presented in carbon equivalence, with data originally from Trabue et al. (2010). All concentrations are given in ppmv carbon and error bars are the standard error of the mean.

Figure 6. Results of field comparison between average total VOC concentrations measured using TO-15 and TO-17 methods with GC-MS (GC-MS); expected FID response based on measured GC-MS results (Exp FID); expected FID response based on measured GC-MS results plus mini column correction factors (Exp FID + MC); average measured GC/FID NMHC analyzer concentration; and average measured PA-IR NMHC analyzer concentration. All concentrations are given in ppmv carbon, and error bars are the standard error of the mean.

Sternberg , J. , Gallow , W. and Jones , D. 1962 . “ The mechanism of response of flame ionization detectors ” . In Gas chromatography , Edited by: Brenner , N. , Callen , J. and Weiss , M. 231 – 267 . New York , NY : Academic Press .

 Google Scholar

Dietz , W. 1967 . Response factors for gas chromatographic analyses . J. Gas Chromatogr. , 5 : 68 – 71 . doi: 10.1093/chromsci/5.2.68

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jorgensen , A. , Picel , K. and Stamoudis , V. 1990 . Prediction of gas chromatography flame ionization detector response factors from molecular structures . Anal. Chem. , 62 : 683 – 689 . doi: 10.1021/ac00206a007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trabue , S. , Scoggin , K. , Li , H. , Burns , R. , Xin , H. and Hatfield , J. 2010 . Speciation of volatile organic compounds from poultry production . Atmos. Environ. , 44 : 3538 – 3546 . doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.06.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar