Short-Term Monitoring of Formaldehyde: Comparison of Two Direct-Reading Instruments to a Laboratory-Based Method

Abstract

Airborne formaldehyde concentrations can be measured using several different techniques, including laboratory-based methods and direct-reading instruments. Two commercially available direct-reading instruments, an RKI Instruments Model FP-30 and a PPM Technology Formaldemeter htV, were compared with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Method 2016 in different test environments to determine if these direct-reading instruments can provide comparable results. The methods yielded the following mean concentrations for 47 samples: NIOSH Method 2016, 0.37 ppm; FP-30, 0.29 ppm; and htV, 0.34 ppm. Results from both of the direct-reading instruments were correlated with the laboratory-based method (R² = 0.78 for FP-30, and 0.902 for htV). Comparison of the means of the three methods showed that on average the FP-30 instrument (p < 0.001) differed statistically from NIOSH Method 2016, whereas the htV (p = 0.15) was not statistically different from the NIOSH method. Sensitivity and specificity tests demonstrated that the FP-30 had sensitivity above 60% to detect formaldehyde concentrations at all the cutoff levels tested, whereas the htV appeared to have greater sensitivity above 88% for the levels evaluated.

Keywords:

• air sampling
• direct-reading monitors
• formaldehyde
• instrument comparison

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the significant collaboration of the CDC and Bureau Veritas North America for this work. Field guidance, data collection, and data analysis were provided by Chad Dowell, Gary Noonan, David Olson, Liane Hostler, Rick Aspray, Ronald Dobos, William Dendy, Paul Epstein, Laurence Reed, Sam Tucker, Stan Shulman, Kevin Ashley, Dan Farwick, Kevin H. Dunn, Dave Marlow, Brenda Jones, Ellen Galloway, Paula O’Connor, Debbie Fite, Teresa Lewis, Gregory Burr, Erik Devine, Jennifer Roberts, Donald Booher, and Karl Feldmann The authors also appreciate the guidance of peer reviewers Aaron Sussell and Lynn Wilder. Field site assistance was provided by Ronald Parten, Randy Brown, and other site personnel.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Mention of company names and/or products does not constitute endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.