Evaluation of a portable gas chromatograph with photoionization detector under variations of VOC concentration, temperature, and relative humidity

ABSTRACT

The objective of this present study was to evaluate the performance of a portable gas chromatograph-photoionization detector (GC-PID), under various test conditions to determine if it could be used in occupational settings. A mixture of 7 volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—acetone, ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, m-xylene, p-xylene, and o-xylene—was selected because its components are commonly present in paint manufacturing industries. A full-factorial combination of 4 concentration levels (exposure scenarios) of VOC mixtures, 3 different temperatures (25°C, 30°C, and 35°C), and 3 relative humidities (RHs; 25%, 50%, and 75%) was conducted in a full-size controlled environmental chamber. Three repetitions were conducted for each test condition allowing for estimation of accuracy. Time-weighted average exposure data were collected using solid sorbent tubes (Anasorb 747, SKC Inc.) as the reference sampling medium. Calibration curves of Frog-4000 using the dry gases showed R² > 0.99 for all analytes except for toluene (R² = 0.97). Frog-4000 estimates within a test condition showed good consistency for the performance of repeated measurement. However, there was ∼41–64% reduction in the analysis of polar acetone with 75% RH relative to collection at 25% RH. Although Frog-4000 results correlated well with solid sorbent tubes (r = 0.808–0.993, except for toluene) most of the combinations regardless of analyte did not meet the <25% accuracy criterion recommended by NIOSH. The effect of chromatographic co-elution can be seen with m, p-xylene when the results are compared to the sorbent tube sampling technique with GC-flame ionization detector. The results indicated an effect of humidity on the quantification of the polar compounds that might be attributed to the pre-concentrator placed in the selected GC-PID. Further investigation may resolve the humidity effect on sorbent trap with micro GC pre-concentrator when water vapor is present. Although this instrument does not fulfill the accuracy criterion specified in the NIOSH technical report No. 2012–162, it can be used as a screening tool for range finding monitoring with dry gases calibration in the occupational setting rather than compliance monitoring.

KEYWORDS:

• Photoionization detector (PID)
• portable gas chromatography
• VOCs

Acknowledgments

The authors are sincerely thankful to Dr. Philip A. Smith (OSHA/Health Response Team) for reviewing this article prior to journal submission and to Dr. Gayle DeBord and Dr. Mark Hoover (Co-Directors of the NIOSH Center for Direct Reading and Sensor Technologies) for their support and useful discussions.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in these proceedings are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites.

Additional information

Funding

This project was funded internally by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Project 927ZKPA—Emerging Issues in Exposure Assessment).