Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison

Carbonaceous aerosols are present in many workplace and environmental settings. Some of these aerosols are known or suspect human carcinogens and have been linked to other adverse health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust is of particular concern because it has been classified as a probable human c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Analyst (London) 1998-05, Vol.123 (5), p.851-857
1. Verfasser: BIRCH, M. E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 857
container_issue 5
container_start_page 851
container_title Analyst (London)
container_volume 123
creator BIRCH, M. E
description Carbonaceous aerosols are present in many workplace and environmental settings. Some of these aerosols are known or suspect human carcinogens and have been linked to other adverse health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust is of particular concern because it has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and use of diesel-powered equipment is widespread in industry. Because previously used methods for monitoring exposures to particulate diesel exhaust lack adequate sensitivity and selectivity, a new method was needed. A carbon analysis technique called the thermal-optical method was evaluated for this purpose. In thermal-optical analysis, carbon in a filter sample is speciated as organic and elemental (OC and EC, respectively). When the thermal-optical method was initially evaluated, only one instrument was available, so interlaboratory variability could not be examined. More recently, additional instruments were constructed and an interlaboratory comparison was completed. Eleven laboratories participated in the study, including four in Europe that employ an alternative thermal technique based on coulometric detection of CO2. Good agreement (RSDs less than or equal to 15%) between the total carbon results reported by all laboratories was obtained. Reasonable within-method agreement was seen for EC results, but the EC content found by the two methods was differed significantly. Disagreement between th OC-EC results found by the two methods was expected because organic and elemental carbon are operationally defined. With all filter samples, results obtained with the coulometric method were positively biased relative to thermal-optical results. In addition, the alternative method gave a positive bias in the analysis of two OC standard solutions. About 52% and 70% of the carbon found in two aqueous solutions containing OC only (sucrose and EDTA, respectively) was quantified as elemental,while EC contents of about 1% and 0.1% (respectively) were found by the thermal-optical method. The positive bias in the analysis of the OC standards is attributed largely to inadequate removal of OC during the first part of the analysis; lack of correlation for pyrolytically formed carbon (char) also is a factor. Results obtained with a different thermal program having a higher maximum temperature were in better agreement with the thermal-optical method.
doi_str_mv 10.1039/a800028j
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1039_a800028j</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>9709478</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-e71e8bb07c1af86a4723d3015d35904f27a5fb0cf99c75a53204f895aa191bb63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE9LAzEQxYMotVbBLyDswYOX1Umy2SQehFL8BwUvel4m2QS2bDclaQ_77Y107WmY934M8x4htxQeKXD9hAoAmNqckTnldVUKwdQ5mWeRl6wW1SW5SmmTVwoCZmSmJehKqjl5WQ7Yj6lLRfCFxWjCgNaFQyrQxZBCn4rnohv2LvZoQsR9iGNhw3aHsUthuCYXHvvkbqa5ID9vr9-rj3L99f65Wq5Ly5ncl05Sp4wBaSl6VWMlGW85UNFyoaHyTKLwBqzX2kqBgrMsKi0QqabG1HxBHo53bX4qReebXey2GMeGQvPXQPPfQEbvjujuYLauPYFT5OzfTz4mi72PONgunTDGATLKfwF7qmKF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Royal Society of Chemistry Journals Archive (1841-2007)</source><source>Royal Society Of Chemistry Journals 2008-</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>BIRCH, M. E</creator><creatorcontrib>BIRCH, M. E</creatorcontrib><description>Carbonaceous aerosols are present in many workplace and environmental settings. Some of these aerosols are known or suspect human carcinogens and have been linked to other adverse health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust is of particular concern because it has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and use of diesel-powered equipment is widespread in industry. Because previously used methods for monitoring exposures to particulate diesel exhaust lack adequate sensitivity and selectivity, a new method was needed. A carbon analysis technique called the thermal-optical method was evaluated for this purpose. In thermal-optical analysis, carbon in a filter sample is speciated as organic and elemental (OC and EC, respectively). When the thermal-optical method was initially evaluated, only one instrument was available, so interlaboratory variability could not be examined. More recently, additional instruments were constructed and an interlaboratory comparison was completed. Eleven laboratories participated in the study, including four in Europe that employ an alternative thermal technique based on coulometric detection of CO2. Good agreement (RSDs less than or equal to 15%) between the total carbon results reported by all laboratories was obtained. Reasonable within-method agreement was seen for EC results, but the EC content found by the two methods was differed significantly. Disagreement between th OC-EC results found by the two methods was expected because organic and elemental carbon are operationally defined. With all filter samples, results obtained with the coulometric method were positively biased relative to thermal-optical results. In addition, the alternative method gave a positive bias in the analysis of two OC standard solutions. About 52% and 70% of the carbon found in two aqueous solutions containing OC only (sucrose and EDTA, respectively) was quantified as elemental,while EC contents of about 1% and 0.1% (respectively) were found by the thermal-optical method. The positive bias in the analysis of the OC standards is attributed largely to inadequate removal of OC during the first part of the analysis; lack of correlation for pyrolytically formed carbon (char) also is a factor. Results obtained with a different thermal program having a higher maximum temperature were in better agreement with the thermal-optical method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2654</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1364-5528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1039/a800028j</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9709478</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANALAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry</publisher><subject>Aerosols - chemistry ; Air Pollutants, Occupational - chemistry ; Analysis methods ; Analytical chemistry ; Applied sciences ; Atmospheric pollution ; Carbon - analysis ; Chemistry ; Exact sciences and technology ; Miscellaneous ; Pollution ; Vehicle Emissions</subject><ispartof>Analyst (London), 1998-05, Vol.123 (5), p.851-857</ispartof><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-e71e8bb07c1af86a4723d3015d35904f27a5fb0cf99c75a53204f895aa191bb63</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,777,781,786,787,2818,23911,23912,25121,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2300970$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9709478$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BIRCH, M. E</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison</title><title>Analyst (London)</title><addtitle>Analyst</addtitle><description>Carbonaceous aerosols are present in many workplace and environmental settings. Some of these aerosols are known or suspect human carcinogens and have been linked to other adverse health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust is of particular concern because it has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and use of diesel-powered equipment is widespread in industry. Because previously used methods for monitoring exposures to particulate diesel exhaust lack adequate sensitivity and selectivity, a new method was needed. A carbon analysis technique called the thermal-optical method was evaluated for this purpose. In thermal-optical analysis, carbon in a filter sample is speciated as organic and elemental (OC and EC, respectively). When the thermal-optical method was initially evaluated, only one instrument was available, so interlaboratory variability could not be examined. More recently, additional instruments were constructed and an interlaboratory comparison was completed. Eleven laboratories participated in the study, including four in Europe that employ an alternative thermal technique based on coulometric detection of CO2. Good agreement (RSDs less than or equal to 15%) between the total carbon results reported by all laboratories was obtained. Reasonable within-method agreement was seen for EC results, but the EC content found by the two methods was differed significantly. Disagreement between th OC-EC results found by the two methods was expected because organic and elemental carbon are operationally defined. With all filter samples, results obtained with the coulometric method were positively biased relative to thermal-optical results. In addition, the alternative method gave a positive bias in the analysis of two OC standard solutions. About 52% and 70% of the carbon found in two aqueous solutions containing OC only (sucrose and EDTA, respectively) was quantified as elemental,while EC contents of about 1% and 0.1% (respectively) were found by the thermal-optical method. The positive bias in the analysis of the OC standards is attributed largely to inadequate removal of OC during the first part of the analysis; lack of correlation for pyrolytically formed carbon (char) also is a factor. Results obtained with a different thermal program having a higher maximum temperature were in better agreement with the thermal-optical method.</description><subject>Aerosols - chemistry</subject><subject>Air Pollutants, Occupational - chemistry</subject><subject>Analysis methods</subject><subject>Analytical chemistry</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Atmospheric pollution</subject><subject>Carbon - analysis</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Vehicle Emissions</subject><issn>0003-2654</issn><issn>1364-5528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE9LAzEQxYMotVbBLyDswYOX1Umy2SQehFL8BwUvel4m2QS2bDclaQ_77Y107WmY934M8x4htxQeKXD9hAoAmNqckTnldVUKwdQ5mWeRl6wW1SW5SmmTVwoCZmSmJehKqjl5WQ7Yj6lLRfCFxWjCgNaFQyrQxZBCn4rnohv2LvZoQsR9iGNhw3aHsUthuCYXHvvkbqa5ID9vr9-rj3L99f65Wq5Ly5ncl05Sp4wBaSl6VWMlGW85UNFyoaHyTKLwBqzX2kqBgrMsKi0QqabG1HxBHo53bX4qReebXey2GMeGQvPXQPPfQEbvjujuYLauPYFT5OzfTz4mi72PONgunTDGATLKfwF7qmKF</recordid><startdate>19980501</startdate><enddate>19980501</enddate><creator>BIRCH, M. E</creator><general>Royal Society of Chemistry</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980501</creationdate><title>Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison</title><author>BIRCH, M. E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-e71e8bb07c1af86a4723d3015d35904f27a5fb0cf99c75a53204f895aa191bb63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Aerosols - chemistry</topic><topic>Air Pollutants, Occupational - chemistry</topic><topic>Analysis methods</topic><topic>Analytical chemistry</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Atmospheric pollution</topic><topic>Carbon - analysis</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Vehicle Emissions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BIRCH, M. E</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Analyst (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BIRCH, M. E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison</atitle><jtitle>Analyst (London)</jtitle><addtitle>Analyst</addtitle><date>1998-05-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>123</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>851</spage><epage>857</epage><pages>851-857</pages><issn>0003-2654</issn><eissn>1364-5528</eissn><coden>ANALAO</coden><abstract>Carbonaceous aerosols are present in many workplace and environmental settings. Some of these aerosols are known or suspect human carcinogens and have been linked to other adverse health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust is of particular concern because it has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and use of diesel-powered equipment is widespread in industry. Because previously used methods for monitoring exposures to particulate diesel exhaust lack adequate sensitivity and selectivity, a new method was needed. A carbon analysis technique called the thermal-optical method was evaluated for this purpose. In thermal-optical analysis, carbon in a filter sample is speciated as organic and elemental (OC and EC, respectively). When the thermal-optical method was initially evaluated, only one instrument was available, so interlaboratory variability could not be examined. More recently, additional instruments were constructed and an interlaboratory comparison was completed. Eleven laboratories participated in the study, including four in Europe that employ an alternative thermal technique based on coulometric detection of CO2. Good agreement (RSDs less than or equal to 15%) between the total carbon results reported by all laboratories was obtained. Reasonable within-method agreement was seen for EC results, but the EC content found by the two methods was differed significantly. Disagreement between th OC-EC results found by the two methods was expected because organic and elemental carbon are operationally defined. With all filter samples, results obtained with the coulometric method were positively biased relative to thermal-optical results. In addition, the alternative method gave a positive bias in the analysis of two OC standard solutions. About 52% and 70% of the carbon found in two aqueous solutions containing OC only (sucrose and EDTA, respectively) was quantified as elemental,while EC contents of about 1% and 0.1% (respectively) were found by the thermal-optical method. The positive bias in the analysis of the OC standards is attributed largely to inadequate removal of OC during the first part of the analysis; lack of correlation for pyrolytically formed carbon (char) also is a factor. Results obtained with a different thermal program having a higher maximum temperature were in better agreement with the thermal-optical method.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Royal Society of Chemistry</pub><pmid>9709478</pmid><doi>10.1039/a800028j</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-2654
ispartof Analyst (London), 1998-05, Vol.123 (5), p.851-857
issn 0003-2654
1364-5528
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1039_a800028j
source MEDLINE; Royal Society of Chemistry Journals Archive (1841-2007); Royal Society Of Chemistry Journals 2008-; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aerosols - chemistry
Air Pollutants, Occupational - chemistry
Analysis methods
Analytical chemistry
Applied sciences
Atmospheric pollution
Carbon - analysis
Chemistry
Exact sciences and technology
Miscellaneous
Pollution
Vehicle Emissions
title Analysis of carbonaceous aerosols : interlaboratory comparison
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T18%3A19%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20of%20carbonaceous%20aerosols%20:%20interlaboratory%20comparison&rft.jtitle=Analyst%20(London)&rft.au=BIRCH,%20M.%20E&rft.date=1998-05-01&rft.volume=123&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=851&rft.epage=857&rft.pages=851-857&rft.issn=0003-2654&rft.eissn=1364-5528&rft.coden=ANALAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1039/a800028j&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E9709478%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/9709478&rfr_iscdi=true