High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

A yearlong sampling program for PM2.5and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was conducted in 2000/2001 in Missoula, Montana by The University of Montana, Department of Chemistry. One aspect of this program was to investigate the SVOC fraction of the Missoula Valley PM2.5by evaluating a Federal R...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Aerosol science and technology 2004-10, Vol.38 (10), p.972-979
Hauptverfasser: Ward, Tony, Smith, Garon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 979
container_issue 10
container_start_page 972
container_title Aerosol science and technology
container_volume 38
creator Ward, Tony
Smith, Garon
description A yearlong sampling program for PM2.5and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was conducted in 2000/2001 in Missoula, Montana by The University of Montana, Department of Chemistry. One aspect of this program was to investigate the SVOC fraction of the Missoula Valley PM2.5by evaluating a Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5sampler modified with Polyurethane Foam (PUF) sorbent (PM2.5PUF). In addition, a method of comparison was made between sampling for SVOCs using this modified PM2.5PUF sampler and in using a high-volume PUF sampler (Hi-vol PUF) following EPA protocol. For this comparison, the quartz filter and PUF plugs were extracted together in the analysis of the PM2.5PUF and Hi-vol PUF samples, respectively. Results of this program showed that a trade off between Hi-vol PUF sampling and PM2.5PUF sampling was revealed. During the same sampling periods, the PM2.5PUF measured more of the lighter (smaller molecular weight) SVOCs in a side-by-side comparison with the Hi-vol PUF sampler, with much less volume of sample collected due to a lower flow rate. However, each 24 h Hi-vol PUF sample run provided enough material on which to conduct an SVOC analysis, avoiding the need to aggregate samples (or longer sampling periods) to meet analytical detection limits. In addition, the results presented here also raise important questions about the efficiency of existing PUF samplers (when using quartz filters and PUF sorbent media) in the accurate measurement of lower molecular weight particle and gas-phase SVOCs.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/027868290516790
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_027868290516790</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>29674990</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-ce7c141b02284b4386637a961f082d2869da527e7858c3d2a95556da4ce355d43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtr3DAUhUVJoJPHultvmp0TPaxXd2FoMoGBDiSTrbkjy6mKbE0ku6k3-e3RMFNaAqWry73nfIfLQegTwZcEK3yFqVRCUY05EVLjD2hGOCWlZEododlOLbMsPqKTlH5gjImkZIZeF-7pe_kY_NjZYrW-KX7amMZULMPL39d76Lbe9U_FPHRbiC6FvmhDzKv31gw75RZSsfIZXUEcnBk9DJkNfjKT8c4U1zF0kIViMTUxGIib0KczdNyCT_b8ME_R-ubrw3xRLr_d3s2vl6VhWg-lsdKQimwwparaVEwJwSRoQVqsaEOV0A1wKq1UXBnWUNCcc9FAZSzjvKnYKbrY525jeB5tGurOJWO9h96GMdVUC1lpjbPxam80MaQUbVtvo-sgTjXB9a7n-l3Pmfh8iIZkwLcReuPSH0wwLjGn2cf3Ptfn5jp4CdE39QCTD_E39C67Hn4NmfvyX47967k3cIih3w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>29674990</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons</title><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Ward, Tony ; Smith, Garon</creator><creatorcontrib>Ward, Tony ; Smith, Garon</creatorcontrib><description>A yearlong sampling program for PM2.5and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was conducted in 2000/2001 in Missoula, Montana by The University of Montana, Department of Chemistry. One aspect of this program was to investigate the SVOC fraction of the Missoula Valley PM2.5by evaluating a Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5sampler modified with Polyurethane Foam (PUF) sorbent (PM2.5PUF). In addition, a method of comparison was made between sampling for SVOCs using this modified PM2.5PUF sampler and in using a high-volume PUF sampler (Hi-vol PUF) following EPA protocol. For this comparison, the quartz filter and PUF plugs were extracted together in the analysis of the PM2.5PUF and Hi-vol PUF samples, respectively. Results of this program showed that a trade off between Hi-vol PUF sampling and PM2.5PUF sampling was revealed. During the same sampling periods, the PM2.5PUF measured more of the lighter (smaller molecular weight) SVOCs in a side-by-side comparison with the Hi-vol PUF sampler, with much less volume of sample collected due to a lower flow rate. However, each 24 h Hi-vol PUF sample run provided enough material on which to conduct an SVOC analysis, avoiding the need to aggregate samples (or longer sampling periods) to meet analytical detection limits. In addition, the results presented here also raise important questions about the efficiency of existing PUF samplers (when using quartz filters and PUF sorbent media) in the accurate measurement of lower molecular weight particle and gas-phase SVOCs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-6826</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1521-7388</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/027868290516790</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ASTYDQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><subject>Aerosols ; Chemistry ; Colloidal state and disperse state ; Exact sciences and technology ; General and physical chemistry</subject><ispartof>Aerosol science and technology, 2004-10, Vol.38 (10), p.972-979</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2004</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-ce7c141b02284b4386637a961f082d2869da527e7858c3d2a95556da4ce355d43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16357052$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ward, Tony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Garon</creatorcontrib><title>High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons</title><title>Aerosol science and technology</title><description>A yearlong sampling program for PM2.5and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was conducted in 2000/2001 in Missoula, Montana by The University of Montana, Department of Chemistry. One aspect of this program was to investigate the SVOC fraction of the Missoula Valley PM2.5by evaluating a Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5sampler modified with Polyurethane Foam (PUF) sorbent (PM2.5PUF). In addition, a method of comparison was made between sampling for SVOCs using this modified PM2.5PUF sampler and in using a high-volume PUF sampler (Hi-vol PUF) following EPA protocol. For this comparison, the quartz filter and PUF plugs were extracted together in the analysis of the PM2.5PUF and Hi-vol PUF samples, respectively. Results of this program showed that a trade off between Hi-vol PUF sampling and PM2.5PUF sampling was revealed. During the same sampling periods, the PM2.5PUF measured more of the lighter (smaller molecular weight) SVOCs in a side-by-side comparison with the Hi-vol PUF sampler, with much less volume of sample collected due to a lower flow rate. However, each 24 h Hi-vol PUF sample run provided enough material on which to conduct an SVOC analysis, avoiding the need to aggregate samples (or longer sampling periods) to meet analytical detection limits. In addition, the results presented here also raise important questions about the efficiency of existing PUF samplers (when using quartz filters and PUF sorbent media) in the accurate measurement of lower molecular weight particle and gas-phase SVOCs.</description><subject>Aerosols</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Colloidal state and disperse state</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>General and physical chemistry</subject><issn>0278-6826</issn><issn>1521-7388</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEtr3DAUhUVJoJPHultvmp0TPaxXd2FoMoGBDiSTrbkjy6mKbE0ku6k3-e3RMFNaAqWry73nfIfLQegTwZcEK3yFqVRCUY05EVLjD2hGOCWlZEododlOLbMsPqKTlH5gjImkZIZeF-7pe_kY_NjZYrW-KX7amMZULMPL39d76Lbe9U_FPHRbiC6FvmhDzKv31gw75RZSsfIZXUEcnBk9DJkNfjKT8c4U1zF0kIViMTUxGIib0KczdNyCT_b8ME_R-ubrw3xRLr_d3s2vl6VhWg-lsdKQimwwparaVEwJwSRoQVqsaEOV0A1wKq1UXBnWUNCcc9FAZSzjvKnYKbrY525jeB5tGurOJWO9h96GMdVUC1lpjbPxam80MaQUbVtvo-sgTjXB9a7n-l3Pmfh8iIZkwLcReuPSH0wwLjGn2cf3Ptfn5jp4CdE39QCTD_E39C67Hn4NmfvyX47967k3cIih3w</recordid><startdate>20041001</startdate><enddate>20041001</enddate><creator>Ward, Tony</creator><creator>Smith, Garon</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041001</creationdate><title>High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons</title><author>Ward, Tony ; Smith, Garon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-ce7c141b02284b4386637a961f082d2869da527e7858c3d2a95556da4ce355d43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Aerosols</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Colloidal state and disperse state</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>General and physical chemistry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ward, Tony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Garon</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><jtitle>Aerosol science and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ward, Tony</au><au>Smith, Garon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons</atitle><jtitle>Aerosol science and technology</jtitle><date>2004-10-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>972</spage><epage>979</epage><pages>972-979</pages><issn>0278-6826</issn><eissn>1521-7388</eissn><coden>ASTYDQ</coden><abstract>A yearlong sampling program for PM2.5and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was conducted in 2000/2001 in Missoula, Montana by The University of Montana, Department of Chemistry. One aspect of this program was to investigate the SVOC fraction of the Missoula Valley PM2.5by evaluating a Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5sampler modified with Polyurethane Foam (PUF) sorbent (PM2.5PUF). In addition, a method of comparison was made between sampling for SVOCs using this modified PM2.5PUF sampler and in using a high-volume PUF sampler (Hi-vol PUF) following EPA protocol. For this comparison, the quartz filter and PUF plugs were extracted together in the analysis of the PM2.5PUF and Hi-vol PUF samples, respectively. Results of this program showed that a trade off between Hi-vol PUF sampling and PM2.5PUF sampling was revealed. During the same sampling periods, the PM2.5PUF measured more of the lighter (smaller molecular weight) SVOCs in a side-by-side comparison with the Hi-vol PUF sampler, with much less volume of sample collected due to a lower flow rate. However, each 24 h Hi-vol PUF sample run provided enough material on which to conduct an SVOC analysis, avoiding the need to aggregate samples (or longer sampling periods) to meet analytical detection limits. In addition, the results presented here also raise important questions about the efficiency of existing PUF samplers (when using quartz filters and PUF sorbent media) in the accurate measurement of lower molecular weight particle and gas-phase SVOCs.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/027868290516790</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0278-6826
ispartof Aerosol science and technology, 2004-10, Vol.38 (10), p.972-979
issn 0278-6826
1521-7388
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_027868290516790
source IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Aerosols
Chemistry
Colloidal state and disperse state
Exact sciences and technology
General and physical chemistry
title High-Volume PUF versus Low-Volume PUF Sampling Comparison for Collecting Gas Plus Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T10%3A49%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=High-Volume%20PUF%20versus%20Low-Volume%20PUF%20Sampling%20Comparison%20for%20Collecting%20Gas%20Plus%20Particulate%20Polycyclic%20Aromatic%20Hydrocarbons&rft.jtitle=Aerosol%20science%20and%20technology&rft.au=Ward,%20Tony&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=972&rft.epage=979&rft.pages=972-979&rft.issn=0278-6826&rft.eissn=1521-7388&rft.coden=ASTYDQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/027868290516790&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E29674990%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=29674990&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true