4.7 Article

Determination of phenolic compounds in air by using cyclodextrin-silica hybrid microporous composite samplers

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 134, Issue -, Pages 560-567

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.11.057

Keywords

Phenols; Air sampling; Air fresheners; Cyclodextrin-silica samplers; Occupational exposure

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain [MAT2012-38429-004-03]
  2. Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia, Spain [PROMETEO/2009/108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An analytical method for the determination of phenolic compounds in air samples based on the use of cyclodextrin-silica hybrid microporous composite samplers is proposed. The method allows the determination of phenol, guaiacol, cresol isomers, eugenol, 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol in workplaces according to the Norm UNE-EN 1076:2009 for active sampling. Therefore, the proposed method offers an alternative for the assessment of the occupational exposure to phenol and cresol isomers. The detection limits of the proposed method are lower than those for the NIOSH Method 2546. Storage time of samples almost reaches 44 days. Recovery values for phenol, guaiacol, o-cresol, m-cresol, p-cresol, 4-ethylguaiacol, eugenol and 4-ethylphenol are 109%, 99%, 102%, 94%, 94%, 91%, 95% and 102%, respectively with a coefficient of variation below 6%. The method has been applied to the assessment of exposure in different areas of a farm and regarding the quantification of these compounds in the vapors generated by burning incense sticks and an essential oil marketed as air fresheners. The acquired results are comparable with those provided from a reference method for a 95% of confidence level. The possible use of these samplers for the sampling of other toxic compounds such as phthalates is evaluated by qualitative analysis of extracts from incense sticks and essential oil samples. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available