4.7 Review

A review of techniques for the determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in air

Journal

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 1716-1739

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2011.06.017

Keywords

Airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; Analytical discrepancy; Analytical methodology; Extraction; Gas chromatography; Limit of detection (LOD); Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH); Reproducibility; Solvent-free; Thermal desorption

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) [2010-0007876]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0007876] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We provide an extensive review of the common methodologies employed in the analysis of airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The review focuses on gas-chromatography-based approaches, in the light of their universal application with excellent separation, resolution, and sensitivity. We first describe collection methods for airborne PAHs in the gas and particle phases. We then evaluate the efficiency of extraction techniques employed for separating target PAHs from sampling media, using conventional solvent-based and emerging thermal-desorption approaches. We also describe commonly employed analytical methods with respect to their applicability to PAHs in gas and particle phases, collected from diverse environmental settings. As an essential part of basic quality assurance, we examine each method with special emphasis on key parameters (e.g., limit of detection and reproducibility). Finally, we address the likely directions of methodological developments, their limitations, and the future prospects for PAH analysis. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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