4.7 Article

Evaluation of passive air sampler calibrations: Selection of sampling rates and implications for the measurement of persistent organic pollutants in air

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 1867-1875

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.011

Keywords

Passive samplers; Persistent organic pollutants; Calibration

Funding

  1. Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition fund
  2. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
  3. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polyurethane foam (PUF) passive air samplers (PAS) are a common and highly useful method of sampling persistent organic pollutants (POP) concentrations in air. PAS calibration is necessary to obtain reasonable and comparable semi-quantitative measures of air concentrations. Various methods are found in the literature concerning PAS calibration. 35 studies on PAS use and calibration are examined here, in conjunction with a study involving 10 PAS deployed concurrently in outdoor air with a low-volume air sampler in order to measure the sampling rates of PUF-PAS for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), polycyclic musks (PCMs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Based on this analysis it is recommended that (1) PAS should be assumed to represent bulk rather than gas-phase compound concentrations due to the sampling of particle-bound compounds, (2) calibration of PAS sampling rates is more accurately achieved using an active low-volume air sampler rather than depuration compounds since the former measures gas- and particle-phase compounds and does so continuously over the deployment period of the PAS, and (3) homolog-specific sampling rates based on K-OA groupings be used in preference to compound/congener-specific or single sampling rates. (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