Open AccessComparison of sensor characteristics of three real‐time monitors for organic vapors
Author(s) -
Hori Hajime,
Ishimatsu Sumiyo,
Fueta Yukiko,
Hinoue Mitsuo,
Ishidao Toru
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.14-0146-oa
Subject(s) - flame ionization detector , volatile organic compound , organic solvent , solvent , materials science , gas chromatography , methanol , parts per notation , analytical chemistry (journal) , environmental science , chromatography , chemistry , chemical engineering , organic chemistry , engineering
Comparison of sensor characteristics of three real‐time monitors for organic vapors: Hajime HORI, et al . Department of Environmental Management, School of Health Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan—Objective Sensor characteristics and performance of three real‐time monitors for volatile organic compounds (VOC monitor) equipped with a photo ionization detector (PID), a sensor using the interference enhanced reflection (IER) method and a semiconductor gas sensor were investigated for 52 organic solvent vapors designated as class 1 and class 2 of organic solvents by the Ordinance of Organic Solvent Poisoning Prevention in Japan. Methods Test vapors were prepared by injecting each liquid solvent into a 50 l Tedlar ® bag and perfectly vaporizing it. The vapor concentration was from one‐tenth to twice the administrative control level for all solvents. The vapor concentration was measured with the monitors and a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector simultaneously, and the values were compared. Results The monitor with the PID sensor could measure many organic vapors, but it could not detect some vapors with high ionization potential. The IER sensor could also detect many vapors, but a linear response was not obtained for some vapors. A semiconductor sensor could detect methanol that could not be detected by PID and IER sensors. Conclusions Working environment measurement of organic vapors by real‐time monitors may be possible, but sensor characteristics and their limitations should be known.