Coffey Christopher C, Pearce Terri A, Lawrence Robert B, Hudnall Judith B, Slaven James E, Martin Stephen B
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505-2888, USA.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009 Jan;6(1):1-8. doi: 10.1080/15459620802514728.
The performance of field portable direct-reading organic vapor monitors (DROVMs) was evaluated under a variety of experimental conditions. Four of the DROVMs had photoionization detectors (ppbRAE, IAQRAE, MultiRAE, and Century Toxic Vapor Analyzer), one had a flame ionization detector (Century Toxic Vapor Analyzer), and one was a single-beam infrared spectrophotometer (SapphIRe). Four of each DROVM (two Century Toxic Vapor Analyzers and SapphIRes) were tested. The DROVMs were evaluated at three temperatures (4 degrees C, 21 degrees C, and 38 degrees C), three relative humidities (30%, 60%, and 90%), and two hexane concentrations (5 ppm and 100 ppm). These conditions were selected to provide a range within the operational parameters of all the instruments. At least four replicate trials were performed across the 18 experimental conditions (3 temperatures x 3 relative humidities x 2 concentrations). To evaluate performance, the 4-hr time-weighted average readings from the DROVMs in a given trial were compared with the average of two charcoal tube concentrations using pairwise comparison. The pairwise comparison criterion was +/-25% measurement agreement between each individual DROVM and the DROVMs as a group and the average charcoal tube concentration. The ppbRAE group performed the best with 40% of all readings meeting the comparison criterion followed by the SapphIRe group at 39%. Among individual DROVMs, the best performer was a SapphIRe, with 57% of its readings meeting the criterion. The data was further analyzed by temperature, humidity, and concentration. The results indicated the performance of some DROVMs may be affected by temperature, humidity, and/or concentration. The ppbRAE group performed best at 21 degrees C with the percentage of readings meeting the criterion increasing to 63%. At the 5 ppm concentration, 44% of the ppbRAE group readings met the criterion, while at 100 ppm, only 35% did. The results indicate that monitors can be used as survey tools. Based on the data, the inconsistent performance of these DROVMs may not allow them to be used for determining compliance with occupational exposure limits.
在各种实验条件下对现场便携式直读有机蒸气监测仪（DROVM）的性能进行了评估。其中4台DROVM配备了光离子化探测器（ppbRAE、IAQRAE、MultiRAE和世纪有毒蒸气分析仪），1台配备了火焰离子化探测器（世纪有毒蒸气分析仪），还有1台是单光束红外分光光度计（SapphIRe）。每种DROVM各有4台（2台世纪有毒蒸气分析仪和2台SapphIRe）接受了测试。在三个温度（4摄氏度、21摄氏度和38摄氏度）、三个相对湿度（30%、60%和90%）以及两种己烷浓度（5 ppm和100 ppm）条件下对DROVM进行了评估。选择这些条件是为了在所有仪器的运行参数范围内提供一个范围。在这18种实验条件（3个温度×3个相对湿度×2种浓度）下至少进行了四次重复试验。为了评估性能，在给定试验中，将DROVM的4小时时间加权平均读数与使用成对比较法得出的两个活性炭管浓度的平均值进行比较。成对比较标准是每个单独的DROVM与作为一组的DROVM以及活性炭管平均浓度之间的测量一致性为±25%。ppbRAE组表现最佳，所有读数中有40%符合比较标准，其次是SapphIRe组，为39%。在各个DROVM中，表现最佳的是一台SapphIRe，其读数中有57%符合标准。数据进一步按温度、湿度和浓度进行了分析。结果表明，一些DROVM的性能可能会受到温度、湿度和/或浓度的影响。ppbRAE组在21摄氏度时表现最佳，符合标准的读数百分比增至63%。在5 ppm浓度下，ppbRAE组读数中有44%符合标准；而在100 ppm时，只有35%符合。结果表明监测仪可作为检测工具使用。根据数据，这些DROVM性能的不一致可能使其无法用于确定是否符合职业接触限值。
