Dietz E A, Hoffman V J
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1984 Jun;45(6):382-5. doi: 10.1080/15298668491399983.
Two new methods for sampling and analysis of chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) exceeding 1 ppm (4.8 mg/m3) time-weighted-average concentrations were developed and compared. The first involved collecting air in bags followed by gas chromatographic (GC) analysis of sample aliquots using flame ionization detection (FID). Using specified procedural details, analyte recoveries of greater than 90% were demonstrated even for samples stored for five days. A second method used charcoal to adsorb and concentrate analyte from 10-L air samples. Toluene was used to desorb CTFE which was quantitated by GC/FID. Desorption efficiencies were greater than 90%. Analyte recoveries of greater than 90% were obtained from charcoal tubes which had been used to sample air containing 10 ppm of CTFE and were stored for two weeks at 4 degrees C. Recoveries from five field spikes (3 to 20 ppm) averaged 94%. Using dry air containing 800 ppm CTFE, no significant breakthrough of a 400 mg sorbent bed was observed. After comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each method, the charcoal procedure was recommended.
开发并比较了两种用于对超过1 ppm(4.8毫克/立方米)时间加权平均浓度的三氟氯乙烯(CTFE)进行采样和分析的新方法。第一种方法是将空气收集到气袋中,然后使用火焰离子化检测(FID)对样品等分试样进行气相色谱(GC)分析。按照特定的程序细节,即使对于储存五天的样品,分析物回收率也能达到90%以上。第二种方法是使用活性炭从10升空气样品中吸附并浓缩分析物。用甲苯解吸CTFE,并用GC/FID进行定量。解吸效率大于90%。从用于采集含10 ppm CTFE空气且在4℃下储存两周的活性炭管中获得的分析物回收率大于90%。五个现场加标样品(3至20 ppm)的回收率平均为94%。使用含有800 ppm CTFE的干燥空气时,未观察到400毫克吸附剂床有明显穿透。在比较了每种方法的优缺点后,推荐采用活性炭法。