Limits...
The combined application of impinger system and permeation tube for the generation of volatile organic compound standard gas mixtures at varying diluent flow rates.

Kim KH, Susaya J, Cho J, Parker D - Sensors (Basel) (2012)

Bottom Line: The performance of the impinger standard gas generation system was assessed for four aromatic VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m-xylene; BTEX) at varying flow rates (FR) of 50 to 800 mL·min(-1).Experimental results corrected by such a formula indicate that the compatibility between the APR and MPR generally increased with low FR, while the reproducibility was generally reduced with decreasing flow rate.Although compatibility between different PRs is at a relatively small and narrow FR range, the use of correction formula is recommendable for the accurate use of PT.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Environment & Energy, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea. khkim@sejong.ac.kr

ABSTRACT
Commercial standard gas generators are often complex and expensive devices. The objective of this research was to assess the performance of a simplified glass impinger system for standard gas generation from a permeation tube (PT) device. The performance of the impinger standard gas generation system was assessed for four aromatic VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m-xylene; BTEX) at varying flow rates (FR) of 50 to 800 mL·min(-1). Because actual permeation rate (APR) values deviated from those computed by the manufacturer's formula (MPR), new empirical relationships were developed to derive the predicted PR (PPR) of the target components. Experimental results corrected by such a formula indicate that the compatibility between the APR and MPR generally increased with low FR, while the reproducibility was generally reduced with decreasing flow rate. Although compatibility between different PRs is at a relatively small and narrow FR range, the use of correction formula is recommendable for the accurate use of PT.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

A plot of the percent difference (%) between (a) manufacturer's given PR (MPR); (b) predicted permeation rates (PPR) relative to the actual measured permeation rate APR as a function of flow rate (mL·min−1). Formulas: PD(MPR vs. APR) = [(MPR-APR)/APR] × 100 and PD(PPR vs. APR) = [(PPR-APR)/APR] × 100.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3472869&req=5

f4-sensors-12-10964: A plot of the percent difference (%) between (a) manufacturer's given PR (MPR); (b) predicted permeation rates (PPR) relative to the actual measured permeation rate APR as a function of flow rate (mL·min−1). Formulas: PD(MPR vs. APR) = [(MPR-APR)/APR] × 100 and PD(PPR vs. APR) = [(PPR-APR)/APR] × 100.

Mentions: The plot of PPR points followed a curvilinear pattern proximate to that of APR (Figure 3). As shown in Figure 4, the enormity of bias (in terms of % difference values) between APR and PPR increased systematically with increasing FR. If the percent difference (PD) between APR and PPR is derived at 800 mL·min−1, the values tend to vary from 73.5 (benzene) to 96% (m-xylene). On the other hand, if this comparison is made at the lowest FR of 50 mL·min−1, the least PD values of 18.5 (benzene) to 36.2% (ethylbenzene) were computed.


The combined application of impinger system and permeation tube for the generation of volatile organic compound standard gas mixtures at varying diluent flow rates.

Kim KH, Susaya J, Cho J, Parker D - Sensors (Basel) (2012)

A plot of the percent difference (%) between (a) manufacturer's given PR (MPR); (b) predicted permeation rates (PPR) relative to the actual measured permeation rate APR as a function of flow rate (mL·min−1). Formulas: PD(MPR vs. APR) = [(MPR-APR)/APR] × 100 and PD(PPR vs. APR) = [(PPR-APR)/APR] × 100.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3472869&req=5

f4-sensors-12-10964: A plot of the percent difference (%) between (a) manufacturer's given PR (MPR); (b) predicted permeation rates (PPR) relative to the actual measured permeation rate APR as a function of flow rate (mL·min−1). Formulas: PD(MPR vs. APR) = [(MPR-APR)/APR] × 100 and PD(PPR vs. APR) = [(PPR-APR)/APR] × 100.
Mentions: The plot of PPR points followed a curvilinear pattern proximate to that of APR (Figure 3). As shown in Figure 4, the enormity of bias (in terms of % difference values) between APR and PPR increased systematically with increasing FR. If the percent difference (PD) between APR and PPR is derived at 800 mL·min−1, the values tend to vary from 73.5 (benzene) to 96% (m-xylene). On the other hand, if this comparison is made at the lowest FR of 50 mL·min−1, the least PD values of 18.5 (benzene) to 36.2% (ethylbenzene) were computed.

Bottom Line: The performance of the impinger standard gas generation system was assessed for four aromatic VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m-xylene; BTEX) at varying flow rates (FR) of 50 to 800 mL·min(-1).Experimental results corrected by such a formula indicate that the compatibility between the APR and MPR generally increased with low FR, while the reproducibility was generally reduced with decreasing flow rate.Although compatibility between different PRs is at a relatively small and narrow FR range, the use of correction formula is recommendable for the accurate use of PT.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Environment & Energy, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea. khkim@sejong.ac.kr

ABSTRACT
Commercial standard gas generators are often complex and expensive devices. The objective of this research was to assess the performance of a simplified glass impinger system for standard gas generation from a permeation tube (PT) device. The performance of the impinger standard gas generation system was assessed for four aromatic VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m-xylene; BTEX) at varying flow rates (FR) of 50 to 800 mL·min(-1). Because actual permeation rate (APR) values deviated from those computed by the manufacturer's formula (MPR), new empirical relationships were developed to derive the predicted PR (PPR) of the target components. Experimental results corrected by such a formula indicate that the compatibility between the APR and MPR generally increased with low FR, while the reproducibility was generally reduced with decreasing flow rate. Although compatibility between different PRs is at a relatively small and narrow FR range, the use of correction formula is recommendable for the accurate use of PT.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus