Next Article in Journal
A Bibliometric Analysis of Convection-Permitting Model Research
Previous Article in Journal
Sensitivity of Streamflow to Changing Rainfall and Evapotranspiration in Catchments Across the Nile Basin
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigation of the Measurement Uncertainties in the Measurement of BTEX in the Volatile Organic Compound Group

by
Hayri Cihan Sıdal
1 and
Andaç Akdemir
1,2,*
1
GT Global Technical Company Samsun Branch, 55200 Samsun, Türkiye
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55200 Samsun, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2024, 15(12), 1416; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121416
Submission received: 26 October 2024 / Revised: 17 November 2024 / Accepted: 20 November 2024 / Published: 25 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)

Abstract

:
In this study, repeatability, intermediate precision, and recovery were considered within the Type A uncertainty budget, while measurement uncertainties due to the sampling system used (instrument), VOC mixture standard, internal standard, micropipette, temperature effect, methanol, and carbon disulfide were considered Type B uncertainties. As a result of the studies on the uncertainty components of the BTEX parameters belonging to the group of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the highest uncertainty component for benzene was intermediate certainty at 24%. The highest uncertainty component for toluene was sampling at 23%. The highest uncertainty component for ethyl benzene was sampling at 25%. The highest uncertainty component for m,p-xylene and o-xylene was sampling at 25%. As a result, intermediate precision, sampling, and calibration uncertainties were identified as the most significant uncertainty components.

1. Introduction

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons that are used as raw materials in many industries; evaporate rapidly on direct contact with air at room temperature; cause air pollution in the atmosphere through photochemical reactions, emissions from vehicles, and the evaporation of fuel; and are defined as a precursor greenhouse gas in climate change [1]. VOCs in the indoor environment are commonly caused by painting, wood floors, furniture, appliances, etc. [2]. The main sources of VOCs in ambient air are smokestack emissions from industrial processes, solvent use, petroleum refineries, vehicle exhaust, and fuel storage and filling facilities [3,4,5]. While direct exposure occurs when people breathe in these pollutants, which are mixed into the air due to various activities, indirect exposure occurs when they pass from the air into soil, water, plants, animals, and other living things and enter the food chain [6,7]. Adverse health effects from the accumulation and absorption of chemicals into the body are the most critical consequences of air pollution. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, known as BTEX, are among the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that pose the most significant health risk and account for about 60% of non-methane VOCs in urban air [7]. Benzene has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [8].
Volatile organic compounds can be measured using a photoionizing detector (PID), flame ionizing detector (FID), Fourier Transform Spectroscopy (FTIR), proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS), nondispersive infrared (NDIR), gas chromatography with mass spectrophotometry (GS-MS), sorbent tubes and thermal desorption, chemical ionization mass spectrometry (CIMS), metal oxide semiconductor sensors (MOSs), fiber laser-induced fluorescence (FILIF), infrared spectrophotometry (IR), and global atmosphere watch [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. In the aromatic hydrocarbon group (which includes benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), GS-MS is more sensitive than FID and IR and has lower uncertainty values [9].
These measurements’ uncertainties are applied as per EN ISO/CEI 17025:2017 in all accredited laboratories. Method verification, also called validation, defines the analytical requirement, and confirms that the method under consideration can meet that requirement. It confirms that a method fulfills the requirements for a specific use through testing and obtaining objective evidence. When validating a method, a laboratory must check that the method is working correctly before the experiment. This means that some experiments should be carried out for verification [16].
Sources of uncertainty can fall under four main headings: sampling, calibration, the analytical method used, and environmental factors. In sampling, the sample collection type, method, storage conditions, and contaminations affect uncertainties. Uncertainty, accuracy, and precision are considered when evaluating the calibration curve. Calibration certificates of the standards used in calibration are used in uncertainty calculations. The uncertainty of measurement by gas chromatography is used as a reference method. Instrument sensitivity, the column, detector, eluent, and interferences gain importance here. Regarding environmental factors, ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity change the measurement sensitivity of these devices. In addition, measurement errors caused by the analyzer are considered environmental factors [17]. Standard deviations of experimental errors caused by a person are included in uncertainties. In addition, particular factors (recovery-induced and extraction-induced) are calculated as environmental factors in uncertainties. Ultimately, the uncertainties from all sources are calculated as a composite uncertainty. The composite standard uncertainty is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of all individual uncertainties. The combined standard uncertainty is multiplied by a coverage factor (k) to obtain the expanded uncertainty. The coverage factor is commonly chosen to provide a 95% confidence interval. Considering all uncertainty components, the measurement uncertainty is given as a single value: the expanded uncertainty (BTEX concentration = X ± U µg/m³).
In most studies on VOC measurements, only standard deviation values are given as uncertainty components. Although the number of studies detailing all sources of uncertainty is small, there are studies where uncertainty studies with passive samplers have been conducted. For example, Plaisance et al. determined the uncertainty components in a benzene analysis via the passive sampler method as the measured mass, desorption efficiency, uptake rate, and sampling time, which were 9.6, 2.4, 79.4, and 0.002, respectively [18].
The measurement method with the lowest VOC uncertainty value is GS-MS. Although it is difficult to find studies detailing all components, like our research, in a study by Yang et al. [19], the external standard uncertainty percentages were 1.16, 0.91, 0.99, 1.06, 0.81, and 1.01 for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, and o-xylene, respectively, for GC-MS. In the study by Plaisance et al. [18], the external standard uncertainty percentage was 1.20 for benzene under GC-MS. The external standard uncertainty percentages were 1.79, 0.72, 1.56, 1.45, and 0.94 for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m-p, xylene, and o-xylene, respectively, under GC-MS [20]. The repeatable uncertainty percentages for GC-MS were for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m-p, xylene, and o-xylene, 11, 17, 11, 10, and 11 [21].
Using gas chromatography and their weighted percentages, this study aimed to determine the measurement-induced uncertainty components in the outdoor measurement of BTEX, one of the VOC groups. In this study, essential uncertainty components were chosen, and composite uncertainty values were calculated based on the analyses. The Ishikawa diagram was used to calculate the uncertainty budget in the BTEX analysis. This diagram shows all the factors that influence the outcome of the analytical process for uncertainty quantification (Figure 1). Each factor represents the primary factor and its offshoots. The diagram includes the influence of parameters such as the pipettes’ accuracy, the purity of the chemicals, the instrument’s calibration, and the recovery (R). The pressure is neglected below 10% due to very low uncertainties [22]. Therefore, the pressure-induced uncertainty component is not considered in this study. This is then used to construct the uncertainty budget for the proposed method. The Ishikawa diagram has been used to calculate the uncertainty (u) of the result and represents an understanding of how an analytical method works.

2. Material and Methods

The device used for sampling is an Italian origin Eco and Tecora brand and DDS System (Dynamic Dilution Sampler for VOC Emission) model sampling device (Toscana, Italy). This device, which performs sampling by the TSE CEN/TS 13649 method [23], has a measurement range of 0.1–1.5 L/min and a resolution of 0.1 L/min. The activated carbon tubes belong to the British-origin CPL Puragen Company (Wigan, UK). The activated carbon tubes are 0.1 L/min and 1.5 L/min and comply with TS CEN/TS 1349:2015 standard [12]. Desorption for sample preparation was performed according to clause 7.2.1 of TS CEN/TS 13649:2015. Honeywell brand carbon disulfide (CS2) was used as an extraction solvent. Caliskan Ultrasonic Cleaner brand Lab. ult 4032 model was used as an ultrasonic bath. 800D model centrifuge was used (ERTIP, İstanbul, Turkey). J. T. Baker brand methanol solvent, LabKings Brand VOC Mix (2000 ppm), and Internal (2500 ppm) are used in gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) calibration processes in the laboratory. The above solvents used as samples were spiked onto activated carbon and analyzed. Shimadzu GC-MS–QP2010 of Japanese origin (Kyoto, Japan) was used as gas chromatography in the measurements. In gas chromatography, RESTEK brand Rtx model 60 m, 0.25 mm, 1.40 µm, CatLog: 10969, and serial number: 1498291 analytical column was used.
As a result of the calibration of the Eco and Tecora sampling device, the uncertainties at a 95% confidence interval taken from the calibration certificate are given in Table 1. Since the calibration certificate gives the number k as 2 and/or the confidence interval as 95%, the distribution type is considered to be the normal distribution. It is given as X ± C and calculated as u (x) = C/2. Although the flow rate of the sampling device is between 0.1 and 1.5 L/min, the certificate values for uncertainty are 1.090 and 1.095 L/min.
In the uncertainty calculations from the VOC Mix standard, lots of the same brands were used for the calibration curve and experimental studies. According to the findings obtained from the standards used, uncertainty components were calculated separately for each component and given in Table 2. Since the calibration certificate gives the number k as 2 and/or the confidence interval as 95%, the distribution type is considered to be the normal distribution. It is given as X ± C and calculated as u (x) = C/2.
The uncertainty values calculated according to the parameter (Chlorobenzene D5, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene D4, Fluorobenzene) in the certificate of 2500 mg/L 3-component internal standard used in calibration and analysis processes in the laboratory are shown in Table 3. Since the number k in the calibration certificate is given as 2 and/or the confidence interval is 95%, the distribution type is considered to be the normal distribution and given as X ± C and calculated as u (x) = C/2.
The study used Ertick brand micropipettes; the reproducibility uncertainty of the pipettes must be less than 0.30% for 50 microns and less than 0.15% for 1000 microns. As a result of the calibration of the micropipettes used in the laboratory, the uncertainty components were calculated according to the values taken from the calibration certificates and the temperature value 20 °C ± 5 for the pretreatment ambient temperature published by the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change, which should be ±5 °C in the laboratory temperature change in the studies carried out in the laboratory and given in Table 4. Since the calibration certificate gives the number k as 2 and/or the confidence interval as 95%, the distribution type is considered to be the normal distribution. It is given as X ± C and calculated as u (x) = C/2. If a certificate or other specification gives limits without a confidence level, the distribution type is considered rectangular and calculated as u (x) = C/√3.
For benzene, the recoveries were carried out by spiking activated carbon at 20 ppm. According to Annex B of the TSE CEN/TS 13649 standard, 80% was accepted as the recovery criterion, and the Eurachem/CITAC Guide of CG-4 was taken as the basis for calculations [24]. Recovery studies were carried out in 10 replicates with laboratory personnel.

3. Results and Discussion

The measurement uncertainty components were identified as sampling, VOC mixed standard, internal standard, micropipette use, temperature uncertainty, chemical uncertainty, calibration uncertainty, recovery uncertainty, repeatability uncertainty, and intermediate precision uncertainty and presented in the Ishikawa diagram. The Ishikawa diagram shows all the factors that influence the result of the analytical process (Figure 1).
In general, sources such as sampling heterogeneity, temperature, pressure, effects of gas composition, sample handling, and protection affect the sampling and the uncertainty of the sampler. Table 1 shows the uncertainties of the Eco-Tecora sampler according to the technical information of the main line, dilution line, temperature meter in both lines, and temperature meter in the sample probe.
In the uncertainty calculations of the VOC Mix standard, different batches of the same brand were used for the calibration curve and experimental studies. According to the results obtained from the standards used, the uncertainty components were calculated separately for each component and are presented in Table 2. Since the calibration certificate gives the number k as 2 and/or the confidence interval as 95%, the distribution type is normal and is given as X ± C and calculated as u (x) = C/2.
The uncertainty values calculated according to the parameter (chlorobenzene D5, 1,4-dichlorobenzene D4, fluorobenzene) in the certificate of the 2500 mg/L 3-component internal standard used in the calibration and analysis procedures in the laboratory are shown in Table 3.
As a result of the calibration of the micropipettes used in the laboratory, since the laboratory temperature change in the studies performed in the laboratory should be ±5 °C with the values taken from the calibration certificates, the uncertainty components were calculated using the temperature value of 20 °C ± 5 for the pretreatment ambient temperature and are given in Table 4.
The uncertainties arising from the atomic weights and purity of the methanol and carbon disulfide chemicals used are given in Table 5.
The calibration curve for BTEX was extracted at 6 points. Concentrations of 1 ppm, 2 ppm, 5 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, and 50 ppm were chosen for calibration. The calibration values are given in Table 6. Calibration plots with two replicates were prepared for calibration-induced uncertainties, and the appropriate equation system and uncertainty coefficients are shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty associated with the linear calibration curve for BTEX is given as follows:
U c a l = S o b × 1 p + 1 n × ( Y j Y a v ) b 2 × j = 1 n ( C j C a v )
where So is the residual standard deviation of the linear regression model; b is the slope of the curve; p is the number of measurements to determine Cj; n is the number of solutions used to plot the calibration Yi is the measured area of the aromatic hydrocarbon; Cj is the aromatic hydrocarbon concentration (mg/mL); j is the index of the number of measurements to obtain the calibration curve; av is the average value index.
Uncertainty arising from recovery was realized through the following steps:
R = M e a s u r e m e n t   V a l u e R e f e r e n c e   V a l u e   ( 20   ppm ) × 100
Combined standard deviation value
D = S D x , n 1 , A 2 + S D x , n 1 , B 2 n A + n B 2
where
SDx,n-1,A, B: standard deviation values for each analyst (A or B) separately according to nA,B sample numbers
Uncertainty value from recovery
U R = S D n A + n B
Average recovery in n sample runs for each analyst (A and B)
R o r t   = R 1 + R 2 + R n n
Overall average recovery value for analysts A and B
R o r t   = R o r t , A + R o r t , B 2
Uncertainty value for each analyst separately
U ( R e c ) A = S D ( R o r t , A ) n U R e c B = S D R o r t , A n  
Recovery processes for benzene were carried out by spiking activated carbon at 20 ppm. According to the TS CEN/TS 13649 standard [23], 80% was accepted as the recovery criterion, and the Eurachem/CITAC [24] standard was taken as the basis for the calculations. Recovery studies were carried out in 10 replicates with two laboratory personnel. The recovery uncertainty for BTEX is given in Table 7.
Reproducibility uncertainties, especially for BTEX, which are low aromatic compounds, lead to a decrease in the stability of the containers in which they are stored and, consequently, to a reduction in the concentration level. This can ultimately result in increased uncertainty [25]. The reproducibility results for BTEX in the laboratory, performed by Person A and Person B at a concentration of 10 ppm using the same instrument and a short time interval, are given in Table 8.
As can be seen in Table 8. all BTEX values for both analyses are tcritical> reference value, so there is no difference between the measured values of both analyses and the reference value. The repeatability values are adequate for both analysts. When the pairwise comparisons of the analysts were made by ANOVA, there was no difference between the variances of the analysts since Fcritical > Fcalculus and p-value > 0.05 for all BTEX values. Pairwise repeatability values are appropriate for all BTEXs.
The intermediate precision results for BTEX analyses in the laboratory for concentrations of 5 ppm, performed successively by persons A and B on different days, are given in Table 9.
The combined standard uncertainty was given by the following expression.
U c = U s a m p .   d e v . 2 + U M i x .   s t a n d . . 2 + U i n t .   s t d . 2 + U M i c . p i p .   & t e m p . . 2 + + U M a t m .   w e i . & P r u f i y . . 2 + U c a l 2 + U R e c o v e r y . . 2 + U M R e p o r d u c i b i l i t y . . 2 + ( U I n t .   P r e c i s i o n ) 2
Uncertainty of measurement is usually reported as expanded uncertainty, Ui = k.u (k: coverage factor) and “u” is the combined standard uncertainty (in Table 10). Usually, k is taken as 2, which gives a confidence interval of about 95%. Similarly, the expanded uncertainties for BTEX are;
In reporting the uncertainty, the experimental result “Y” is written as follows, together with the expanded uncertainty U calculated using the scope factor k = 2;
E x p e r i m e n t   R e s u l t Y ± E x t e n d e d   U n c e r t a i n t y   ( U ) × Y
As a result of the experiments performed, the reporting of the measurement uncertainty of the BTEX VOC groups in the flue gas is given in Table 11.
A summary representation of all uncertainty components for BTEX is given in Figure 3. When all uncertainty components are analyzed, it is seen that especially sampling uncertainty is the highest for all VOC groups, followed by intermediate precision and calibration uncertainties, respectively. Uncertainties of types of repeatability, VOC Mix Standard, and recovery can affect uncertainties moderately. Uncertainties Micropipette and Temperature Effect and Methanol and Carbon Disulfide, below 1% of the total uncertainty, are negligible.

4. Conclusions

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are extremely important because they are classified as carcinogens or toxins and include liquid particles in the form of particles with very long chain and aromatic rings and their vapors. For this reason, measuring VOCs is an issue that must be approached with great care. It is believed that the measurement uncertainties will add value to VOC measurements by following the path taken by internationally recognized accredited organizations in the precision of VOC measurements. To this end, this work has attempted to identify the steps that cause uncertainty in VOC measurements and which sources of uncertainty have a more significant impact on the measurement results. For this purpose, a laboratory accredited by TÜRKAK was used and all stages of the study were carried out with equipment, laboratory, methods, and personnel according to accreditation standards.
The study’s sampling, pretreatment, and analysis sections were prepared according to the TSE CEN/TS 13649 standard [12]. The uncertainty budget was evaluated using TSE CEN/TS 13649 and ISO GUM methods. Only verification studies were performed to establish the uncertainty budget.
BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), standard components in VOC measurements, were used in the uncertainty calculations. In the uncertainty calculations, 10 sources of uncertainty were identified, and an uncertainty budget was constructed for these sources. These sources of uncertainty were identified as sampling equipment uncertainty, VOC mixture standard uncertainty, internal standard uncertainty, micropipette and temperature effect uncertainty, methanol and carbon disulfide atomic weight and purity uncertainty, calibration curve uncertainty, recovery uncertainty, reproducibility uncertainty, intermediate precision uncertainty. The uncertainty budget identified sources of uncertainty, starting with sampling, pretreatment, and analysis. In the laboratory studies, the highest uncertainty value was found for the parameter “benzene” and the lowest for the parameter “m, p-xylene” at k = 2 95% confidence interval.
The reasons for the high uncertainty of benzene: As mentioned, it is likely due to the choice of chromatographic system, analysis of the stability of the sample, analytical sensitivity, deviations due to calibration, and lack of adaptation in the calibration function. Benzene has more isomers than xylene and is less reactive than benzene. Xylene is also less volatile than benzene. For these reasons, there are fewer losses in the analysis of xylene, which reduces uncertainty.
When the uncertainty components are analyzed for all VOC groups as summarised in Table 12, the highest uncertainty components were found to be 24% intermediate precision, 23% sampling system and 23% calibration for benzene, 23% intermediate precision, 23% sampling system and 21% calibration for toluene, 25% sampling system, 23% intermediate precision and 23% calibration for ethylbenzene, 25% sampling system, 24% intermediate precision and 22% calibration for m-p-xylene, 25% sampling system, 24% calibration and 22% intermediate precision for o-xylene. In the laboratory studies for the BTEX parameters of the VOC groups, it was found that the uncertainty components for all the BTEX parameters consist of the sampling system (instrument) uncertainty component, the intermediate precision uncertainty component, and the calibration curve uncertainty component for all the parameters, and since the other sources of uncertainty are small, their contribution to the measurement uncertainty is insignificant. EPA has reported that uncertainty values below 25% can be neglected [26]. Therefore, the uncertainty components to be considered are intermediate precision, sampling, and calibration.
Different isomer structures of gases are thought to be effective in calibration uncertainties.
Internal standards are essential in uncertainty assessments as they contribute to determining an isolated quantity of gas [28].
Pre-preparation of the samples when brought to the laboratory, incomplete extraction procedures, and interferences from sample transportation and storage lead to increased uncertainties.
Therefore, when determining the measurement uncertainties and essential elements in VOC analysis, it is necessary to focus on the sampling system (instrument), calibration curve, and intermediate precision studies.
As a result, because of detailed component analysis in GS-MS measurement methods, which have the lowest uncertainty values in VOC measurements, it was determined that intermediate precision, sampling, and calibration uncertainties are at non-negligible levels for the compound uncertainties determined.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.; methodology, A.A.; software, A.A.; validation, H.C.S.; formal analysis, H.C.S.; data curation, A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; checking, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to academic considerations.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Hayri Cihan Sıdal and Andaç Akdemir were employed by the company GT Global Technical Company Samsun Branch. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kanayankottupoyil, J.; Kuruvilla, J. Characterization and Source Apportionment of Ambient VOC Concentrations: Assessing Ozone Formation Potential in the Barnett Shale Oil and Gas Region. Atmos. Pollut. Resour. 2024, 102327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mai, J.L.; Yang, W.W.; Zeng, Y.; Guan, Y.; Chen, S. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in residential indoor air during interior finish period: Sources, variations, and health risks. Hyg. Environ. Health Adv. 2024, 9, 100087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cui, Y.; Liu, B.; Yang, Y.; Kang, S.; Wang, F.; Xu, M.; Wang, W.; Feng, Y.; Hopke, P.K. Primary and oxidative source analyses of consumed VOCs in the atmosphere. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 476, 134894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Elia, E.A.; Stylianou, M.; Agapiou, A. Investigation of the source of VOCs emission from indoor construction materials using electronic sensors and TD-GC-MS. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 348, 123765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xiao, Z.; Yang, X.; Gu, H.; Hu, J.; Zhang, T.; Chen, J.; Pan, X.; Xiu, G.; Zhang, W.; Lin, M. Characterization and sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during 2022 summer ozone pollution control in Shanghai, China. Atmos. Environ. 2024, 327, 120464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Halios, C.H.; Landeg-Cox, C.; Lowther, S.D.; Middleton, A.; Marczylo, T.; Dimitroulopoulou, S. Chemical in European resides-Part I: A review of emissions, concentrations, and health effects of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 839, 156201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, L.; Zhang, D.; Hu, W.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, R.; Lv, P.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Improving VOC control strategies in industrial parks based on emission behavior, environmental effects, and health risks: A case study through atmospheric measurement and emission inventory. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 865, 161235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hussain, M.S.; Gupta, G.; Mishra, R.; Patel, N.; Saurabh, G.; Alzarea, S.I.; Kumbhar, P.; Disouza, J.; Dureja, H.; Kukreti, N.; et al. Unlocking the secrets: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and their devastating effects on lung cancer. Pathol.-Res. Practice 2024, 255, 155157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hodgson, A.T. A Review and a limited comparison of methods for measuring total volatile organic compounds in indoor air. Indoor Air 1995, 5, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Taipale, R.; Ruuskanen, T.M.; Rinne, J.; Kajos, M.K.; Hakola, H.; Pohja, T.; Kulmala, M. Technical Note: Quantitative long-term measurements of VOC concentrations by PTR-MS-measurement, calibration, and volume mixing ratio calculation methods. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 6681–6698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kaser, L.; Karl, T.; Schnitzhofer, R.; Grauss, M.; Herdlinger-Blatt, I.S.; Digangi, J.P.; Sive, B.; Turnipseed, A.; Hornbrook, R.S.; Zheng, W.; et al. Comparision of different real time VOC measurement techniques in a ponderosa pine forest. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 2893–2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Posudin, Y. Methods of Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds. In Methods of Measuring Environmental Parameters; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; Chapter 18. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, R.H. Monitoring volatile organic compounds in air-the development of ISO standards and a critical appraisal of the methods. J. Environ. Monit. 2002, 4, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wisniewska, M.; Szylak-Szydlowski, M. The application of situ methods to monitor VOC concentrations in urban areas—A bibliometric analysis and measuring solution review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sassi, G.; Demichelis, A.; Lecuna, M.; Sassi, M.P. Preparation of standard VOC mixtures for climate monitoring. Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2015, 95, 1195–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. TS EN ISO/IEC 17025 2017; General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. The Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Türkiye, 2017.
  17. Konieczka, P.; Namiesnik, J. Estimating uncertainty in analytical precedures based on chromatographic techniques. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 882–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Plaisance, H.; Leonardis, T.; Gerboles, M. Assessment of uncertainty of benzene measurements by Radiello diffusive sampler. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 2555–2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, J.; Fan, Q.; Wang, Q.; Tian, W.; Qiu, P.; Gao, B.; Du, J. Uncertainty evaluation for nine VOC gas certified references materials used for indoor air testing. Microchem. J. 2022, 283, 107935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Güzel, B.; Canli, O. Method validation and measurement uncertainty of possible thirty volatile organic compounds (VOCs) presented in the polyethylene present in bottled drinking waters sold in Turkey. J. Anal. Sci. Technol. 2020, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Weisel, C.P.; Jhang, J.; Turpin, B.J.; Morandi, M.T.; Colome, S.; Stock, T.H.; Spektor, D.M.; Korn, L.; Winer, A.; Alimokhtarı, S.; et al. Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA) study: Study design, methods and quality assurance/control results. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2005, 15, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sassi, G.; Demichelis, A.; Sassi, M.P. Uncertainty analysis of the diffusion rate in the dynamic generation of volatile organic compounds mixtures. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 105104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. TS CEN/TS 13649:2014; Stationary Source Emissions—Determination of the Mass Concentration of Individual Gaseous Organic Compounds—Sorptive Sampling Method Followed by Solvent Extraction or Thermal Desorption. Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Türkiye, 2014.
  24. EURACHEM/CITAC CG 4:2012; Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement. 3rd ed. Eurachem: Bucharest, Romania, 2012.
  25. Ballesta, P.P.; Field, R.; Saeger, E.D. Interlaboratory exercises for volatile organic compound determination. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 5729–5740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. US EPA. Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatograpy. In Compendium Method TO-15; Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1999; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sidal, H.C. Calculating the Measurement Uncertainty of BTEX VOC Groups in Stack Gas Sampling. Master’s Thesis, Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi Institute of Graduate Studies Department of Environmental Engineering, Samsun, Türkiye, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  28. Huxham, M.; Thomas, C.I.P. Sampling precedures for instrinsically valid volatile organic compounds measurements. Analyst 2000, 125, 825–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Ishikawa diagram for determination of BTEX in ambient air (A, B, C, and D are uncertainty component categories. Uc is compound uncertainty value).
Figure 1. Ishikawa diagram for determination of BTEX in ambient air (A, B, C, and D are uncertainty component categories. Uc is compound uncertainty value).
Atmosphere 15 01416 g001
Figure 2. Calibration values and uncertainty for BTEX.
Figure 2. Calibration values and uncertainty for BTEX.
Atmosphere 15 01416 g002
Figure 3. A summary representation of all uncertainty components for BTEX.
Figure 3. A summary representation of all uncertainty components for BTEX.
Atmosphere 15 01416 g003
Table 1. Combined uncertainty from the sampling device.
Table 1. Combined uncertainty from the sampling device.
Components of UncertaintyReference Standard Flow (q)(L/min)Value
(X)
Distribution TypeFactoru(x)1
Sampling Device Flowmeter (Main Line)1.0900.124Normal20.062
Sampling Device Flowmeter (Dilution Line)1.0950.124Normal20.062
Sampling Device Temperature Meter (Sample) t = (30.09 °C)-0.42Normal20.210
Sampling Device Temperature Meter (Dilution) t = (30.09 °C)-0.42Normal20.210
Sampling Device Temperature Meter (Probe) t = (30.09 °C)-0.42Normal20.210
From the Sampling Device
Combined Uncertainty
Ub(1)0.0813
Table 2. Combined uncertainty from the VOC mix standard.
Table 2. Combined uncertainty from the VOC mix standard.
Components of UncertaintyVOC Mix
(For 2000 mg.L−1)
Value
(X)
Distribution TypeFactoru(x)1u(x)b
Benzene (Analysis)1997110Normal255.000.028
Benzene (Calibration)199729.23Normal214.615
Toluene (Analysis)2000110Normal255.000.028
Toluene (Calibration)200029.34Normal214.670
Ethylbenzene (Analysis)1998110Normal255.000.028
Ethylbenzene (Calibration)199829.31Normal214.655
m,p-Xylene (Analysis)1999110Normal255.000.027
m,p-Xylene (Calibration)199929.32Normal214.660
o-Xylene (Analysis)1998110Normal255.000.027
o-Xylene (Calibration)199835.41Normal217.705
Table 3. Compound uncertainty from the internal standard.
Table 3. Compound uncertainty from the internal standard.
Components of Internal UncertaintyInternal
(For 2500 mg/L)
Value
(X)
Distribution TypeFactoru(x)1u(x)3
Chlorobenzene D52507.424.9Normal212.45
1,4-Dichlorobenzene D42506.226.4Normal213.200.0088
Fluorobenzene2509.524.7Normal212.35
Table 4. Combined uncertainty from micropipette and laboratory temperature.
Table 4. Combined uncertainty from micropipette and laboratory temperature.
Components of Internal UncertaintyValue
(X)
Distribution TypeFactoru(x)1u(x)4
Micropipette (1 mL)0.99Normal20.495
Temperature Effect Uncertainty ( 1   m L × 5 × 10 4 ) 0.002Rectangle1.730.0010.002
Micro pipette (50 µL)0.19Normal20.095
Temperature Effect Uncertainty ( 0.05   m L × 5 × 10 4 ) 0.0001Rectangle1.730.000
Table 5. Combined uncertainty from atomic weight and purity of chemicals.
Table 5. Combined uncertainty from atomic weight and purity of chemicals.
ChemicalsUncertaintyPurity
(%)
Value
(X)
Distribution TypeFactoru(x)1u(x)5
Methanol (CH3OH)2507.4-0.10Rectangle1.730.000691
Methanol (CH3OH)2506.299.8Rectangle0.0600.00067
Carbondisulfide (CS2)2509.5-0.05Rectangle1.730.009817
Carbondisulfide (CS2) 99.9Rectangle0.02887
Table 6. Calibration values and uncertainty for BTEX (for concentrations 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and ppm).
Table 6. Calibration values and uncertainty for BTEX (for concentrations 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and ppm).
BTEXSample
(n)
Calibration
Equation
(Y)
Coefficient of Determination (R2)p
Value
Residual (Error) Standard Deviation (So)Uncertainty Value
U(Co)
Benzene12 Y = 22.702 × X + 5.011 0.99938<0.0523.50440.795
Toluene12 Y = 22.889 × X + 1.949 0.99967<0.0521.7480.730
Ethylbenzene12 Y = 22.327 × X + 1.315 0.99967<0.0526.3470.740
m,p-Xylene 12 Y = 44.905 × X + 1.766 0.99968<0.0542.1130.720
o-Xylene12 Y = 22.868 × X + 0.905 0.99969<0.0523.1830.778
Table 7. Recovery uncertainty for BTEX (for reference value 20 ppm).
Table 7. Recovery uncertainty for BTEX (for reference value 20 ppm).
BTEXStd. Dev. (SD)
(%)
Rort,A,BU(Rec)
(%)
p
Value
Uncertainty Value
(UR)
Benzene12.978
8.497
0.956
0.928
4.104
2.687
<0.05
<0.05
0.0245
Toluene13.139
22.926
0.986
1.107
4.155
7.250
<0.05
<0.05
0.0418
Ethylbenzene14.655
3.340
1.094
1.032
4.634
1.056
<0.05
<0.05
0.0238
m,p-Xylene15.475
3.774
1.073
0.998
4.894
1.193
<0.05
<0.05
0.0252
o-Xylene17.334
4.205
1.060
0.970
5.481
1.330
<0.05
<0.05
0.0282
Table 8. Reproducibility uncertainty for BTEX.
Table 8. Reproducibility uncertainty for BTEX.
BTEXStd. Dev. (S)Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD)p
Value
Uncertainty Value
(UR)
Benzene0.181
0.425
2.077
5.080
>0.05
<0.05
3.8807
Toluene0.200
0.371
2.347
4.491
<0.05
<0.05
3.5828
Ethylbenzene0.152
0.327
1.701
3.715
<0.05
<0.05
2.8894
m,p-Xylene0.162
0.323
1.804
3.651
<0.05
<0.05
2.8797
o-Xylene0.153
0.303
1.704
3.391
<0.05
<0.05
2.6834
Table 9. Intermediate precision uncertainty for BTEX.
Table 9. Intermediate precision uncertainty for BTEX.
BTEXStd. Dev. (S)Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD)p
Value
Uncertainty Value
(UR)
Benzene0.237
0.460
5.586
10.635
<0.05
<0.05
8.4940
Toluene0.221
0.420
5.218
9.799
<0.05
<0.05
7.8499
Ethylbenzene0.284
0.396
6.176
8.761
<0.05
<0.05
7.5796
m,p-xylene0.290
0.403
6.265
8.872
<0.05
<0.05
7.6797
o-Xylene0.287
0.395
6.207
8.650
<0.05
<0.05
7.5281
Table 10. Extended uncertainty values for BTEX.
Table 10. Extended uncertainty values for BTEX.
BTEXRelative Compound Uncertainty (Ub)k Factors
(for 95%)
Extended Uncertainty (Ug)
Benzene0.1523120.3046
Toluene0.1477920.2955
Ethylbenzene0.1415620.2831
m,p-xylene0.1411720.2823
o-Xylene0.1436820.2873
Table 11. Uncertainty reporting for BTEX.
Table 11. Uncertainty reporting for BTEX.
ReportingBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzenem, p-Xyleneo-Xylene
Relative Compound Uncertainty0.152310.147790.141560.141170.14368
Measurement Result (ppm)10.00010.00010.00010.00010.000
Standard Compound Uncertainty1.52311.47791.41561.41171.4387
Extended Uncertainty (k = 2)3.04622.95582.83122.82342.8736
Relative Uncertainty (%)30.46229.55828.31228.23428.736
Reporting k = 2 at 95% confidence interval10 ± 3.04610 ± 2.95510 ± 2.83110 ± 2.82310 ± 2.873
Uncertainty calculation formulaY ± 0.304YY ± 0.295YY ± 0.283YY ± 0.282YY ± 0.287Y
Table 12. The Summarizing uncertainty percentages for BTEX [27].
Table 12. The Summarizing uncertainty percentages for BTEX [27].
Components of Uncertainty
Percentages (%)
BenzeneTolueneEthylbenzenem,p-Xyleneo-Xylene
Intermediate Certainty2423232423
Sampling System (Device)2323252525
Calibration Curve2321232224
Repeatability1110998
VOC Mix Standard88988
Recovery711788
The Internal Standard33333
Micropipette and Temperature Effect11111
Methanol and Carbon Disulfide00000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sıdal, H.C.; Akdemir, A. Investigation of the Measurement Uncertainties in the Measurement of BTEX in the Volatile Organic Compound Group. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121416

AMA Style

Sıdal HC, Akdemir A. Investigation of the Measurement Uncertainties in the Measurement of BTEX in the Volatile Organic Compound Group. Atmosphere. 2024; 15(12):1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121416

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sıdal, Hayri Cihan, and Andaç Akdemir. 2024. "Investigation of the Measurement Uncertainties in the Measurement of BTEX in the Volatile Organic Compound Group" Atmosphere 15, no. 12: 1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121416

APA Style

Sıdal, H. C., & Akdemir, A. (2024). Investigation of the Measurement Uncertainties in the Measurement of BTEX in the Volatile Organic Compound Group. Atmosphere, 15(12), 1416. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121416

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop