Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Evaluation of Direct Reading Photoionization Detector Performance Under Various Operational Parameters Publisher



Khoshakhlagh AH1, 2 ; Golbabaei F2 ; Beygzadeh M3 ; Carrascomarin F4 ; Shahtaheri SJ2, 5
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Department of Energy, Materials and Energy Research Center, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Carbon Materials Research Group, Faculty of Science, University of Granada, Avda. Fuente Nueva s/n, Spain
  5. 5. Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Source: Environmental Health Engineering and Management Published:2021


Abstract

Background: A hand-held portable direct-reading monitor, including photoionization detector (PID) is renowned for its good sensitivity, considerable dynamic range, and nondestructive vapor detection ability in comparison to the tardy response of the PID in gas chromatography (GC), which its application has been restricted. In this study, the performance of a PID system (MultiRAE Lite) was evaluated as a replacement of GC in the measurement of toluene in a dynamic adsorption system. Methods: The test was done at different relative humidity levels (30%, 50%, and 80%), temperatures (21, 30, 40°C), and toluene concentrations (20, 100, 200, and 400 ppm). Results: The PID achieved 48% of all measurements meeting the comparison criterion. The results showed that the performance of the PID could be altered by the variables. The best performance of the PID was at temperature of 21°C, the relative humidity of 50%, and concentration of 200 ppm with the percentage of readings achieving the criterion of comparison to 58%, 54%, and 52%, respectively. The averages of the PID readings (mean ± SD at 200 ppm= 207.9 ± 8.7) were higher than the reference method measurements averages (mean ± SD at 200 ppm= 203.5 ± 5.8). The regression analysis of the toluene results from the PID and the reference method results indicated that the measurements were significantly correlated (r2 = 0.93). Conclusion: According to the results, the device response is linear. Therefore, the findings are acceptable in adsorption studies. In this way, the measurement of the sample concentration should be performed using the same instrument before and after the reactor in order to calculate the adsorption efficiency. © 2021 The Author(s).