Hier finden Sie wissenschaftliche Publikationen aus den Fraunhofer-Instituten.

Sampling and analysis of terpenes in air. An interlaboratory comparison

: Larsen, B.; Bomboi-Mingarro, T.; Brancaleoni, E.; Calogirou, A.; Cecinato, A.; Coeur, C.; Chatzianestis, I.; Duane, M.; Frattoni, M.; Fugit, J.-L.; Hansen, U.; Jacob, V.; Mimikos, N.; Hoffmann, T.; Owen, S.; Perez Pastor, R.; Reichmann, A.; Seufert, G.; Staudt, M.; Steinbrecher, R.


Atmospheric environment 31 (1997), No.SI, pp.35-49 : Ill., Lit.
ISSN: 0004-6981
ISSN: 1352-2310
Journal Article
Fraunhofer IFU; 2002 in Helmholtz-Gesellschaft integriert
analysis; artifact; inter-comparison; monoterpene; ozone; sampling

An interlaboratory comparison on the sampling and analysis of terpenes in air was held within the framework of the BEMA (Biogenic Emissions in the Mediterranean Area) project in May 1995. Samples were drawn and analysed by 10 European laboratories from a dynamic artificial air generator in which five terpenes were present at low ng litre(-1) levels and ozone varied between 8 and 125 ppbv. Significant improvements over previous inter-comparison exercises in the quality of results were observed. At the ozone mixing ratio of 8 ppbv a good agreement among laboratories was obtained for all test compounds with mean values close to the target concentration. At higher mixing ratios, ozone reduced terpene recoveries and decreased the precision of the measurements due to ozonolysis during sampling. For beta-pinene this effect was negligible but for the more reactive compounds significant losses were observed in some laboratories (cis-beta-ocimene = trans-beta-ocimene > linalool > d-limonene). Th e detrimental effect of ozone was significantly lower for the laboratories which removed ozone prior to sampling by scrubbers. Parallel sampling was carried out with a standardised sampler and each individual laboratory's own device. A good agreement between the two sets of results was obtained, clearly showing that the majority of laboratories used efficient sampling systems. Two different standard solutions were analysed by each laboratory. Only in a few cases did interference in the GC separation cause problems for the quantification of the terpenes (nonanal/linalool). However, making up of standards for the calibration of the analytical equipment (GC-MS or GC-FID) was pointed out as a source of error in some laboratories.