Comparing Short-Term Volatile Organic Compound Measurements in Fenceline Environments Using Multiple Mobile Air Monitoring Platforms and Methods

The presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can increase the air pollution burden in fenceline communities. Technological advancements have made mobile air toxic monitoring a useful and attractive approach to spatially quantify VOC concentrations in real-time, but there is a need to evaluate the accuracy of these measurements in real-world applications using intercomparison techniques. Here, we conducted a two-week field campaign near different VOC-emitting facilities using three different mobile monitoring platforms and four different ambient VOC-measurement technologies. Our primary focus was the intercomparison of a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS) and canister samples analyzed by an offline gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GC-MS), but we also collected measurements using a closed-path ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectrometer (UV-DOAS) and a selected ion flow tube mass spectrometer (SIFT-MS). The PTR-ToF-MS and offline GC-MS analyses show strong agreement in stationary settings (all targeted VOCs R2 = 0.92, slope = 1.1) for aromatic compounds including benzene (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001), naphthalene (R2 = 0.84, p < 0.01), and xylenes + ethylbenzene (R2 = 0.93, p < 0.01). PTR-ToF-MS and UV-DOAS comparisons have varied results. The UV-DOAS compared well at some monitoring locations but had poor agreement in ambient air matrices containing naphthalene, which caused uncorrectable interferences for measurements of benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Lastly, the PTR-ToF-MS and SIFT-MS showed strong agreement (all targeted VOCs R2 = 0.68, slope = 0.85) in mobile format comparisons but only when aldehyde compounds with high background noise were removed. Our results highlight some potential interferences that should be accounted for when performing monitoring of mobile air toxics and demonstrate multi-instrument comparison techniques that can be used to ensure robust data collection.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACS ES&T Air
Published
2025-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00169
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.80

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Short-Term Volatile Organic Compound Measurements in Fenceline Environments Using Multiple Mobile Air Monitoring Platforms and Methods

Marta Fuoco, Eben D. Thoma, Samuel Porter, Aikaterini Liangou et al.
1 citations
ACS ES&T Air
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
0.80
article

Comparing Short-Term Volatile Organic Compound Measurements in Fenceline Environments Using Multiple Mobile Air Monitoring Platforms and Methods

Marta Fuoco, Eben D. Thoma, Samuel Porter, Aikaterini Liangou, Antonios Tasoglou, Leslie P. Silva, Justin G. Coughlin, Scott Hamilton, Katherine Haile
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can increase the air pollution burden in fenceline communities. Technological advancements have made mobile air toxic monitoring a useful and attractive approach to spatially quantify VOC concentrations in real-time, but there is a need to evaluate the accuracy of these measurements in real-world applications using intercomparison techniques. Here, we conducted a two-week field campaign near different VOC-emitting facilities using three different mobile monitoring platforms and four different ambient VOC-measurement technologies. Our primary focus was the intercomparison of a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS) and canister samples analyzed by an offline gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GC-MS), but we also collected measurements using a closed-path ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectrometer (UV-DOAS) and a selected ion flow tube mass spectrometer (SIFT-MS). The PTR-ToF-MS and offline GC-MS analyses show strong agreement in stationary settings (all targeted VOCs R2 = 0.92, slope = 1.1) for aromatic compounds including benzene (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001), naphthalene (R2 = 0.84, p < 0.01), and xylenes + ethylbenzene (R2 = 0.93, p < 0.01). PTR-ToF-MS and UV-DOAS comparisons have varied results. The UV-DOAS compared well at some monitoring locations but had poor agreement in ambient air matrices containing naphthalene, which caused uncorrectable interferences for measurements of benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Lastly, the PTR-ToF-MS and SIFT-MS showed strong agreement (all targeted VOCs R2 = 0.68, slope = 0.85) in mobile format comparisons but only when aldehyde compounds with high background noise were removed. Our results highlight some potential interferences that should be accounted for when performing monitoring of mobile air toxics and demonstrate multi-instrument comparison techniques that can be used to ensure robust data collection.

ACS ES&T AirVol. 2(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (US), Research Triangle Park Foundation (US), Raytheon Technologies (Finland) (FI), Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (US), Montrose Center (US), RJ Lee Group (United States) (US)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
0.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.