Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Hazard Mater ; 426: 128108, 2022 03 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34952502

RESUMO

A frost filter (FRF) was developed as a humidity pretreatment device (HPD) to improve the measurement of ambient ozone (O3). The FRF was produced in a tube, which was supercooled by a thermoelectric cooling device based on the Peltier effect. The relative humidity (RH) of the air samples varied from 30% to 80% at 25 °C, and the O3 concentration was set as 100 ppbv. Besides O3, SO2 at 150 ppbv was used for comparison. The density of the FRF was evaluated. Comparison studies on the humidity removal efficiencies and loss ratios of analytes among a FRF HPD, a short Nafion™ tube (NS), and a long Nafion™ tube (NL) HPDs were conducted. As results, the density of the FRF was dependent on the temperature at a fixed sampling flow rate. The outlet humidity of both the FRF and the NL HPDs were less than 8% RH at 25 °C. The mean concentrations of O3 and SO2 after the FRF HPD were similar to the initial concentrations at all humidity levels, whereas they were significantly different for both the NS and NL HPDs at higher humidity. This suggests that the FRF HPD is a reliable humidity pretreatment for O3 measurements.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , Ozônio , Ar , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Monitoramento Ambiental , Umidade , Ozônio/análise
2.
Anal Chem ; 92(18): 12152-12159, 2020 09 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32786445

RESUMO

Interference is a pivotal issue of a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) sensor and analyzer. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is to introduce a potential method to compensate for the interference of the NDIR analysis. A potential method to compensate for the interference of a nitric oxide (NO) NDIR analyzer was developed. Double bandpass filters (BPFs) with HITRAN (high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database)-based wavelengths were used to create an ultranarrow bandwidth, where there were least-interfering effects with respect to the coal-fired power plant emission gas compositions. Key emission gases from a coal-fired power plant, comprising carbon monoxide (CO), NO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water (H2O) (in the form of vapor), were used to investigate the gas interference. The mixtures of those gases were also used to investigate the performance of the double BPFs. We found that CO, CO2, SO2, and H2O significantly affected the detection of NO when a commercial, single narrow BPF was used. In contrast, the double BPFs could remove the interference of CO, NO2, SO2, and CO2 in terms of their concentrations. In the case of H2O, the filter performed well until a level of 50% relative humidity at 25 °C. Moreover, the signal-to-noise ratio of the analyzer was approximately 10 when the double BPFs were applied. In addition, the limit of detection of the analyzer with the double BPFs was approximately 4 ppm, whereas that with the commercial one was 1.3 ppm. Therefore, double BPFs could be used for an NO NDIR analyzer instead of a gas filter correlation to improve the selectivity of the analyzer under the condition of a known gas composition, such as a coal-fired power plant. However, the sensitivity of the analyzer would be decreased.

3.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31533231

RESUMO

Water vapor is a pivotal obstacle when measuring ambient air pollutants. The effects of water vapor removal devices which are called KPASS (Key-compound PASSer) and Cooler. On the measurement of O3, SO2, and CO at ambient levels were investigated. Concentrations of O3, SO2, and CO were 100 ppb, 150 ppb, and 25 ppm, respectively. The amount of water vapor varied at different relative humidity levels of 30%, 50%, and 80% when the temperature was 25 °C and the pressure was 1 atm. Water vapor removal efficiencies and recovery rates of target gases were also determined. The KPASS showed a better performance than the Cooler device, removing 93.6% of water vapor and the Cooler removing 59.2%. In terms of recovery, the KPASS showed a better recovery of target gases than the Cooler. Consequently, it is suggested that the KPASS should be an alternative way to remove water vapor when measuring O3, SO2, and CO.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Monóxido de Carbono/análise , Monitoramento Ambiental/métodos , Umidade/prevenção & controle , Ozônio/análise , Dióxido de Enxofre/análise , Monitoramento Ambiental/instrumentação , Compostos Inorgânicos/análise
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA