Abstract
The two versions of the reference method of sulphur dioxide (SO2) measurement in ambient air (pararosaniline method) available as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) USA (CFR 40 Part 50, Appendix A) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) India (IS 5182 (Part 2):2001) standard methods were analytically studied. For accuracy and precision of the data obtained, a certain set of specifications should be ascertained before using the method for sample analysis as per the guidelines. On comparing the two methods of operation, the stated set of specifications are fulfilled for the EPA method but not for the BIS method. A different set of specifications were observed for the BIS method (absorbance blank: 0.012 ± 0.001 abs units, slope of calibration curve: 0.014 ± 0.001 abs units/µg SO2, intercept of calibration curve: 0.003 ± 0.002, calibration factor:72.0 ± 4.2). The absorption efficiency as well as the method efficiency of both methods were tested using three different concentrations (0.3 ppm, 0.5 ppm, and 0.8 ppm) of standard SO2 gas. The absorption efficiency of both the methods was found to be 100%. The average method efficiency of the EPA method at 0.3 ppm, 0.5 ppm and 0.8 ppm were found to be 81 ± 8%, 81 ± 6% and 87 ± 1% while that of BIS method was observed to be 91 ± 5%, 93 ± 2%, 89 ± 4% at the respective concentrations. An uncertainty estimation study was also performed considering factors involved in sampling and analysis. A combined uncertainty < 9% and < 7% was observed for EPA and BIS method, respectively. This study presents a comprehensive examination of the operational aspects of two versions of pararosaniline method employed for measuring SO2 in ambient air. The results indicate a need for redefining the specifications outlined in the BIS method. Notably, the BIS method displays greater sensitivity to low blank values compared to the EPA method. Additionally, the study introduces, for the first time, working factors and specifications associated with the BIS method for SO2 measurement. These findings suggest their potential inclusion in the standard method as a means to enhance data quality and reliability in the assessment of SO2 levels in ambient air.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All the data and materials related to the manuscript are published with this paper, and available from the corresponding author upon request (aggarwalsg@nplindia.org).
References
Agarwal R, Aggarwal SG (2023) A year-round study of ambient gaseous pollutants, their atmospheric chemistry and role in secondary particle formation at an urban site in Delhi. Atmos Environ 295:119557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119557
Almeida J, Schobesberger S, Kürten A, Ortega IK, Kupiainen-Määttä O, Praplan AP et al (2013) Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere. Nature 502(7471):359–363. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12663
Blacker JH, Confer RG, Brief RS (1973) Note on an Evaluation of the Reference Method for Determination of Sulphur Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Pararosaniline Method). J Air Pollut Control Assoc 23(6):525–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1973.10469800
Bureau of Indian Standard (2001) Method for measurement of air pollution, Part 2 Sulphur Dioxide, IS: 5182 (Part 2):2001
Currie LA (1995) Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and quantification capabilities (IUPAC Recommendations 1995). Pure Appl Chem 67(10):1699–1723. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199567101699
Gillette DG (1975) Sulphur dioxide and material damage. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 25(12):1238–1243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1975.10470202
Goyal SK (2001) Use of rosaniline hydrochloride dye for atmospheric SO 2 determination and method sensitivity analysis. J Environ Monit 3(6):666–670. https://doi.org/10.1039/B106209N
Goyal SK (2006) Effect of reagent (dye) addition in wet chemical method of sulphur dioxide determination in ambient air. Environ Monit Assess 120:461–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9073-9
ICH Expert Working Group (2005) ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology Q2 (R1). Current Step 4:1–17
International Organisation for Standard (1990) Ambient air-determination of mass concentration of sulphur dioxide-Tetrachloromercurate/pararosaniline method, ISO 6767:1990(E)
Jung JG, Pandis SN, Adams PJ (2008) Evaluation of nucleation theories in a sulphur-rich environment. Aerosol Sci Tech 42(7):495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802187085
Knabe W (1976) Effects of sulphur dioxide on terrestrial vegetation. Ambio 5(5/6):213–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312219
Li C, McLinden C, Fioletov V, Krotkov N, Carn S, Joiner J et al (2017) India is overtaking China as the world’s largest emitter of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide. Sci Rep 7(1):14304. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14639-8
Marczenko Z, Balcerzak M (2000) Sulphur. In: Separation, preconcentration and spectrophotometry in inorganic analysis, vol 10. Elsevier, pp 403–411
Nauman RV, West PW, Tron F, Gaeke GC (1960) A spectrophotometric study of the Schiff reaction as applied to the quantitative determination of sulfur dioxide. Anal Chem 32(10):1307–1311. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60166a023
Pate JB, Lodge JP Jr, Wartburg AF (1962) Effect of pararosaniline in the trace determination of sulphur dioxide. Anal Chem 34(12):1660–1662. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60192a001
Sarangi B, Aggarwal SG, Kunwar B, Kumar S, Kaur R, Sinha D et al (2018) Nighttime particle growth observed during spring in New Delhi: Evidences for the aqueous phase oxidation of SO2. Atmos Environ 188:82–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.06.018
Scaringelli FP, Saltzman BE, Frey SA (1967) Spectrophotometric determination of atmospheric sulphur dioxide. Anal Chem 39(14):1709–1719. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac50157a031
Seinfeld JH, Pandis SN (2016) Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey
Shrivastava A, Gupta VB (2011) Methods for the determination of limit of detection and limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Chron Young Sci 2(1):21–25. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5186.79345
Trieff NM, WohIers HC, O’Malley JA, Newstein H (1968) Appraisal and modification of West-Gaeke method for sulphur dioxide determination. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 18(5):329–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1968.10469136
United States Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1971) Reference method for the determination of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere (Pararosaniline Method), CFR 40 (Part 50), Appendix A. Federal Register 36 (228)
Wang G, Zhang R, Gomez ME, Yang L, Zamora ML, Hu M et al (2016) Persistent sulfate formation from London Fog to Chinese haze. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(48):13630–13635. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616540113
Wang J, Li J, Ye J, Zhao J, Wu Y, Hu J et al (2020) Fast sulfate formation from oxidation of SO2 by NO2 and HONO observed in Beijing haze. Nat Commun 11(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16683-x
West PW, Gaeke GC (1956) Fixation of sulphur dioxide as sulfitomercurate (II) and subsequent colorimetric determination. Anal Chem 28:1916–1819. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60120a005
West PW, Ordoveza FE (1962) Elimination of nitrogen dioxide interference in the determination of sulphur dioxide. Anal Chem 34(10):1324–1325. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60190a038
World Health Organization (2021) WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2. 5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide. World Health Organization
Acknowledgements
RA expresses gratitude to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for providing JRF fellowship (Ref No. 23196/(NET-DEC. 2015)). Authors are thankful to the Director, CSIR-National Physical Laboratory for providing necessary support to carry out this work. We also thank KENTEK Environmental Technology, Korea for providing instruments and assistance for this work.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RA performed experimental work, data analysis and wrote the draft of the manuscript. SGA conceptualized the study and provided overall guidance and continuous examinations of the work, and reviewed the manuscript. DS and KS helped in preparation of gas standards and experimental setup.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Agarwal, R., Aggarwal, S.G., Soni, D. et al. An analytical comparison of two versions (US EPA and BIS) of pararosaniline method used for monitoring of ambient SO2. Air Qual Atmos Health (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-024-01553-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-024-01553-y