Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp 9345–9355 | Cite as

Emission characteristics of VOCs emitted from consumer and commercial products and their ozone formation potential

  • Trieu-Vuong Dinh
  • Su-Yeon Kim
  • Youn-Suk Son
  • In-Young Choi
  • Seong-Ryong Park
  • Young Sunwoo
  • Jo-Chun KimEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The characteristics of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from several consumer and commercial products (body wash, dishwashing detergent, air freshener, windshield washer fluid, lubricant, hair spray, and insecticide) were studied and compared. The spray products were found to emit the highest amount of VOCs (~96 wt%). In contrast, the body wash products showed the lowest VOC contents (~1.6 wt%). In the spray products, 21.6–96.4 % of the VOCs were propane, iso-butane, and n-butane, which are the components of liquefied petroleum gas. Monoterpene (C10H16) was the dominant component of the VOCs in the non-spray products (e.g., body wash, 53–88 %). In particular, methanol was present with the highest amount of VOCs in windshield washer fluid products. In terms of the number of carbon, the windshield washer fluids, lubricants, insecticides, and hair sprays comprised >95 % of the VOCs in the range C2–C5. The VOCs in the range C6–C10 were predominantly found in the body wash products. The dishwashing detergents and air fresheners contained diverse VOCs from C2 to C11. Besides comprising hazardous VOCs, VOCs from consumer products were also ozone precursors. The ozone formation potential of the consumer and commercial spray products was estimated to be higher than those of liquid and gel materials. In particular, the hair sprays showed the highest ozone formation potential.

Keywords

VOCs Spray Ozone formation potential Consumer product Commercial product Monoterpene 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment by “Eco-Innovation project (411-113-013)”.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_4092_MOESM1_ESM.doc (88 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 87 kb)

References

  1. California Environmental Protection Agency-Cal. EPA (2005) CARB 310—determination of volatile organic compounds in consumer products and reactive organic compounds in aerosol coating productsGoogle Scholar
  2. Carter WPL (1994) Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds. J Air Waste Manag 44:881–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter WPL (2013) Estimation of ozone reactivities for volatile organic compound speciation profiles in the Speciate 4.2 Database. Center for Environmental Research and Technology, University of California, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang CC, Chen TY, Lin CY, Yuan CS, Liu SC (2005) Effects of reactive hydrocarbons on ozone formation in southern Taiwan. Atmos Environ 39:2867–2878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duan JC, Tan JH, Yang L, Wu S, Hao J (2008) Concentration, sources and ozone formation potential of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during ozone episode in Beijing. Atmos Res 88:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Collaborative Action (ECA) (1997) Report No. 19. Total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) in indoor air quality investigationsGoogle Scholar
  7. ISO 16000-6 (2002) Indoor air—part 6: determination of volatile organic compounds in indoor and chamber air by active sampling on TENAX TA sorbent, thermal desorption and gas chromatography using MSD/FIDGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO 16000-9 (2004) Indoor air—part 9: determination of the emission of volatile organic compounds—emission test chamber methodGoogle Scholar
  9. Jo WK, Lee JH, Kim MK (2008) Head-space, small-chamber and in-vehicle tests for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from air fresheners for the Korean market. Chemosphere 70:1827–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim JC (2001) Factors controlling natural VOCs emission in a southeastern US pine forest. Atmos Environ 35:3279–3292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim YH, Kim KH, Szulejko JE, Bae MS, Brown RJC (2014) Experimental validation of an effective carbon number-based approach for the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry quantification of ‘Compounds lacking authentic standards or surrogates’. Anal Chim Acta 830:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kwon KD, Jo WK (2007) Indoor emission characteristics of liquid household products using purge - and - trap method. Environ Eng R 12:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kwon KW, Jo WK, Lim HJ, Jeong WS (2007) Characterization of emissions composition for selected household products available in Korea. J Hazard Mater 148:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kwon KD, Jo WK, Lim HJ, Jeong WS (2008) Volatile pollutants emitted from selected liquid household products. Environ Sci Pollut R 15:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latella A, Stani G, Cobelli L, Duane M, Junninen H, Astorga C, Larsen BR (2005) Semicontinuous GC analysis and receptor modeling for source apportionment of ozone precursor hydrocarbons in Bresso. Milan, J Chromatogr A 1071:29–39Google Scholar
  16. Ling ZH, Guo H, Cheng HR, Yu YF (2011) Sources of ambient volatile organic compounds and their contributions to photochemical ozone formation at a site in the Pearl River Delta, southern China. Environ Pollut 159:2310–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pohanish RP (2012) Sittig’s handbook of toxic and hazardous chemicals and carcinogens (sixth edition), Elsevier Inc., MA 02451, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Rahman MM, Kim KH (2014) Potential hazard of volatile organic compounds contained in household spray products. Atmos Environ 85:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rastogi SC, Heydorn C, Johansen JD, Basketter DA (2001) Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermatitis 45:221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singer BC, Beverly K, Coleman BK, Destaillats H, Hodgson AT, Lunden MM, Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW (2006) Indoor secondary pollutants from cleaning product and air freshener use in the presence of ozone. Atmos Environ 40:6696–6710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steinemann AC (2009) Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environ Impact Asses 29:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinemann AC, MacGregor IC, Gordon SM, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, Ribeiro DS, Wallace LA (2011) Fragranced consumer products: chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environ Impact Asses 31:328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Szulejko JE, Kim KH (2014) Re-evaluation of effective carbon number (ECN) approach to predict response factors of ‘compounds lacking authentic standards or surrogates’ (CLASS) by thermal desorption analysis with GC-MS. Anal Chim Acta 851:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Szulejko JE, Kim YH, Kim KH (2013) Method to predict gas chromatographic response factors for the trace-level analysis of volatile organic compounds based on the effective carbon number concept. J Sep Sci 36:3356–3365Google Scholar
  25. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Method TO-17. Determination volatile organic compounds in ambient air using active sampling onto sorbent tubesGoogle Scholar
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) SPECIATE 4.0Google Scholar
  27. World Health Organization (2010) WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutantsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trieu-Vuong Dinh
    • 1
  • Su-Yeon Kim
    • 1
  • Youn-Suk Son
    • 2
  • In-Young Choi
    • 1
  • Seong-Ryong Park
    • 1
  • Young Sunwoo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jo-Chun Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Research Division for Industry & EnvironmentKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteJeongeup-siRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Technology FusionKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations