Abstract
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a lethal gas, present during incomplete combustion of carbonaceous materials. CO may be present in certain occupational atmospheres or during accidental events such as fires. Colorless and odorless, its presence can only be detected analytically. Nevertheless, the measurement methods available today may either be lacking (not available, for example, for military people deployed in the field) or not completely adapted (interference for electrochemical detectors, cost for infrared detectors). Another solution is to take samples on the field and then analyze them in a laboratory. Tedlar® bags or canisters can be used for this purpose but are relatively cumbersome. An alternative, not well described in the literature and not metrologically validated, consists in using plastic syringes. In order to generalize the use of this system and to characterize it in terms of performance and stability over time, we conducted a validation study. This method was validated using a 50-cc polypropylene syringe, over a concentration range of 2 to 40 ppm. The sampling system is efficient (sample yields between 101 and 102%) and repeatable (relative standard deviations under 2%). Storage tests were conducted on syringes containing 2 and 20 ppm carbon monoxide, indicating that the syringes can be stored for up to 2 weeks in the dark at room temperature. Coupled with a laboratory infrared analysis, this technique allows a high sensitivity and specificity. Easy to implement, rugged, inexpensive, and energy self-sufficient, this sampling system is attractive and offers a new solution for field or accidental situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Angelevska, B., Atanasova, V., & Andreevski, I. (2021). Urban air quality guidance based on measures categorization in road transport. Civil Engineering Journal. 7(2) :253–267. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2021-03091651
ANSES. (2020). Rapport de l’Anses relatif à la méthodologie d’évaluation des méthodes de mesure dans l’air des lieux de travail et l’air intérieur. Retrieved April 11, 2022, from: https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/rapport-de-lanses-relatif-%C3%A0-la-m%C3%A9thodologie-d%C3%A9valuation-des-m%C3%A9thodes-de-mesure-dans-lair-des
Feistel, R., & Hellmuth, O. (2021). Relative humidity: A control valve of the steam engine climate. Journal of Human, Earth, and Future, 2(2), 140–182. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2021-02-02-06
INRS. (2017). Guide pour la mise au point des méthodes de prélèvement et d’analyse des polluants inorganiques dans l’air des lieux de travail. Retrieved April 11, 2022, from: http://www.inrs.fr/dms/inrs/PDF/metropol-analyse-validation-aerosol-inorganique.pdf
Jaffe, L. S. (1968). Ambient carbon monoxide and its fate in the atmosphere. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 18(8), 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1968.10469168
Lu, Z., Chang, Y. C., Yin, Q-Z., Ng, C. Y., & Jackson, W. M. (2014). Evidence for direct molecular oxygen production in CO2 photodissociation. Science, 346(6205), 61–64.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257156
Nagy, G., & Ambrus, M. (2020). The evaluation of syngas loss from disposable syringe sampling system: A case study. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section A: Chemistry, 7(2):441‑448. https://doi.org/10.18596/jotcsa.644994
NF EN 482. (2021). Exposition sur les lieux de travail - Procédures pour déterminer la concentration d’agents chimiques - Exigences élémentaires relatives aux performances - Exigences générales concernant les performances.
NF EN ISO 22065. (2020). Air des lieux de travail - Gaz et vapeurs - Exigences pour l’évaluation des procédures de mesure à l’aide de dispositifs de prélèvement par pompage.
Netten, C. V., & Leung, V. (2001). Hydraulic fluids and jet engine oil: Pyrolysis and aircraft air quality. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal., 56(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039890109604071
Reisen, F., Duran, S. M., & Flannigan, M. (2015). Wildfire smoke and public health risk. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(8), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15034
Schmidt, J. A., Johnson, M. S., & Schink, R. (2013). Carbon dioxide photolysis from 150 to 210 nm: Singlet and triplet channel dynamics, UV-spectrum, and isotope effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(44):17691–17696.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213083110
SPF. Monoxyde de carbone [Internet]. Retrieved January 02, 2023 from: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/exposition-a-des-substances-chimiques/monoxyde-de-carbone
Sukitpaneenit, M., & Kim Oanh, N. T. (2014). Satellite monitoring for carbon monoxide and particulate matter during forest fire episodes in Northern Thailand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(4), 2495–2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3556-x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors do not declare competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix. Raw analysis results (CO concentrations, ppm)
Appendix. Raw analysis results (CO concentrations, ppm)
Sample type | Linearity tests | Stability tests | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
J0 | Storage condition | Day 2 | Day 5 | Day 7 | Day 13 | Day 21 | Day 28 | Month 2 | |
Control (reference gas on pressurized bottle) | 5.01 | 5.01 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.99 | 5.01 | 5.01 | 5.01 | |
Blank | 0.03 | Stored in the dark | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.84 |
Level 1* 2.30 ppm | 2.35 | Protected from light, at room temperature | 2.58 | 2.3 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 2.21 | 3.23 | 2.08 |
2.31 | 2.53 | 2.85 | 2.69 | 2.3 | 2.25 | 3.48 | 2.09 | ||
2.35 | 2.51 | 2.42 | 2.29 | 2.56 | 3.15 | 2.19 | 2.1 | ||
2.3 | 2.3 | 2.32 | 2.29 | 2.25 | 3.04 | 2.05 | 2.08 | ||
2.32 | 2.47 | 2.3 | 2.33 | 2.81 | 3.06 | 2.22 | 2.1 | ||
2.3 | / | / | 2.29 | 2.71 | 2.24 | 3.28 | 2.23 | ||
Exposed to light | 4.57 | 10 | 14.43 | 7.57 | 32.5 | 12.3 | > 55 | ||
4.58 | 13.68 | 15.29 | 8.12 | 28.56 | 43.19 | > 55 | |||
4.39 | 7.22 | 15.85 | 13.66 | 19.36 | 39.5 | > 55 | |||
3.96 | 7.59 | 15.45 | 20.46 | 13.91 | 30.7 | > 55 | |||
4.11 | 7.27 | 13.97 | 25.7 | 12.37 | 45.83 | 28.5 | |||
/ | / | 14.43 | 10.46 | 20.7 | 17.1 | 52 | |||
Protected from light, at room temperature, syringes with high humidity | 2.32 | 2.56 | 2.34 | 2.39 | 2.33 | 2.37 | / | ||
2.31 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 2.36 | 2.36 | 2.34 | / | |||
2.32 | 2.27 | 2.41 | 2.39 | 2.56 | 2.34 | / | |||
/ | / | 2.35 | 2.41 | 2.41 | 2.53 | / | |||
/ | / | 2.39 | 2.52 | ** | 2.51 | / | |||
/ | / | 2.42 | 2.57 | 2.58 | 2.84 | / | |||
At 40 °C, protected from light | 2.76 | / | 3.01 | / | / | / | / | ||
2.78 | / | 3.02 | / | / | / | / | |||
2.79 | / | 3.06 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 3.06 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 3.09 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 3.12 | / | / | / | / | |||
Level 2* 4.97 ppm | 5.03 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
5.2 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
5.09 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
5.05 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
4.88 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
5 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
Level 3* 18.45 ppm | 18.65 | Protected from light, at room temperature | 18.34 | 18.1 | 17.97 | 17.01 | 16.34 | 15.55 | 14.22 |
18.63 | 18.54 | 18.12 | 18.01 | 17.31 | 16.75 | 15.67 | 14.27 | ||
18.71 | 18.64 | 18.15 | 17.82 | 17.45 | 16.37 | 16.44 | 13.91 | ||
18.68 | 18.38 | 18.08 | 17.97 | 17.08 | 16.66 | 15.74 | 13.93 | ||
18.68 | 18.4 | 18.13 | 17.83 | 17.15 | 16.45 | 15.62 | 13.8 | ||
18.68 | / | / | 17.96 | 16.91 | 16.41 | 16.15 | 14.21 | ||
Exposed to light | 20.04 | 26.63 | 30.72 | 38.01 | 47.5 | > 55 | > 55 | ||
20.58 | 25.27 | 30.88 | 36.4 | 49.3 | > 55 | > 55 | |||
20.32 | 26.43 | 29.63 | 38.4 | 50.5 | 52.02 | > 55 | |||
19.94 | 25.81 | 30.66 | 39 | 46.7 | 53.27 | > 55 | |||
20.33 | 27.39 | 31.16 | 39.4 | 47.6 | > 55 | > 55 | |||
/ | / | 29.66 | 37.8 | 41.83 | 42.3 | > 55 | |||
Protected from light, at room temperature, syringes with high humidity | 17.6 | 17.47 | 17.72 | 17.08 | 16.67 | 15.81 | / | ||
17.92 | 17.69 | 17.57 | 17.07 | 16.85 | 15.51 | / | |||
17.85 | 17.58 | 17.58 | 17.08 | 16.2 | 16.16 | / | |||
/ | / | 17.85 | 17.15 | 16.9 | 15.68 | / | |||
/ | / | 17.57 | 16.88 | 16.47 | 15.61 | / | |||
/ | / | 17.45 | 16.95 | 16.2 | 15.82 | / | |||
At 40 °C, protected from light | 17.8 | / | 16.69 | / | / | / | / | ||
17.82 | / | 16.38 | / | / | / | / | |||
17.96 | / | 16.29 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 16.26 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 16.21 | / | / | / | / | |||
/ | / | 16.37 | / | / | / | / | |||
Level 4* 42.20 ppm | 43.52 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
43.48 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | ||
43.47 | / | / | / | / | / | / | |||
42.83 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | ||
42.79 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | ||
42.93 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | ||
Control (reference gas on pressurized bottle) | 5.01 | / | 5.01 | 4.99 | 5.01 | 4.99 | 4.99 | 5,00 | 5.01 |
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
Le Roy, B., Valente, L., Provini, G. et al. Validation of a carbon monoxide sampling method using polypropylene syringes: a reliable alternative method, easy to implement in the field or emergency situations. Environ Monit Assess 195, 598 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11199-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11199-5