Real-time versus thermal desorption selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry for quantification of breath volatiles.

RATIONALE: Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) is versatile, rapidly provides result output and determines a wide range of volatiles, making it suitable for biomedical applications. When direct sampling into the SIFT-MS instrument is impractical, combining thermal desorption (TD) and SIFT-MS might offer a solution as it allows sample storage on sorbent tubes for later analysis. This work compares off-line TD SIFT-MS and real-time SIFT-MS for the quantification of selected breath volatiles. METHODS: Ten healthy non-smoking individuals provided 60 breath samples per method. For off-line analysis, breath was collected onto sorbent tubes via a breath sampler provided with filtered inspiratory air. After TD, samples were re-collected in Tedlar bags which were then connected to the SIFT-MS instrument. For real-time analysis, breath was sampled directly into the instrument. In both cases the analytical method included a total of 155 product ions, and 14 selected volatiles were quantified. The agreement between the methods was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Overall, correlations between real-time and off-line analysis were moderate to very strong (r = 0.43-0.92) depending on the volatile of interest, except for 2,3-butanedione and styrene. The difference between real-time and off-line measured breath concentrations (average bias) ranged between -14.57 and 20.48 ppbv. For acetone and isoprene, it was 251.53 and 31.9 ppbv, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time SIFT-MS and off-line TD SIFT-MS for quantification of selected breath volatiles did not show optimal agreement. Analyzing a multitude of analytes in breath via direct exhalation into a SIFT-MS instrument for real-time analysis is challenging. On the other hand, off-line analysis using a breath collection device also has its issues such as possible sample losses due to selective absorption depending on the sorbent used or during desorption and transfer to the instrument. Despite these drawbacks, both methods were moderately well correlated.

Influence of suspended particles on the emission of organophosphate flame retardant from insulation boards.

The influence of the presence of the so-called seed particles on the emission rate of Tris (1-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP) from polyisocyanurate (PIR) insulation boards was investigated in this study. Two Field and Laboratory Emission Test cells (FLEC) were placed on the surface of the same PIR board and respectively supplied with clean air (reference FLEC) and air containing laboratory-generated soot particles (test FLEC). The behavior of the area-specific emission rates (SER A ) over a time period of 10 days was studied by measuring the total (gas + particles) concentrations of TCIPP at the exhaust of each FLEC. The estimated SER A of TCIPP from the PIR board at the quasi-static equilibrium were found to be 0.82 µg m(-2) h(-1) in the absence of seed particles, while the addition of soot particles led to SER A of 2.16 µg m(-2) h(-1). This indicates an increase of the SER A of TCIPP from the PIR board with a factor of 3 in the presence of soot particles. The TCIPP partition coefficient to soot particles at the quasi-static equilibrium was 0.022 ± 0.012 m(3) µg(-1). In the next step, the influence of real-life particles on TCIPP emission rates was investigated by supplying the test FLEC with air from a professional kitchen where mainly frying and baking activities took place. Similar to the reference FLEC outcomes, SER A was also found to increase in this real-life experiment over a time period of 20 days by a factor 3 in the presence of particles generated during cooking activities. The median value of estimated particle-gas coefficient for this test was 0.062 ± 0.037 m(3) µg(-1).

Air sampling of flame retardants based on the use of mixed-bed sorption tubes--a validation study.

An analytical methodology using automatic thermal desorption and gas chromatography mass spectrometry analysis was optimized and validated for simultaneous determination of a set of components from three different flame retardant chemical classes: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (PBDE-28, PBDE-47, PBDE-66, PBDE-85, PBDE-99, PBDE-100), organophosphate flame retardants (PFRs) (tributyl phosphate, tripropyl phosphate, tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate-, tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate, tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) phosphate and tricresylphosphate), and "novel" brominated flame retardants (NBFRs) (pentabromotoluene, 2,3,4,5,6-pentabromoethylbenzene, (2,3-dibromopropyl) (2,4,6-tribromophenyl) ether, hexabromobenzene, and 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate) in air. The methodology is based on low volume active air sampling of gaseous and particulate air fractions on mixed-bed (polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)/Tenax TA) sorption tubes. The optimized method provides recoveries >88%; a limit of detection in the range of 6-25 pg m(-3) for PBDEs, 6-171 pg m(-3) for PFRs, and 7-41 pg m(-3) for NBFRs; a linearity greater than 0.996; and a repeatability of less than 10% for all studied compounds. The optimized method was compared with a standard method using active air sampling on XAD-2 sorbent material, followed by liquid extraction. On the one hand, the PDMS/Tenax TA method shows comparable results at longer sampling time conditions (e.g., indoor air sampling, personal air sampling). On the other hand, at shorter sampling time conditions (e.g., sampling from emission test chambers), the optimized method detects up to three times higher concentrations and identifies more flame retardant compounds compared to the standard method based on XAD-2 loading.