Abstract
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.
Highlights
As air pollution standards have been strengthened, technologies that measure air pollutants have continued to be developed [1]
Water removal and the effect of the water removal device (WRD) (i.e., KPASS and Cooler) on the measurement of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were evaluated in this study
It was found that the water removal of the KPASS was approximately 60% higher than that of the Cooler
Summary
As air pollution standards have been strengthened, technologies that measure air pollutants have continued to be developed [1]. Several other problems can occur, such as a change in the retention time or baseline drift when measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [6]. To eliminate these problems, a water removal device (WRD) is recommended [7]. According to standard analytical methods of air pollutants, WRDs should be employed when measuring SO2 and CO in the ambient air. It was reported that thiols were lost up to 32% after removing humidity in a sample by a Nafion dryer [7]. Many problems with WRDs, such as low water vapor removal and low recovery of measured materials, have been reported [20,25]. We compared the performance of WRDs and investigated a suitable water removal method for the analysis of O3 , SO2 , and CO
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
