A comparison was made between the relative performance of active and passive sampling methods for the analysis of 1,3-butadiene in outdoor air. Active and passive sampling was conducted using multi-sorbent bed tubes (Carbotrap, Carbopack X, Carboxen 569) and RAD141 Radiello® diffusive samplers (filled with Carbopack X), respectively. Daily duplicate samples of multi-sorbent bed tubes were taken over a period of 14 days (9 + 5 days) at El Morell (Tarragona, Spain), near the petrochemical area. As 1,3-butadiene is a reactive pollutant and can be rapidly oxidized, half of the samplers were equipped with ozone scrubbers. Samples consisted in two tubes connected in series (front and back) to allow determination of breakthrough. Quadruplicate samples of Radiello® tubes were taken over a period of 14 days (9days and 5 days), too. During those days, ozone concentration was measured using RAD172 Radiello® samplers. In addition to this, daily duplicate samples of multi-sorbent bed tubes were taken in the city of Barcelona over a period of 8 days. Simultaneously, 4 samples of Radiello® tubes were exposed to outdoor air. Sampling was done throughout June and July 2017. Analysis was performed by thermal desorption coupled with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytical performance of the two sampling methods was evaluated by describing several quality assurance parameters, with results showing that performances are quite similar. They display low detection limits, good precision, linearity and desorption efficiency, low levels of blank values, and low breakthrough for multi-sorbent bed tubes. However, Radiello® samplers were not able to uptake episodic 1,3-butadiene high concentrations, leading to underestimation of real values. Hence, we can conclude that Radiello® samplers can be used for baseline 1,3-butadiene levels whereas multi-sorbent bed tubes would be advisable when relevant episodes are expected.

Peer Reviewed