TY - CONF A1 - Wiegner, Katharina A1 - Hahn, Oliver A1 - Farke, M. A1 - Kalus, Sabine A1 - Horn, Wolfgang T1 - Determination of formic and acetic acids in air N2 - Formic and acetic acids are often responsible for damage of cultural objects, e. g. glass and metal corrosion or changing and fading of colours. Museums all around the world are equipped with different show cases. Display cases should protect cultural objects from dust as well as from mechanical damage. Several construction materials which are used for display cases, including wood, glue and coatings, are possible sources of very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). These construction products can emit formic and acetic acids into the indoor or display case air. Modern display cases with small air change rates can cause higher concentrations of formic and acetic acids if any source is installed in the display case (Salthammer and Uhde, 2009). To minimize the risk of damage emissions from building products must be quantified. There is a need for a method for identification and quantification of acetic and formic acid. Some possibilities for the identification of acetic acid exist. The quantification of acetic acid for example after sampling on TENAX® or CARBOTRAP and thermal desorption-GC in accordance with ISO 16000-6 and ISO 16017-1 results in very low recovery rates. A new method should be stabile, robust, reproducible and comparable, with an easy local sampling and determination in laboratories. Miniaturised emission test chambers and model display cases were used to study the recovery rates. T2 - Indoor Air 2011, 12th International conference on indoor air quality and climate CY - Austin, TX, USA DA - 05.06.2011 KW - VOCs KW - Detection of formic and acetic acid KW - Quantification of formic and acetic acid KW - Air sampling PY - 2011 IS - Paper 768 SP - 1 EP - 2 AN - OPUS4-23876 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Wilke, Olaf A1 - Horn, Wolfgang A1 - Wiegner, Katharina A1 - Jann, Oliver A1 - Kalus, Sabine A1 - Till, Carola T1 - Interlaboratory study with Tenax thermal desorption - Phase 2 - Tenax tubes spiked by BAM T2 - Healthy buildings 2009 - 9th International conference & exhibition CY - Syracuse, NY, USA DA - 2009-09-13 KW - ISO 16000-6 KW - Interlaboratory study KW - VOC KW - External quality management system PY - 2009 IS - Paper 345 SP - 1 EP - 2 CY - Syracuse, NY, USA AN - OPUS4-20094 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Wiegner, Katharina A1 - Hahn, Oliver A1 - Horn, Wolfgang A1 - Farke, M. A1 - Kalus, Sabine A1 - Nohr, Michael A1 - Jann, Oliver T1 - Determination of formic and acetic acid emissions in indoor air or from building products N2 - Several construction and building materials, including wood, glue and coatings, are possible sources of very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like formic and acetic acid. Due to very high air tightness and very low air exchange rates in new buildings concentrations of these harmful substances can increase considerably. To minimize the risk, emissions from building products should be identified and quantified. With the common standard method, this means Tenax® sampling followed by thermal desorption and GC-MS analysis, these acids could not be detected sufficiently. The aim oft this study is the comparison of two different methods for the determination of acetic and formic acid. The sampling of method one, which is usually used for identification and quantification of VOCs, is done in accordance with ISO 16000-6 and ISO 16017-1 on Carbotrap® 202 multi-bed thermal desorption tube by subsequent identification and quantification with GC-MS. Method two is based on sampling on 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) cartridges, derivatisation, elution, identification and quantification of the derivatives with LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry). N2 - Viele Konstruktions- und Baumaterialien, wie Holz, Kleber und Anstriche, sind mögliche Quellen für leicht flüchtige organische Verbindungen (VVOC) und flüchtige organische Verbindungen (VOC), wie Ameisen- und Essigsäure. Bedingt durch die hohe Dichtigkeit und den damit verbundenen niedrigen Luftwechsel in neuen Gebäuden können die Konzentrationen dieser gesundheitsgefährdenden Substanzen beträchtlich ansteigen. Um das Risiko zu minimieren, sollen Emissionen aus Bauprodukten identifiziert und quantifiziert werden. Mit der üblichen Standardmethode, die auf einer Luftprobenahme auf Tenax® und anschließender Analyse mittels GC-MS basiert, können diese Säuren nicht ausreichend detektiert werden. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist der Vergleich von zwei unterschiedlichen Methoden zur Bestimmung von Essig- und Ameisensäure. Die Luftprobenahme der ersten Methode, die üblicherweise zur Identifizierung und Quantifizierung von VOC genutzt wird, wurde gemäß ISO 16000-6 and ISO 16017-1 auf Carbotrap® 202, ein mit mehreren Adsorbentien gepacktes Thermodesorptionsrohr, mit anschließender Identifikation und Quantifizierung mittels GC-MS durchgeführt. Die zweite Methode basiert auf einer Luftprobenahme mittels 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazin-(DNPH)-Kartuschen, Derivatisierung, Elution, Identifikation und Quantifizierung der Derivate mit LC-MS/MS (Flüssigkeitschromatographie – Massenspektometrie/Massenspektometrie). KW - Formic acid KW - Acetic acid KW - VVOCs KW - Air sampling KW - DNPH PY - 2012 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-255911 UR - http://www.gefahrstoffe.de/gest/article.php?data[article_id]=65887 SN - 0949-8036 SN - 0039-0771 SN - 1436-4891 VL - 72 IS - 3 SP - 84 EP - 88 PB - Springer-VDI-Verlag CY - Düsseldorf AN - OPUS4-25591 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -