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.
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).