Info

o t5

Fig. 4.9. The plot of kreg vs. kexp, used to examine the significance of the differences between the experimental and the estimated calibration constants. Reproduced from Ref. [16] with permission from Elsevier.

Fig. 4.10. An example of a chromatogram obtained for a real sample collected by GUT permeation passive sampler used in the study.

— regression curve —confidence band k experimental vs k predicted

— regression curve —confidence band

Fig. 4.9. The plot of kreg vs. kexp, used to examine the significance of the differences between the experimental and the estimated calibration constants. Reproduced from Ref. [16] with permission from Elsevier.

values—only the overall uncertainty is considered. In general, the examination of the significance of the differences between the experimental and the estimated calibration constants indicates that the results of air analysis with the use of permeation passive samplers should not differ with respect to accuracy irrespectively of the method of determination of the calibration constants of the samplers (experimentally determined or estimated from the LTPRI).

4.5.5 Application of GUT permeation passive samplers in indoor air analysis

An example of a chromatogram obtained for a sample of indoor air collected in an apartment in the city of Gdansk (Poland) by GUT permeation passive sampler is presented in Fig. 4.10. Table 4.3 shows the

0 0

Post a comment