Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #188105
Title: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT: TELEDYNE-API MODEL 101E AMBIENT HYDROGEN SULFIDE ANALYZER

Author
item SUMNER, ANN LOUISE - BATTELLE
item DINDAL, AMY - BATTELLE
item WILLENBERG, ZACHARY - BATTELLE
item RIGGS, KAREN - BATTELLE
item Pfeiffer, Richard
item Hatfield, Jerry
item WINNEGAR, ERIC - BATTELLE

Submitted to: Laboratory Publication
Publication Type: Other
Publication Acceptance Date: 9/14/2005
Publication Date: 9/14/2005
Citation: Sumner, A., Dindal, A., Willenberg, Z., Riggs, K., Pfeiffer, R.L., Hatfield, J.L., Winnegar, E. 2005. Environmental technology verification report: Teledyne-API Model 101E Ambient Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer. Laboratory Publication. Available: http://www.epa.gov/etv/centers/center/.html

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: The objective of this verification test was to evaluate the Model 101E’s performance in measuring gaseous H2S in ambient air at an animal feeding operation (AFO). The verification test was conducted for six weeks between April 25 and June 3, 2005, at a swine finishing farm near Ames, Iowa. This site was selected to provide realistic testing conditions and was expected to exhibit a wide range of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations during the test period. The verification test was designed to evaluate accuracy, bias, precision, linearity, span and zero drift, response time, interference effects, comparability, data completeness, and operational factors. The Model 101E response to a series of H2S gas standards was used to evaluate accuracy, bias, precision, and linearity. The Model 101E was calibrated prior to this verification test with a 400-part-per-billion (ppb) dilution from an H2S gas standard [100 parts per million (ppm) H2S] that was independent of the gas standard (5.12 ppm H2S) used for performing this verification test. All gas standard dilutions were prepared using the same dynamic dilution system. Each gas standard was delivered in triplicate, and the series of gas standards was delivered three times during the verification test. Dilution accuracy was calculated at each concentration and for each replicate relative to the nominal H2S concentration. Bias was calculated for each series of multipoint H2S challenges. Precision was demonstrated by the reproducibility of the Model 101E response at each nominal H2S concentration. Linearity was assessed by establishing a multipoint calibration curve from the Model 101E responses. The baseline response of the Model 101E to zero air and a 30-ppb dilution of a compressed H2S gas standard was determined during the first week of testing. At least twice each week, zero air and a 30-ppb H2S standard again were supplied to the Model 101E for 20 minutes for a total of 14 zero/span checks. (Results from eight span checks could not be used to evaluate drift because the gas standard dilution system was not flushed before performing the span checks.) Each response was compared to the Week 1 baseline response to determine whether drift occurred in the response to zero air or the 30-ppb H2S standard. The data collected during the two zero/span baseline response checks were used to determine the Model 101E response time. To determine interference effects, the Model 101E was challenged with a series of gases (supplied at either 100 or 500 ppb in the presence and absence of 100 ppb of H2S) that may be present at an AFO and could interfere with the Model 101E response to H2S. The comparability of the Model 101E response to ambient air was evaluated by comparing its response to two H2S reference methods (time-integrated and in situ), which were carried out by USDA and Applied Measurement Science. The two reference methods were based on American Society of Testing Materials Method D5504-01, with pulsed flame photometric detection substituted for sulfur chemiluminescence detection. Operational factors such as maintenance needs, data output, consumables used, ease of use, and repair requirements were evaluated based on the observations of Battelle and USDA staff. Data completeness was assessed based on the overall data return achieved by the Model 101E.