引用本文:韩颖,谢馨,秦承华.固定污染源非甲烷总烃自动连续监测系统比对监测[J].环境监控与预警,2019,11(4):23-27
HAN Ying,XIE Xin,QIN Cheng-hua.Comparison Monitoring for Nonmethane Hydrocarbons Continuous Emission Monitoring System in Stationary Sources[J].Environmental Monitoring and Forewarning,2019,11(4):23-27
【打印本页】   【HTML】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 304次   下载 312 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
固定污染源非甲烷总烃自动连续监测系统比对监测
韩颖,谢馨,秦承华1,2
1.江苏省南京环境监测中心,江苏 南京 210013;2.中国环境监测总站,北京 100012
摘要:
对非甲烷总烃自动连续监测系统进行示值误差、响应时间、零点漂移和量程漂移等性能测试,对非甲烷总烃便携式分析仪进行检出限、精密度、准确度等性能测试。性能测试满足相关要求后同时利用便携式催化氧化-氢火焰离子化检测器法(催化氧化-FID)、便携式气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器法(GC-FID)和实验室气相色谱-氢火焰离子化检测器法(GC-FID)对固定污染源非甲烷总烃自动连续监测系统进行现场比对测试。测试结果表明,在工况变动较大的情况下,便携式FID法与实验室GC-FID法测试结果相对误差为19.6%~35.1%,具有很好的可比性。以实验室GC-FID法为参比方法时,自动连续监测系统相对准确度为64.1%,不满足《固定污染源废气非甲烷总烃连续监测系统技术要求及检测方法》(HJ 1013—2018)的要求。以便携式FID为参比方法时,自动连续监测系统相对准确度分别为28.6%和35.3%,相对《固定污染源废气总烃、甲烷和非甲烷总烃的测定气相色谱法》(HJ 38—2017)方法一致性更好,均能满足《HJ 1013—2018》的要求。提出,应推进便携式方法在自动连续监测系统验收和质控比对中的应用。
关键词:  非甲烷总烃  氢火焰离子化检测器法  气相色谱  催化氧化  比对监测  自动连续监测系统
DOI:
分类号:X831;O657.7+1
文献标识码:B
基金项目:中国环境监测总站环境监测科研基金资助项目(2016YFC0208204);南京市环境保护局环保科研课题基金资助项目(201804)
Comparison Monitoring for Nonmethane Hydrocarbons Continuous Emission Monitoring System in Stationary Sources
HAN Ying,XIE Xin,QIN Cheng-hua1,2
1.Jiangsu Nanjing Environmental Monitoring Center, Nanjing,Jiangsu 210013,China;2.China National Environmental Monitoring Center,Beijing 100012,China
Abstract:
The performance tests of the nonmethane hydrocarbons continuous emission monitoring system (NMHC CEMS) were carried out including indication error, response time, zero drift and range drift. The method performance of the portable analyzer for NMHC were performed as well, including detection limit, precision and accuracy. When the performance test met the relevant requirements, we made the comparison monitoring for NMHC CEMS in stationary sources by Catalytic-Oxidation-FID method, portable GC-FID method and bench top GC-FID method at the same time. The test results showed that the relative errors between portable GC-FID method and bench top GC-FID method were 19.6%~35.1%, in the case of large changes in working conditions. When bench top GC-FID method was used as a reference method, the relative accuracy of the NMHC CEMS was 64.1%, which does not meet the requirements of “Specifications and test procedures for nonmethane hydrocarbons continuous emission monitoring system in stationary sources” ( HJ 1013—2018). When portable GC- FID was used as a reference method, the relative accuracy of the NMHC CEMS were 28.6% and 35.3%. Compared with “Stationary source emission―Determination of total hydrocarbons, methane and nonmethane hydrocarbons―Gas chromatography” (HJ 38—2017) method, the portable GC-FID method showed better consistency and met the requirements of HJ 1013—2018. Based on the test results, we suggest push forward the application of portable GC-FID method for monitoring of NMHC in stationary sources.
Key words:  Hydrogen flame ionization detection  Gas chromatography  Catalytic oxidation  Comparison monitoring  CEMS