This study was carried out in response to suggestions that the measurement of NO(2) by Palmes-type passive diffusion tubes (PDT) is affected by the method of preparation of the triethanolamine (TEA) absorbent coating on the grids. The following combinations of factors were investigated: TEA solvent (acetone or water), volume composition of TEA in solvent (50% or 20%), and grid coating method (dipping in solution prior to assembly or pipetting solution on after assembly). Duplicate PDTs prepared by each of the 8 methods were exposed in parallel, in urban air, for a total of 80 separate 1 week exposures. NO(2) concentrations derived from PDTs prepared by pipetting methods were significantly less precise than concentrations from dipping methods, with mean RSDs for duplicate measurements of 13.8% and 8.5%, respectively (n= 316 each category). Pipetting methods using solutions of 50% TEA composition were particularly imprecise (mean RSD 17.2%). Data from PDTs prepared by pipetting methods were systematically more poorly correlated with each other and with data from co-located chemiluminescence analysers, than corresponding data from PDTs prepared by dipping methods, indicating that more consistent accuracy was also obtained by the latter PDTs. The statistical evidence suggested that PDTs prepared by pipetting 50% TEA in water generally gave lower NO(2) concentrations. Although this is in agreement with a previous study, it is also possible that such an observation here may be a statistical artefact given the demonstrably poorer precision of this method. The general tendency of PDTs to show positive bias in NO(2) measurement in urban air in 1 week exposures was again evident in this study (mean biases at roadside and urban centre locations of +35% (n= 475) and +18% (n= 112), respectively) consistent with augmentation of within-tube NO(2) flux by chemical reaction between co-diffusing NO and O(3). Overall, it is recommended that the pipetting method of PDT grid preparation is avoided, or at least investigated further, because of the apparent degradation in precision and accuracy of NO(2) measurement. Potential reasons for the effect are discussed.