-transparent.png){kind=logo}
Four sampling and analytical methods for mercury vapor were compared to each other in terms of precision and accuracy. The four sampling medias used were the 3M passive Mercury Vapor Monitor, the Los Alamos tandem sampling tube, the hopcalite tube, and the iodine impregnated charcoal tube. Six samples from each method were collected at nominal mercury concentrations of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/m3. The hopcalite and 3M monitors gave comparable results at all three concentrations while the Los Alamos method gave similar results at the two highest concentrations. The iodine charcoal tube method was the only one exhibiting poor precision when tube loadings were less than 3 micrograms of mercury.
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
February 1961,
American Industrial Hygiene Association journal,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
January 1969,
Nordisk hygienisk tidskrift,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
June 1992,
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
June 2001,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995),
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
September 1974,
American Industrial Hygiene Association journal,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
November 2002,
Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
May 2005,
Environmental monitoring and assessment,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
February 2002,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995),
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
May 2001,
Journal of hazardous materials,
C S McCammon, and
S L Edwards, and
R D Hull, and
W J Woodfin
January 2007,
Poultry science,
