ArticleAir quality, atmosphere, & health2017
Comparison of the volatile organic compound recovery rates of commercial active samplers for evaluation of indoor air quality in work environments.
Article in Air quality, atmosphere, & health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypercrosslinked Polymers for Volatile and Very Volatile Organic Compound Capture Beyond Commercial Benchmarks.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2025Article
- Metal-Organic Frameworks for the Capture of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds: A Case Study on Perchloroethylene.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- A Binder Jet Printed, Stainless Steel Preconcentrator as an In-Line Injector of Volatile Organic Compounds.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Industrial Safety and Health Law in Japan established administrative levels for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in indoor air. In the present study, these 49 VOCs were extracted from the absorbents of commercial active samplers from Sibata Scientific Technology (carbon-bead active sampler), SKC Inc. (Anasorb CSC sorbent tube), and Gastec (bead-shaped activated carbon tube) using carbon disulfide, and the recovery rates were compared. The VOCs were added to the adsorbents at three concentration levels relative to the administrative levels (×0.5, ×1, and ×2). The following mean recovery rates of the 49 VOCs were obtained at the ×0.5, ×1, and ×2 levels: 86, 93, and 92% for the Sibata sampler; 78, 82, and 84% for the SKC sampler; and 94, 93, and 90% for the Gastec sampler. With the Sibata sampler, the recovery rates of 78% (×0.5), 84% (×1), and 90% (×2) of the VOCs measured in this study were adequate (80-120%); the corresponding percentages for the SKC sampler were 67% (×0.5), 69% (×1), and 69% (×2), and those for the Gastec sampler were 92% (×0.5), 86% (×1), and 86% (×2). The effects of the octanol-water partition coefficients and vapor pressures of the VOCs on the recovery rates were investigated. The recovery rates increased with increases in the octanol-water partition coefficient and the vapor pressure and then leveled off. The recovery rates for the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.