The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 9690704, 15 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9690704

Research Article

H₂S Loss through Nalophan™ Bags: Contributions of Adsorption and Diffusion

Lidia Eusebio, Laura Capelli, and Selena Sironi

Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Selena Sironi; selena.sironi@polimi.it

Received 8 March 2017; Revised 18 April 2017; Accepted 23 April 2017; Published 27 June 2017

Academic Editor: Ki-Hyun Kim

Copyright © 2017 Lidia Eusebio et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Hydrogen-sulfide (H₂S) is a molecule of small dimensions typically present in the odor emissions from different plants. The European Standard EN 13725:2003 set a maximum storage time allowed of 30 hours, during which the sampling bag has to maintain the mixture of odorants with minimal changes. This study investigates the H₂S losses through Nalophan bags and it shows that nonnegligible losses of H₂S can be observed. The percent H₂S loss after 30 hrs with respect to the initial concentration is equal to 33%  ± 3% at a relative humidity of 20% and equal to 22%  ± 1% at a relative humidity of 60%. The average quantity of adsorbed H₂S at 30 h is equal to 2.17 10⁵  at a storage humidity of 20% and equal to 1.79 10⁵  at a storage humidity of 60%. The diffusion coefficients of H₂S through Nalophan, for these two humidity conditions tested, are comparable (i.e., 7.5 10⁻¹² m²/sec at 20% humidity and 6.6 10⁻¹² m²/sec at 60% humidity).

1. Introduction

Although odors do not have a direct effect on human health, they are considered one of the main causes of discomfort for the population living in areas impacted by odor emissions. Nowadays, olfactory pollution has become a serious environmental concern because it may be the cause of physiological stress to the population [1]. Concerning olfactory nuisance, different European countries have recently adopted specific regulations. The standard methodology for odor concentration measurement is a sensorial technique, that is, dynamic olfactometry [2], which is commonly applied for testing odors for environmental management purposes [3]. This technique is based on the sensation caused by an odorous sample directly on a panel of human assessors [4].

Performing olfactometric analyses on site presents some difficulties. To overcome these problems, the odorous pollutants are collected and stored in appropriate containers until they are analyzed in an olfactometric laboratory [4–6]. In order to regulate the quality of the olfactometric analysis, the European Standard on dynamic olfactometry [2] defines the requirements for the materials used for sampling equipment. The requirements determined by the EN13725 for the olfactometry materials are as follows: being odorless and being able to minimize the physical or chemical interaction between sample components and sampling materials and having low permeability in order to minimize sample losses caused by diffusion and smooth surface.

The materials allowed by EN13725 for sample containers (i.e., bags) are as follows: tetrafluoroethylene hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP); Tedlar™ (polyvinyl fluoride, PVF), and Nalophan (polyethylene terephthalate, PET). Moreover, European Standard set a maximum storage time allowed, during which the sampling bag has to maintain the mixture of odorants with minimal changes.

Since the publication of the Standard in 2003, several studies have been carried out in order to test the characteristics of the materials listed in the EN 13725 [2] and to verify their suitability for olfactometric measurements. In Table 1 literature studies are reported investigating losses of odorous molecules through sampling bags [1, 5–36].

Table 1: Scheme of the studies related to the pollutant loss through sampling bag.

Reference number
Author and year
Polymeric Film
Thickness [µm]
Chemical compound
Detection System

[1]
Sironi et al., 2014
Nalophan
20
NH₃
GC

[5]
Y.-H. Kim and K.-H. Kim, 2012
PEA
n.d.
Benzene, toluene, styrene, p-xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, isobutyl alcohol, butyl acetate, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, butyraldehyde, isovaleraldehyde, valeraldehyde
GC
MS

[6]
Laor et al., 2010
Tedlar
n.d.
Odors emitted from municipal sewage, aeration basin, sludge, livestock manure, coffee
DO

Nalophan
20

[7]
Akdeniz et al., 2011
Tedlar
n.d.
NH₃, CH₄, N₂O, H₂S, total sulfur dioxide
pulsed fluorescence analyzer, chemiluminescence analyzer, GC
IR

FlexFoil
n.d.

[8]
Bakhtari, 2014
Nalophan
50
Benzene, ozone, H₂S
DO

Tedlar
50

Teflon
50

[9]
Beghi and Guillot, 2006
Tedlar
50
Methanol, ethanol, acetone, n-propanol, n-hexane, dichloroethane, trichloroethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, butyl acetate
GC

Teflon
50

FlexFoil
75

[10]
Beghi and Guillot, 2008
Nalophan
20
Acetone, n-propanol, ethanol, n-hexane, 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, butyl acetate, ethylbenzene
GC

Tedlar
50

[11]
Boeker et al., 2014
Nalophan
n.d.
Butylamine, ethylamine, carbon disulfide, dimethyl sulfide, butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, n-butyrate acetate, dichloroethane, chloroform, dichloromethane, 2-heptanone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethyl methyl ketone, acetone, n-hexyl acetate, α-ionone, limonene, α-pinene, 1,2,3,4-tetraidronaphtene, ethylbenzene, toluene, skatole, indole, methanol, p-cresol, phenol, n-hexanol, n-butanol, ethanol, α-hexyl cinnamaldehyde, furfural, hexanal
GC
MS

NaloSafe
n.d.

Nalobar
n.d.

Tedlar
n.d.

[12]
Bokowa, 2012
Tedlar
n.d.
2-Methylbutane, pentane, 2,2-dimethylbutane, 2-methylpentane, cyclopentane, 3-methylpentane, 1-hexene, hexane, 2,4-dimethylpentane, methylcyclopentane, 3-methyl-1-hexene, 3-methyl-1, 3-pentadiene, 2-methylhexane, 2,3-dimethyl pentane, cyclohexane, 3-methylhexane, benzene, cyclohexene, heptane, 2,5-dimethylhexane, methyl cyclohexane, ethyl cyclopentane, 2-methylpentane, 3-methylpentane, 2,3,5-trimetilesano, t-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane, toluene, octane, 1,1-dimethylcyclohexane, t-1,2-dimethylhexane, c-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane, propyl cyclopentane, c-1, 2-dimethylcyclohexane, 2 + 4-methyloctane, 3-methyloctane, ethylbenzene, nonane, m + p-xylene, 3,7-dimethyl-1-octene, o-xylene, cumene, propylbenzene, dean, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene, p-cymene, 1,2,3-trimethyl benzene, undecane, dodecane, tridecane, tetradecane
GC
MS

[13]
Cariou and Guillot, 2006
Tedlar
50
2-Propanolo, 2-butanone, toluene
GC

[14]
Eusebio et al., 2016
Nalophan
20 μm
H₂S
specific H₂S sensors

[15]
Guillot and Beghi, 2008
Nalophan
20
H₂S, H₂O
GC

Tedlar,
50

Teflon,
50

FlexFoil
75

[16]
Hansen et al., 2011
Tedlar,
50
Carboxylic acids, phenols, indoles, sulfur compounds
GC
MS

Nalophan
20

[17]
Jo et al., 2012
PEA
n.d.
H₂S, methanethiol, carbon disulfide, SO₂, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide
GC

Tedlar
n.d.

[18]
Kim, 2006
Tedlar
n.d.
H₂S, methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide
GC

Polyester
n.d.

[19]
Kim et al., 2012
PEA,
50
Benzene, toluene, p-xylene, styrene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, butyl acetate, isobutyl alcohol
GC
MS

Tedlar
50

[20]
Koziel et al., 2005
Tedlar,
50
Acetic acid, propionic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric acid, isovaleric acid, valeric acid, hexanoic acid, p-cresol, indole, 4-ethylphenol, 2-aminoacetophenone
GC
MS

Teflon,
50

foil
125

Melinex (PET)
15

[21]
Le et al., 2013
Tedlar
n.d.
H₂S, methanethiol, ethanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, tert-butanethiol, ethyl methyl sulfide, 1-butanethiol, dimethyl disulfide, diethyl disulfide, dimethyl trisulfide
GC

Mylar
n.d.

Nalophan
n.d.

[22]
Le et al. 2015
Tedlar
50
Hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol, ethanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, tert-butanethiol, ethyl methyl sulfide, 1-butanethiol, dimethyl disulfide, diethyl disulfide, dimethyl trisulfide
GC

Mylar
25

Nalophan
25

[23]
Mochalski et al., 2009
Nalophan,
20
H₂S, methanethiol, ethanethiol, carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide
GC
MS

Tedlar transparent,
50

Tedlar black,
25

Teflon,
n.d.

FlexFoil
n.d.

[24]
Mochalski et al., 2013
Tedlar
50
n-Butane, n-pentane, n-hexane, n-octane, n-decane, isobutane, 3-methyl pentane, 2-butene E and Z, 2-pentene E and Z, 1-hexene, methylcyclopentane, a-pinene, (+)-3-carene, p-cymene, D-limonene, eucalyptol, benzene, toluene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetone, 2-butanone, 2-pentanone, 4-heptanone, 2-butenone, propanal, 2-methyl propanal, butanal, hexanal, octanal, 2-methyl-2-propenal, furan, 2-methyl furan, 2,5-dimethyl furan, thiophene, 3-methyl thiophene, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, n-propyl acetate, methyl methacrylate, dimethyl selenide, ethyl ether, pyrimidine, acetonitrile, 2-methyl pentane, 4-methyl heptane, isoprene, ethylbenzene, dimethyl sulfide, 2-methyl-1-pentene, n-butyl acetate, 2,4-dimethyl heptane, 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptene, 4-methyl octane, 3-methyl furan, methyl propyl sulfide
GC
MS

Kynar
50.8

Flexfilm
76

[25]
Parker et al., 2010
Tedlar
n.d.
p-Cresol, acetic acid, propionic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric acid, isovaleric acid, valeric acid, hexanoic acid
DO/GC-MS

[26]
Sáiz et al., 2011
Polyethylene
n.d.
Dynamites
GC
MS
HPLC

[27]
Sironi et al., 2014
Nalophan
20
NH₃
GC

[28]
Sironi et al., 2014
Nalophan
20
NH₃
GC

[29]
Sulyok et al., 2002
Silcosteel cylinder
n.d.
Methylmercaptan, ethylmercaptan, Dimethyl sulfide, 2-Propylmercaptan, 1-Propylmercaptan, 2-Butylmercaptan, 1-Butylmercaptan
GC

Tedlar
n.d.

[30]
Sulyok et al., 2001
Silcosteel cylinder
n.d.
Methylmercaptan, ethylmercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, ethyl methyl sulfide, 2-propylmercaptan, 1-propylmercaptan, 2-butylmercaptan, diethyl sulfide, 1-butylmercaptan
GC

Tedlar
50

Tedlar black/clear layered
50

[31]
Trabue et al., 2006
Tedlar
n.d.
Agricultural odorants, acetic acid, propanoic acid, 2-methylpropanoicacid, butanoic acid, 3-methylbutanoic acid, pentanoic acid, 4-methylpentanoic acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, phenol, 4-methylphenol, 4-ethylphenol, indole, 3-methylindole, Volatile fatty acid, phenol, 4-methylphenol, 4-ethylphenol, indole, and 3-methylindole
GC
MS

[32]
Van Harreveld, 2003
Nalophan
20
Tobacco
DO

Cali-5-Bond coated Nalophan
131

[33]
Van Durme and Werbrouck, 2015
Nalophan
20 μm
Japanese Indoor Air Standard mix
GC
MS

[34]
Wang et al., 2011
Nalophan
40
(gas)
QCM sensors

Nalophan-
125

[35]
Zarra et al., 2012
Nalophan
25
WWTP odorants
DO

Tedlar
50

Teflon
50

[36]
Zhu et al., 2015
Tedlar
n.d.
Ethylmercaptan, butyric acid, isovaleric acid, p-cresol
GC
MS

Metallized-FEP
n.d.

GC gas chromatography, MS mass spectrometry, PEA Polyester aluminium, WWTP waste water treatment plant, DO dynamic olfactometry, HPLC liquid chromatography, QCM quartz-crystal-microbalance.

More in detail, in Table 1, beside the author and year, the polymer film studied, the thickness of the film, the pollutant taken into account and the detection system adopted are reported.

The results of the studies reported in Table 1 underline that the chemical pollutants diffused through the polymeric film are mainly small molecules, like ammonia (NH₃) and H₂S.

Nalophan is generally the most used material for the manufacturing of sampling bags for olfactometric analyses, due to its inert properties and cost-effectiveness. Despite these advantages, it is known in literature that Nalophan allows the diffusion of specific compounds, such as water [15]. Water can diffuse quickly through the Nalophan polymeric film because of its structure [15]. The results of the studies reported in Table 1 showed that the chemical compounds that diffuse through the Nalophan film are water, NH₃, and H₂S [1, 9, 10, 15, 27]; the last two compounds diffuse easily because these molecules have dimensions similar to water [1, 9, 10, 15, 27].

H₂S and NH₃ are typically odorous pollutants present in the emissions from several plants such as solid waste and waste water treatment.

In this paper, the attention was focused on H₂S, a malodorous compound with smell similar to rotten eggs. H₂S is detected by human olfaction at very low concentrations—about 1 ppb [37–39]—and it is typically found in the emissions from different plants, like industry [30], agriculture [16, 31], waste water treatment [7], and waste treatment [21].

Generally, the articles present in literature (Table 1) focus the attention mainly on the H₂S loss by determining the H₂S recovery in the sampling bag.

The study of the contribution of pollutant losses, such as diffusion and adsorption, is not easy because the diffusion through the polymeric film is influenced by the nature of the polymer as well as by the nature of the diffusing pollutant [1, 40].

More in detail, the polymer characteristics that influence the diffusion processes are as follows: the chemical nature of the polymer, its crystalline structure and orientation, the free volume, the molecular cohesion, the relative humidity, temperature, hydrogen bonding, polarity, solubility parameter, and solvent size and shape [40].

As reported by Klopffer and Flaconneche in 2001 [41], the polymer structure plays an important role in the determination of the transport phenomena through the polymeric film.

It is well known in literature that transport phenomena of small molecules through an amorphous polymer are governed by mechanisms of adsorption and diffusion [40]. Transport phenomena can be decomposed into five successive stages (Figure 3) [40, 41]: (i) the diffusion through the boundary layer of the side corresponding to the higher partial pressure (upstream side); (ii) the adsorption of the gas (by chemical affinity or by solubility) on the polymer; (iii) the diffusion of the gas inside the polymer’s membrane; (iv) the desorption of the gas at the side of lower partial pressure; and (v) the diffusion through the limit layer of the downstream side.

Only few studies in literature [1, 14, 27, 28] have faced the problem of diffusion through the sampling bags by calculating the diffusion coefficient of the inspected chemical compound. Moreover, in most studies, the amount of chemical compound lost due to adsorption on the polymeric film has been neglected. Adsorption can be neglected when high concentrations are considered (e.g., 50000 ppm NH₃ by Sironi et al. (2014) [1, 27, 28]), whereas for medium-low concentrations (e.g., in the range of ppb to few ppm) the effect of adsorption becomes significant. In this study, both the effects of diffusion through the polyethylene terephthalate (PET, Nalophan) film and the adsorption on the film are investigated. The experiments described in this paper aim to investigate the relative contributions of the two phenomena causing H₂S loss in Nalophan bags, that is, adsorption and diffusion. The evaluations were carried out by calculating the amount of H₂S adsorbed in the Nalophan film and the diffusion coefficient relevant to this material. Finally, the influence of physical parameter like relative humidity (RH) on both the diffusion coefficient and the adsorption was evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The sampling bags studied with capacity of 6 liters are prepared from a tubular film of Nalophan supplied by Tilmmanns S.p.A. and shown in Figure 1. The polymer film consists of a 20-µm thick one-layer foil.

Figure 1: Nalophan sampling bag, capacity 6 liters.

The H₂S decay over time was evaluated by measuring the H₂S concentration inside the bag over time by means of a high performance miniature sensor able to detect H₂S at ppb level. More in detail, the sensor used for the H₂S concentration measurement is a CairClip apparatus, developed by Cairpol, a French start-up (Alès Engineer School of Mines), which consists in amperometric detection with a dynamic air sampling system, a special filter, and a high sensitive electronic circuit containing a data logger [42]. The instrument was calibrated by the manufacturer and it has a life-cycle of one year. The accuracy of this instrument declared by the manufacturer is 10 ppb, in a range between 30 and 1000 ppb of H₂S and mercaptans.

All the test samples were prepared by filling the Nalophan bags with a gaseous mixture of 800 ppbV of H₂S in air, defined as the “test mixture” in the paper. The samples were obtained by withdrawing the H₂S from a certified H₂S gas cylinder (SAPIO technical gas, Milano, Italy) into Nalophan bags with a volume of 6 liters and a surface of 2580 cm².

One aspect that had to be considered for the design of the experiment is that the CairClip has steel parts that may interact with the H₂S and reduce its concentration, thereby affecting the measurements of the H₂S concentration decay through the Nalophan, which is the aim of this paper. Therefore, in order to avoid undesired interactions of the CairClip sensor with the H₂S during the sample storage period, the concentration measurements were carried out by moving the gaseous mixture contained in the storage bag into another identical empty bag containing the CairClip sensor (Figure 2). Because of the short time of the measurement, the adsorption/diffusion effect in this bag is assumed to be negligible. In order to evaluate the H₂S concentration decay over time, this procedure had to be repeated for different time intervals. A new bag had to be prepared for each tested interval and then its contents transferred to the bag containing the measurement apparatus after the desired time interval (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Scheme of the method adopted.

Figure 3: Schematization of diffusion through the thin film of the bag.

The H₂S concentration after each tested time interval was then compared to the initial H₂S concentration in the test mixture (800 ppb) in order to evaluate the H₂S loss over time.

During storage, external physical parameters like temperature (i.e., 23°C) and relative humidity (i.e., RH% equal to 20 and 60, resp.) were kept under control using a climatic chamber (Chamber GHUMY by Fratelli Galli, Milano, Italy).

2.2. Methods

In order to evaluate the contribution of adsorption and the diffusion phenomena into the Nalophan bags, several tests had to be performed, and three replications of each condition and time were tested, following the scheme in Figure 2.

After a first test using a bag with a volume of 6 liters and a surface of 2580 cm² (in the following defined as “B-no film”), other tests were repeated using bags with the same geometrical characteristics (i.e., volume of 6 liters and a surface of 2580 cm²), in which sheet of film of the same material (i.e., a 20 μm thick Nalophan sheet) was inserted. Three different tests were performed by changing the dimensions of the sheet of film inserted inside the bag. This way, besides the “B-no film” with no film in it, three different types of bags were prepared:

(i)Nalophan bag with volume of 6 L and surface of 2580 cm² containing a sheet of film of 1900 cm² (in the following defined as “B-film 1900”).(ii)Nalophan bag with volume of 6 L and surface of 2580 cm² containing a sheet of film of 2580 cm² (in the following defined as “B-film 2580”).(iii)Nalophan bag with volume of 6 L and surface of 2580 cm² containing a sheet of film of 3520 cm² (in the following defined as “B-film 3520”).

The idea of inserting the sheets of Nalophan of different dimensions inside identical bags had the aim of evaluating the contribution of adsorption of the H₂S in the Nalophan film, which is expected to increase with the surface of the Nalophan film the H₂S is in contact with.

Table 2 reports the experimental conditions tested.

Table 2: Experimental conditions. The bag tested was without any film inside (B-no film) and with the film inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B-film 1900), 2580 cm² (B-film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B-film 3520) respectively.

Test code
Bag capacity [L]
Bag surface [cm²]
Film sheet surface [cm²]

B-no film
6
2580
No film inside

B-film 1900
6
2580
1900

B-film 2580
6
2580
2580

B-film 3520
6
2580
3520

The tests were conducted by measuring the H₂S concentration at different storage time intervals, as explained in the previous paragraph. The time intervals tested were from 0 to 30 hrs, the latter being the maximum storage time allowed by the reference standard EN 13725:2003. All measurements, reported in Table 2, were repeated three times each.

The test temperature of the samples was fixed at 23°C. The role of humidity on the H₂S concentration decay inside the bag was evaluated by storing the bags at different external humidity values, of 20% and 60%, respectively.

A suitable procedure had to be adopted in order to normalize the Nalophan films tests in terms of initial conditions of water absorbed. In fact, Nalophan is proven to be water permeable [15], and thus the water adsorption in the film is connected to the external environmental conditions. For this reason, in order to normalize the water content of the tested Nalophan films, all bags were stored for 12 hours at the test conditions using a climatic chamber before the beginning of the tests.

This procedure allows obtaining repeatable results by reducing the measurement errors related to the state of swelling of the polymer matrix.

The comparison of the H₂S residual concentration inside the bag after the tested storage time with the initial H₂S concentration in the test mixture allowed the evaluation of the H₂S loss over time. As already mentioned, the aim of this paper was not only the quantification of the H₂S loss over time but also the evaluation of the relative contribution of adsorption and diffusion to this loss. H₂S adsorption was evaluated using (12) to (14) (see Calculations), whereas diffusion was calculated based on Fick’s law. To calculate the diffusion coefficient of H₂S through Nalophan, (15) to (17) were used (see Calculations). The measurements were performed at different times and the diffusion coefficient was averaged over 30 hours.

2.3. Calculations

The model used to determine the H₂S loss, due to both adsorption and diffusion, starts from the method developed in Sironi et al. 2014 [1] by adapting this for H₂S. More in detail, the novelty of this work is to separate the two contributions on pollutants loss from the sampling bag: adsorption on polymeric matrix and diffusion through the film.

The diffusion phenomenon through a polymeric film can be described by Fick’s law. Accordingly the specific molar flow is defined as

where

(i) is the specific molar flow (mol/m²/sec),(ii) is the diffusion coefficient of the compound through the film (m²/sec),(iii) is the concentration of the diffusing compound (mol/m³),(iv) is the differential thickness of the polymeric film of the bag.

The thickness of polymeric film of the bag can therefore be expressed as

where is the thickness (m) of the polymeric film of the bag.

Referring to Figure 3, which schematizes the diffusion phenomenon through the thin film that constitutes the sampling bag, it is possible to define the following:

(i) is the surface of the polymeric film of the bag (m²).(ii) is the thickness of the polymeric film of the bag (m).(iii) is the concentration in the inside volume (mol/m³).(iv) is the concentration outside the film (mol/m³), and for a single bag it is generally considered negligible ().(v) is the specific molar flow through the polymeric film of the bag (mol/m²/sec), assuming in first approximation constant along the film ().

By integrating (1) in between 0 and , the specific molar flow can be expressed as

where is relevant to an infinitesimal portion of the exchange surface .

Assuming that the internal molar concentration is homogeneous inside the whole internal volume and also the external concentration is constant inside the external volume, then the global flow through the exchange surface can be calculated by integrating as follows:

Combining (3) with (5), the molar flow through the surface can be expressed as

If the external concentration is assumed to be equal to zero (), which is the case if the bag is placed in a neutral environment (where the presence of H₂S may be considered negligible), (6) can be rewritten as

According to this model, the concentration decay over time turns out to be a function of the surface area (), the volume of the sampled gas , the film thickness (), the time (), the diffusion coefficient () that depends on the characteristics of the material, and the concentration gradient through the polymeric barrier ().

The boundary conditions considered for the integration of (7) are

The integration of (7) allows computing the concentration trend over time:

The H₂S loss (percent) through the bag over time can be expressed as

where is the concentration measured at time and is the initial concentration.

The loss of H₂S is due both to adsorption in the Nalophan and to diffusion through the bag walls.

The H₂S loss due to these phenomena can be calculated as the difference between the initial amount of H₂S () and the amount measured at the time ():

In order to evaluate the relative contributions of the two phenomena (adsorption and diffusion) to the H₂S loss inside the Nalophan bag, the following system has to be solved:

where

(i) is the amount of H₂S loss at time (µg) measured for the simple Nalophan bag,(ii) is the amount of H₂S loss at time (µg) measured for the Nalophan bag with the Nalophan sheets inserted,(iii) is the contribution of the adsorbed H₂S (µg/m²),(iv) is the contribution of the diffused H₂S (µg),(v) is surface area of the bag (m²),(vi) is surface area of the sheet of film inserted in the bag (m²).

The first equation of the system refers to the test condition in which the bag has no additional film inserted in it. On the contrary, the second equation refers to the bags containing the sheets of Nalophan film. Moreover, it is important to notice that using the same thickness of the film (i.e., 20 µm) the data are expressed in terms of surface unit. Therefore, the data obtained are directly correlated to the data expressed in terms of mass unit.

The adsorbed amount per unit of surface (/m²) can be obtained by subtracting the contribution of the diffusion (i.e., ) from the amount of H₂S losses at time (i.e., (µg)), according to (12):

The adsorbed amount () related to the considered surface can be obtained by multiplying /m² by the inner film surface (i.e., ):

The diffused amount (i.e., ) was calculated as the difference between the H₂S amount losses () at time and the adsorbed amount:

The diffusion coefficient for each time interval was calculated according to the following equation:

where is the time interval and is the concentration diffused at time .

The diffusion coefficient of H₂S through Nalophan was finally calculated as the average of the different values of weighted on the corresponding storage time :

3. Results and Discussion

As previously mentioned, the main objective of this study was the estimation of the relative contribution of the two phenomena (i.e., adsorption and diffusion) that are responsible for the H₂S concentration decay inside Nalophan bags used for olfactometric sampling.

Table 3 shows the ratio , where is the H₂S concentration measured at different time intervals () normalized to the initial concentration (), and the percent loss of H₂S (%) with respect to the initial concentration. The storage temperature was fixed at 23°C and the relative humidity was 20% and 60%, respectively. Table 3 reports the results obtained for the simple Nalophan bag (“B-no film”) and the other three bags prepared by inserting sheets of Nalophan of different dimensions inside the bags, that is, 1900 cm² (“B-film 1900”), 2580 cm² (“B-film 2580”), and 3520 cm² (“B-film 3520”), respectively, as described in the Methods.

Table 3: Experimental data relevant to the H₂S loss over time in a Nalophan bag stored at temperature of 23°C and humidity of 20% and 60%. The bag tested was without any film inside (B-no film) and with the film inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B-film 1900), 2580 cm² (B-film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B-film 3520), respectively. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests performed at the same conditions.

Time [hr]
23°C RH% 20
23°C RH% 60

% H₂S losses

% H₂S losses

B-no film
3
0.92 ± 0.04
8%  ± 4%
0.96 ± 0.02
4%  ± 2%

24
0.77 ± 0.02
23%  ± 2%
0.80 ± 0.004
20%  ± 0.4%

30
0.67 ± 0.03
33%  ± 3%
0.78 ± 0.011
22%  ± 1.1

B-film 1900
3
0.89 ± 0.01
11%  ± 1%
0.94 ± 0.02
6%  ± 2%

24
0.65 ± 0.01
35%  ± 1%
0.60 ± 0.045
40%  ± 4.5%

30
0.53 ± 0.03
47%  ± 3%
0.54 ± 0.051
46%  ± 5.1%

B-film 2580
3
0.89 ± 0.02
11%  ± 2%
0.87 ± 0.02
13%  ± 2%

24
0.54 ± 0.01
46%  ± 1%
0.53 ± 0.015
47%  ± 1.5%

30
0.39 ± 0.002
61%  ± 0.2%
0.47 ± 0.016
53%  ± 1.6%

B-film 3520
3
0.84 ± 0.04
16%  ± 4%
0.86 ± 0.02
14%  ± 2%

24
0.53 ± 0.03
47%  ± 3%
0.44 ± 0.017
56%  ± 1.7%

30
0.28 ± 0.01
71%  ± 1%
0.37 ± 0.020
63%  ± 2%

The percent loss of H₂S (%) (Table 3) inside the bag with respect to the initial concentration over time was calculated according to (10). The H₂S concentration decay is due to both the adsorption into the Nalophan (i.e., both the bag itself and the inserted film sheet) and the diffusion through the bag walls.

The percent loss of H₂S (%) from the simple bag that does not contain the extra Nalophan film sheet in it (“B-no film”) after 30 hr turns out to be equal to about 33%  ± 3% at a storage humidity of 20% and equal to 22%  ± 1% at a storage humidity of 60%. This trend is coherent with other data reported in the scientific literature dealing with the same subject. As an example, a study by Akdeniz et al. (2011) [7], also dealing with H₂S losses through polymeric films (Tedlar and Flex Foil), reports losses of about 20% after 36 hours.

Moreover, it is possible to observe for the single bag how the data show that the trends of the H₂S losses (%) are little bit higher decreasing the storage relative humidity. This is due to the presence of water caused by the humidity gradient, as already observed in Sironi et al. () [1, 27].

The data reported in Table 3 show also an increase of the H₂S losses (%) increasing the surface of the polymeric film sheet inserted in the bag. The H₂S percent loss (%), at a storage humidity of 20%, after 30 hr turns out to be equal to 47% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 1900 cm², increasing up to 71% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 3520 cm². The same trend is observed at a storage humidity of 60%: the H₂S percent loss (%) after 30 hr turns out to be equal to 46% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 1900 cm², increasing up to 63% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 3520 cm².

As said above, the H₂S losses (%) inside the bag with respect to the initial concentration are affected by two contributions: adsorption into the Nalophan and diffusion through the Nalophan bag walls. In order to evaluate these two contributions separately, the H₂S ratio adsorbed into the Nalophan film was evaluated as the ratio between (estimated according to (14)) and the initial concentration (). Figures 4 and 5 report the adsorbed H₂S (%) at specific time intervals at a storage temperature of 23°C and a humidity of 20% and 60%, respectively.

Figure 4: Adsorbed H₂S (%) at specific time intervals at a storage temperature of 23°C and humidity of 20%. The bag tested was with the film sheets inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B-film 1900), 2580 cm² (B-film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B-film 3520), respectively. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests performed at the same conditions.

Figure 5: Adsorbed H₂S (%) at specific time intervals at storage temperature of 23°C and humidity of 60%. The bag tested was with the film sheets inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B-film 1900), 2580 cm² (B-film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B-film 3520), respectively. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests performed at the same conditions.

As it is possible to observe in Figure 4 and in Figure 5, the ratio of adsorbed H₂S (%) increases by increasing the inner film sheet surface. The adsorbed H₂S (%) at a storage humidity of 20% (Figure 4) after 30 hr turns out to be equal to

(i)about 15% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 1900 cm² (“B-film 1900”),(ii)about 20% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 2580 cm² (“B-film 2580”),(iii)about 34% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 3520 cm² (“B-film 3520”).

The adsorbed H₂S (%) at a storage humidity of 60% (Figure 5) after 30 hr turns out to be equal to

(i)about 11% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 1900 cm² (“B-film 1900”),(ii)about 16% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 2580 cm² (“B-film 2580”),(iii)about 24% for the bag containing the film sheet with a surface of 3520 cm² (“B-film 3520”).

The data reported above show a weak increase of the ratio of adsorbed H₂S (%) for the bag stored at low humidity (i.e., 20%). The Nalophan film is made with PET (polyethylene terephthalate) that is known from literature to be water permeable [15]. Therefore, when storing the bag at high humidity (i.e., 60%), the amount of water that can be adsorbed on the film is greater compared to the storage condition at low humidity (i.e., 20%). At a temperature of 23°C and relative humidity of 20% the partial pressure of water is equal to 4 mmHg, whereas at a temperature of 23°C and relative humidity of 60% the partial pressure of water is equal to 13 mmHg. Therefore, in this second condition, it is likely that the water is adsorbed on the polymer matrix instead of the H₂S (competitive adsorption).

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the amount of H₂S in terms of cumulative losses (µg) and the two contributions, that is, on one hand the H₂S adsorbed on the polymeric film and on the other hand the H₂S diffused trough the bag walls. The results are shown in function of the surface area of the Nalophan film sheet inserted inside the test bags at a storage humidity of 20% and 60%, respectively.

Figure 6: The amount of H₂S in terms of cumulative losses, diffusion losses, and adsorption losses related to the surface of the inner film at a storage temperature of 23°C and humidity of 20%. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests performed at the same conditions.

Figure 7: The amount of H₂S in terms of cumulative losses, diffusion losses, and adsorption losses related to the surface of the inner film at a storage temperature of 23°C and humidity of 60%. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests.

As expected, the amount of H₂S that is adsorbed increases by increasing the surface of the Nalophan film sheet inserted inside the bag. Also, the contribution of diffusion remains almost constant for the two values of relative humidity tested (i.e., RH 20% and 60%, resp.). This aspect was expected because the film sheet inserted has no internal concentration gradient () (see Fick law (7)).

Moreover, it is possible to observe that diffusion is predominant compared to adsorption, although the latter is not negligible. The only exceptions are observed at a temperature of 23°C and a relative humidity of 20% in the bag containing the Nalophan film sheet with a surface of 3520 cm² (“B-film 3520”) (Figure 6), since in these conditions the contribution of diffusion is comparable to that of adsorption.

The averaged data of the adsorbed amount per surface unit (/m²) in µg/m² (see (12)) at specific times (i.e., 3 hr, 24 hr, and 30 hr) are reported in Table 4.

Table 4: Averaged data of the amount of H₂S adsorbed per surface unit (). The bag tested was without any film inside (B-no film) and with the film inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B- film 1900), 2580 cm² (B- film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B- film 3520), respectively. The data reported are the average of the results from three different tests performed at the same conditions.

RH% 20
RH% 60

3 hrs
24 hrs
30 hrs
3 hrs
24 hrs
30 hrs

[µg/m²]
B-film 1900
1.11 ± 0.12
4.73 ± 0.19
5.65 ± 0.45
0.74 ± 0.35
4.98 ± 0.78
4.48 ± 0.88

B-film 2580
0.95 ± 0.26
5.75 ± 0.07
6.94 ± 0.08
1.62 ± 0.29
4.95 ± 0.15
4.62 ± 0.23

B-film 3520
1.38 ± 0.39
4.87 ± 0.3
6.80 ± 0.12
1.38 ± 0.27
4.97 ± 0.27
4.65 ± 0.30

It is possible to observe (Table 4) that the results at 24 hours and 30 hours relevant to both the storage conditions tested present comparable values of /m². At 3 hr, the value of /m² is lower. The averaged values relevant to 24 and 30 hr of /m² are equal to 5.8 µg/m² (which corresponds to a ratio equal to 2.17 10⁵ ) at a relative humidity of 20% and to 4.8 µg/m² at a relative humidity of 60% (which corresponds to a ratio equal to 1.79 10⁵ ), respectively. The value of was obtained by combining the value of with the thickness of the film, which is equal to 20 µm, and the density of amorphous PET, which is equal to 1.335 g/cm³ [43].

As already observed, at a storage humidity of 20% the amount of adsorbed H₂S is higher than the adsorbed amount at the storage humidity of 60%. This may be due to the fact that to a relative humidity of 60% corresponds a higher amount of water, given that the water can compete with the H₂S in the adsorption on the polymeric film. Therefore, it is possible to assert that the adsorption of H₂S on the polymeric film is influenced by the storage humidity.

Moreover, the data in Table 4 show that after three hours of storage the polymeric film is not yet saturated. The steady state conditions, at which the polymer film is completely saturated, are reached at 24 hours. The steady state is considered reached when the sorption amount of H₂S does not vary with time in analogies with Fick law [41]. Therefore, in order to calculate the diffusion coefficient () only the data acquired at 24 hours and 30 hours were used. The diffusion coefficient was evaluated according to (16).

Table 5 reports the diffusion coefficient for each time interval at a storage temperature of 23°C and a humidity of 20% and 60%, respectively.

Table 5: Diffusion coefficient of H₂S over time in a Nalophan bag stored at a temperature of 23°C and a humidity of 20% and 60%, respectively. The bag tested was without any film inside (B-no film) and with the film inside. The surface of the internal film sheet was equal to 1900 cm² (B-film 1900), 2580 cm² (B-film 2580), and 3520 cm² (B-film 3520), respectively.

Time  [hr]
23°C RH% 20
23°C RH% 60

(m²/sec)

(m²/sec)

B-no film
24
5%

12%

24
5%

12%

24
5%

12%

30
12%

12%

30
12%

12%

30
12%

12%

B-film 1900
24
22%

25%

24
22%

30%

24
21%

27%

30
31%

33%

30
31%

38%

30
34%

33%

B-film 2580
24
26%

30%

24
25%

29%

24
25%

28%

30
37%

37%

30
43%

38%

30
43%

36%

B-film 3520
24
24%

30%

24
22%

32%

24
22%

31%

30
38%

39%

30
37%

40%

30
37%

39%

The diffusion coefficient of H₂S () through Nalophan is finally calculated as the average of the different values of (Table 5) weighted on the corresponding storage time according to (17).

The resulting value for , at a storage humidity of 20%, is equal to 7.5 10⁻¹² m²/sec with a standard deviation equal to 1.2 10⁻¹⁴ m²/sec.

The resulting value for , at a storage humidity of 60%, is equal to 6.6 10⁻¹² m²/sec with a standard deviation equal to 7.9 10⁻¹⁵ m²/sec.

The resulting values for obtained at two different storage conditions (i.e., humidity of 20% and of 60%., resp.) present the same order of magnitude.

4. Conclusions

The H₂S losses from the Nalophan bag always turned out to be significant. The H₂S loss after 30 hr was equal to 33% at a relative humidity of 20% and equal to 22% at a relative humidity of 60%.

The average value of /m² turns out to be equal to 5.8 µg/m² at a storage humidity of 20% and equal to 4.8 µg/m² at a storage humidity of 60%.

The contribution of the adsorption phenomenon, under the test conditions evaluated, is less significant than the diffusion, though not negligible. When increasing the surface of the film sheet inserted in the bag (i.e., test with “B-film 3520” at a humidity of 20%) then the contribution of adsorption to the H₂S loss inside the bag becomes comparable with the contribution of diffusion. Therefore, in the case of medium-low concentrations as it happens for those tests (from few ppb to few ppm), an increase of the polymeric surface produces an increase in the H₂S loss due to the adsorption on the polymeric film. As a consequence, in order to reduce the adsorption phenomena on the polymeric film when storing gases like H₂S at medium-low concentrations (i.e., in a range of ppb to few ppm), it is better to reduce the contact surface exposed to the gas using small sampling bags and storing the bag at a high relative humidity (i.e., RH% equal to 60%). During sampling of H₂S, in order to reduce the odor losses, special care should be taken when the expected H₂S concentration is medium or low (e.g., in the range of ppb to few ppm) because the adsorption phenomena on the polymer film in this case are not negligible.

The diffusion coefficients of H₂S through Nalophan, for these two humidity conditions tested, are comparable (i.e., 7.5 10⁻¹² m²/sec at 20% humidity and 6.6 10⁻¹² m²/sec at 60% humidity).

Evaluating the two contributions of H₂S loss (i.e., adsorption and diffusion) is important to choose the best sampling strategy (i.e., the choice of the bag material), as well as the most proper storage time and conditions.

In order to reduce the diffusion phenomena through the bag, it is possible to use polyethylene terephthalate (i.e., commercial named Nalophan) coupled with foils. Nevertheless, this choice does not solve the problems linked to the loss by adsorption of H₂S on the polymeric matrix.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

S. Sironi, L. Eusebio, L. Capelli, E. Boiardi, R. D. Rosso, and J. Guillot, “Ammonia diffusion phenomena through nalophan™ bags used for olfactometric analyses,” Journal of Environmental Protection, vol. 05, no. 11, pp. 949–961, 2014.

CEN, “EN13725Air Quality—Determination of Odour Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry. Comite "Europe" en de Normalisation (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2003”.

T. J. Schulz and A. P. Van Harreveld, “International moves towards standardisation of odour measurement using olfactometry,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 34, no. 3-4, pp. 541–547, 1996.

L. Capelli, S. Sironi, R. Del Rosso, P. Céntola, and S. Bonati, “Improvement of olfactometric measurement accuracy and repeatability by optimization of panel selection procedures,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1267–1278, 2010.

Y.-H. Kim and K.-H. Kim, “Experimental approach to assess sorptive loss properties of volatile organic compounds in the sampling bag system,” Journal of Separation Science, vol. 35, no. 21, pp. 2914–2921, 2012.

Y. Laor, Y. Ozer, U. Ravid, A. Hanan, and P. Orenstein, “Methodological aspects of sample collection for dynamic olfactometry,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 23, pp. 55–60, 2010.

N. Akdeniz, K. A. Janni, L. D. Jacobson, and B. P. Hetchler, “Comparison of Gas Sampling Bags to Temporarily Store Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, and Greenhouse Gases,” Transactions of the ASABE, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 653–661, 2011.

A. Bakhtari, “Managing odour sample degradation through On-site olfactometery and proper sample transportation and storage,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 40, pp. 163–168, 2014.

S. Beghi and J.-M. Guillot, “Sample water removal method in volatile organic compound analysis based on diffusion through poly(vinyl fluoride) film,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1127, no. 1-2, pp. 1–5, 2006.

S. Beghi and J.-M. Guillot, “Use of poly(ethylene terephtalate) film bag to sample and remove humidity from atmosphere containing volatile organic compounds,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1183, no. 1-2, pp. 1–5, 2008.

P. Boeker, J. Leppert, and P. Shulze Lammers, “Comparison of odorant losses at the, ppb-level from sampling bags of Nalophane™ and Tedlar™ and from adsorption tubes,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 40, pp. 157–162, 2014.

A. H. Bokowa, “Odour assessment: Determining the optimum temperature and time for Tedlar sampling bag pre-conditioning,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1806–1811, 2012.

S. Cariou and J.-M. Guillot, “Double-layer Tedlar bags: a means to limit humidity evolution of air samples and to dry humid air samples,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 384, no. 2, pp. 468–474, 2006.

L. Eusebio, E. Davoli, L. Capelli, R. Del Rosso, and S. Sironi, “Temperature effect on H₂S diffusion through nalophan™,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 54, pp. 313–318, 2016.

J.-M. Guillot and S. Beghi, “Permeability to water vapour and hydrogen sulphide of some sampling bags recommended by EN 13725,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 15, pp. 79–86, 2008.

M. J. Hansen, A. P. S. Adamsen, A. Feilberg, and K. E. N. Jonassen, “Stability of odorants from pig production in sampling bags for olfactometry,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1096–1102, 2011.

S.-H. Jo, K.-H. Kim, Z.-H. Shon, and D. Parker, “Identification of control parameters for the sulfur gas storability with bag sampling methods,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 738, pp. 51–58, 2012.

K.-H. Kim, “A study of sorptive loss patterns for reduced sulfur compounds in the use of the bag sampling method,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 123, no. 1–3, pp. 259–269, 2006.

Y.-H. Kim, K.-H. Kim, S.-H. Jo, E.-C. Jeon, J. R. Sohn, and D. B. Parker, “Comparison of storage stability of odorous VOCs in polyester aluminum and polyvinyl fluoride Tedlar bags,” Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 712, pp. 162–167, 2012.

J. A. Koziel, J. P. Spinhirne, J. D. Lloyd, D. B. Parker, D. W. Wright, and F. W. Kuhrt, “Evaluation of sample recovery of malodorous livestock gases from air sampling bags, solid-phase microextraction fibers, Tenax TA sorbent tubes, and sampling canisters,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1147–1157, 2005.

H. Le, E. C. Sivret, G. Parcsi, and R. M. Stuetz, “Stability of Volatile Sulfur Compounds (VSCS) in sampling bags - Impact of temperature,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 1880–1887, 2013.

H. V. Le, E. C. Sivret, G. Parcsi, and R. M. Stuetz, “Impact of storage conditions on the stability of volatile sulfur compounds in sampling bags,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1523–1529, 2015.

P. Mochalski, B. Wzorek, I. Śliwka, and A. Amann, “Suitability of different polymer bags for storage of volatile sulphur compounds relevant to breath analysis,” Journal of Chromatography B: Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences, vol. 877, no. 3, pp. 189–196, 2009.

P. Mochalski, J. King, K. Unterkofler, and A. Amann, “Stability of selected volatile breath constituents in Tedlar, Kynar and Flexfilm sampling bags,” Analyst, vol. 138, no. 5, pp. 1405–1418, 2013.

D. B. Parker, Z. L. Perschbacher-Buser, N. A. Cole, and J. A. Koziel, “Recovery of agricultural odors and odorous compounds from polyvinyl fluoride film bags,” Sensors, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 8536–8552, 2010.

J. Sáiz, J.-L. Ferrando, J.-C. Atoche, M. Torre, and C. García-Ruiz, “Study of losses of volatile compounds from dynamites. Investigation of cross-contamination between dynamites stored in polyethylene bags,” Forensic Science International, vol. 211, no. 1-3, pp. 27–33, 2011.

S. Sironi, L. Eusebio, L. Capelli, E. Boiardi, and R. Del Rosso, “Odour sample diffusion through double Nalophan™ bags,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 40, pp. 169–174, 2014.

S. Sironi, L. Eusebio, L. Dentoni, L. Capelli, and R. D. Rosso, “Ammonia diffusion through Nalophan bags,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 486–494, 2014.

M. Sulyok, C. Haberhauer-Troyer, and E. Rosenberg, “Observation of sorptive losses of volatile sulfur compounds during natural gas sampling,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 946, no. 1-2, pp. 301–305, 2002.

M. Sulyok, C. Haberhauer-Troyer, E. Rosenberg, and M. Grasserbauer, “Investigation of the stability of selected volatile sulfur compounds in different sampling containers,” Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 917, no. 1-2, pp. 367–374, 2001.

S. L. Trabue, J. C. Anhalt, and J. A. Zahn, “Bias of tedlar bags in the measurement of agricultural odorants,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1668–1677, 2006.

A. P. Van Harreveld, “Odor concentration decay and stability in gas sampling bags,” Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 2003.

J. Van Durme and B. Werbrouck, “Phase ratio variation approach for the study of partitioning behavior of volatile organic compounds in polymer sample bags: Nalophan case study,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 11067–11075, 2015.

C. Wang, P.-C. Lai, S. H. Syu, and J. Leu, “Effects of CF4 plasma treatment on the moisture uptake, diffusion, and WVTR of poly(ethylene terephthalate) flexible films,” Surface and Coatings Technology, vol. 206, no. 2-3, pp. 318–324, 2011.

T. Zarra, M. Reiser, V. Naddeo, V. Belgiorno, and M. Kranert, “A comparative and critical evaluation of different sampling materials in the measurement of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 30, pp. 307–312, 2012.

W. Zhu, J. A. Koziel, L. Cai, D. Wright, and F. Kuhrt, “Testing odorants recovery from a novel metallized fluorinated ethylene propylene gas sampling bag,” Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 1434–1445, 2015.

L. Eusebio, L. Capelli, and S. Sironi, “Electronic Nose Testing Procedure for the Definition of Minimum Performance Requirements for Environmental Odor Monitoring,” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1548–1565, 2016.

Y. Hoshika, T. Imamura, G. Muto, L. J. Van Gemert, J. A. Don, and J. I. Walpot, “International comparison of odor threshold values of several odorants in Japan and in the Netherlands,” Environmental Research, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 78–83, 1993.

“Reinhaltung der Luft,” Nachrichten aus Chemie und Technik, vol. 8, no. 23, pp. 355–355, 1960.

J. Crank and G. S. Park, Diffusion in Polymers, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968.

M. H. Klopffer and B. Flaconneche, “Transport Properties of Gases in Polymers: Bibliographic Review,” Oil Gas Science and Technology, vol. 56, pp. 223–244, 2001.

O. Zaouak, A. Ben Daoud, M. Fages, J.-L. Fanloand, and B. Auberta, “High Performance Cost Effective Miniature Sensor for Continuous Network Monitoring of H₂S,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 30, pp. 325–330, 2012.

A. B. Thompson and D. W. Woods, “Density of amorphous polyethylene terephthalate,” Nature, vol. 176, no. 4471, pp. 78-79, 1955.