Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Interference

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Interference

In atomic emission spectroscopy (AES), high-temperature atomizers excite a broad range of elements and molecules that generate complex emissions from sources such as oxides, hydroxides, and flame combustion products in the flame or plasma. Several strategies can be employed to minimize spectral interferences caused by overlapping emission lines or bands. These include increasing instrument resolution, choosing alternative emission lines, optimally placing the detector in low-background regions,...

Gas Chromatography: Types of Detectors-II

Gas Chromatography: Types of Detectors-II

In gas chromatography, different detectors are employed to meet specific analytical needs. These detectors are often categorized based on their detection mechanisms and the types of compounds they are best suited to analyze. Thermal Conductivity Detectors (TCD), Flame Ionization Detectors (FID), and Electron Capture Detectors (ECD) represent common categories, each with unique operating principles and applications. However, beyond these, several other detectors are designed for more specialized...

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...

Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Atomization Methods

Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Atomization Methods

Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) atomizes samples through flame atomization or electrothermal atomization. Flame atomization typically involves a nebulizer and spray chamber assembly to combine the sample with a fuel–oxidant mixture, creating a fine aerosol mist that enters a burner. Typically, the fuel and oxidant are combined in an approximately stoichiometric ratio. However, for atoms that are easily oxidized, a fuel-rich mixture may be more advantageous. Only about 5% of the aerosol...

Emission Spectra

Emission Spectra

When solids, liquids, or condensed gases are heated sufficiently, they radiate some of the excess energy as light. Photons produced in this manner have a range of energies, and thereby produce a continuous spectrum in which an unbroken series of wavelengths is present.

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Instrumentation

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Instrumentation

The instrumentation of atomic emission spectrometry (AES) involves various components, including atomization devices that convert samples into gas-phase atoms and ions. There are two main types of atomization devices: continuous and discrete atomizers. Continuous atomizers, like plasmas and flames, introduce samples in a constant stream, while discrete atomizers inject individual samples using syringes or autosamplers. The most common discrete atomizer is the electrothermal atomizer.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Efficacy and safety of transoral incisionless fundoplication in non-obese and obese adults: a population-based cohort study from the United States.

Surgical endoscopy·2026

Same author

Evaluation and comparison of antimicrobial property of chitosan nanoparticles on nickel-titanium archwires: an in vivo study.

Dental press journal of orthodontics·2026

Same author

Comparison of antimigration versus conventional fully covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a single-center long-term study.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy·2026

Same author

Development of an endoscopy technician training certificate program in a community college.

iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights·2026

Same author

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with tissue sent directly in formalin for histopathologic evaluation compared with cytology: a multicenter prospective pilot study.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy·2025

Same author

Diagnostic delay in type I autoimmune pancreatitis: clinical, imaging, endoscopic and histologic predictors of timely diagnosis.

Translational gastroenterology and hepatology·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 9, 2026

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Published on: May 22, 2020

Fugitive emissions opacity determination using the digital opacity compliance system (DOCS).

Michael J McFarland¹, Arthur C Olivas, Sally G Atkins

¹Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84321, USA. farlandm@msn.com

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995)

|December 12, 2007

Summary

The digital opacity compliance system (DOCS) showed statistically different results than U.S. EPA Method 9 for quantifying fugitive emissions opacity at certain distances. Air turbulence significantly impacted both methods, affecting measurement consistency.

More Related Videos

Design and Use of a Full Flow Sampling System (FFS) for the Quantification of Methane Emissions

Design and Use of a Full Flow Sampling System (FFS) for the Quantification of Methane Emissions

Published on: June 12, 2016

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 9, 2026

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Published on: May 22, 2020

Design and Use of a Full Flow Sampling System (FFS) for the Quantification of Methane Emissions

Design and Use of a Full Flow Sampling System (FFS) for the Quantification of Methane Emissions

Published on: June 12, 2016

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Area of Science:

Environmental Science
Air Quality Monitoring
Regulatory Compliance

Background:

Department of Defense (DoD) activities generate visible fugitive air emissions.
Federal methods for quantifying fugitive emissions opacity are lacking, but state/local agencies enforce standards at DoD facilities.

Purpose of the Study:

Compare the performance of the digital opacity compliance system (DOCS) against U.S. EPA Method 9 certified observers.
Evaluate method performance based on observational locations and distances.

Main Methods:

Utilized a commercial fog generator to produce visible fugitive emissions.
Systematically repositioned DOCS cameras and Method 9-certified observers during field testing.
Documented differences in opacity quantification as a function of observational locations.

Main Results:

DOCS and Method 9 showed statistically significant differences at 30- and 300-ft offset distances (99% confidence level).
Insignificant differences were observed between methods at 90- and 150-ft offset distances.
DOCS demonstrated higher precision than Method 9 at the 30-ft offset, but precision varied with distance for both methods.

Conclusions:

Ground-level air turbulence and wind shear critically impact fugitive emissions opacity measurements.
Methodological differences in opacity quantification exist, influenced by observational distance and atmospheric conditions.
Further research is needed to refine fugitive emission opacity measurement techniques for regulatory compliance.