Objectives:The purpose of this study was to determine the best method to analyze PAHs at extremely low concentrations. To this end, 16 PAHswere analyzed simultaneously by GC/MS, HPLC/FLD and HPLC/UVD, and the analytical characteristics of HPLC and GC/MS were compared. Methods: This study was conducted by GC/MS and HPLC/FLD/UVD, and evaluated linearity, precision and detection limit. Standard solutions were prepared for 21 samples in the range of 0.00001~1.0 ㎍/mL and the samples were divided into four groups. All samples were made in three sets and analysis was replicated seven times. Results: Sixteen PAHs could be simultaneously separated by HPLC and GC/MS, and the adequate equipment was HPLC/FLD. The retention times by HPLC were shorter than GC/MS, and HPLC had better separation for most PAHs than GC/MS. The peaks of naphthalene and naphthalene-D8 partially overlapped for GC/MS. HPLC/FLD had a 20-2000 times lower limit of detection than GC/MS and UVD. However FLD was not adequate for analyzing acenaphthylene because it has too low a fluorescence quantum yield to be detected. The precision of HPLC/FLD/UVD and GC/MS showed less than 20% at 0.001 ㎍/mL PAHs and when the concentration was higher, the coefficient of variation was decreased. HPLC/FLD was better for the overall detection of limits.
Conclusions:The results indicate that the HPLC/FLD method has good linear range, precision and a detection of limits from 0.00001~0.0001 ㎍/mL for all 16 PAHs. This study contributes to providing useful data for analysis technology and can be applied to occupational exposure measurement for PAHs in workplaces.