There is also concern that the formaldehyde emission rates in Table 1, and as reported by
Goniewicz et.al. [3], may be less than the true emission rates. The reason for this concern is the
very large number of puffs, 150, that were introduced directly into the sampling tube (SKC 226-
119, 300 front/150 mg back). This much glycol, estimated at more than 1 ml, may have
sufficiently coated the DNPH impregnated silica gel, such that the formaldehyde gas passing
through the sampler could not be fully derivatized by the DNPH, resulting in a measured
emission rate that is less than the true formaldehyde emission rate.