The aim of the study was to check the reliability and comparability of different analytical methods for ambient monitoring of carbon disulfide (CS2). A stationary sampling system, consisting of a charcoal sampling tube and pump, and two personal sampling systems, consisting of a charcoal sampling tube and a portable pump and of a diffusive charcoal sampler have been compared. The limits of quantification, within-series precision, between-series precision, recovery, and comparability of the methods were investigated. For passive sampling the recovery was determined by three different techniques. For a sampling time of 6 hours the limit of quantification was 0.2 ppm for the personal sampling and 0.01 ppm for the stationary sampling system. The within-series precision was between 5 and 8%. For personal sampling the between-series precision was between 9 and 12% using a passive sampler. The recovery ranged between 45 and 85% depending on the quotient of eluent volume and charcoal mass. The comparison of the two personal sampling methods in a field study using linear regression demonstrated with statistical certainty an excellent concordance of the methods. The study shows that particularly the method for determining air levels of carbon disulfide by passive sampling is associated with high systematic errors. If these errors are unknown or ignored they will result in highly underestimated exposure data for carbon disulfide.