Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractChemical sinks of organic aerosol: kinetics and products of the heterogeneous oxidation of erythritol and levoglucosan    Next AbstractEnvironmental applications of membrane introduction mass spectrometry »

Talanta


Title:Comparison of different methods for the determination of volatile organic compounds in water samples
Author(s):Ketola RA; Virkki VT; Ojala M; Komppa V; Kotiaho T;
Address:"VTT Chemical Technology, P.O. Box 1401, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland"
Journal Title:Talanta
Year:1997
Volume:44
Issue:3
Page Number:373 - 382
DOI: 10.1016/s0039-9140(96)02072-3
ISSN/ISBN:0039-9140 (Print) 0039-9140 (Linking)
Abstract:"The aim of this work was to compare the characteristics of three methods, membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS), purge-and-trap gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (P&T) and static headspace gas chromatography (HSGC), for the determination of volatile organic compounds in water samples as used in routine analysis. The characteristics examined included linear dynamic ranges, detection limits of selected environmentally hazardous volatile organic compounds (e.g. toluene, benzene and trichloroethene) in water, required analysis time and reproducibility of the analytical methods. The MIMS and P&T methods had the lowest detection limits for all the tested compounds, ranging from 0.1 to 5 mug 1(-1). Linear dynamic ranges using the MIMS method were about four orders of magnitude and using the P&T method about two orders of magnitude. Detection limits of the HSGC method were 10-100 times higher than those of the other two methods, but the linear dynamic ranges were larger, even up to six orders of magnitude. The analysis time per sample was shortest for the MIMS method, from 5 to 10 min, and ranged around from 35 to 45 min for the HSGC and P&T methods. The reproducibilities of the methods were of the same order of magnitude, in the range of 1-13%. Agreement between the analytical results obtained for spiked samples and for environmental water samples by the three different methods was very good"
Keywords:
Notes:"PubMed-not-MEDLINEKetola, R A Virkki, V T Ojala, M Komppa, V Kotiaho, T eng Netherlands 1997/03/01 Talanta. 1997 Mar; 44(3):373-82. doi: 10.1016/s0039-9140(96)02072-3"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 29-06-2024