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 AbstractIdentification and characterization of the aroma-impact components of Thai fish sauce    Next AbstractContribution of autochthonous yeasts with probiotic potential to the aroma profile of fermented Guajillo pepper sauce »

Talanta


Title:Critical comparison of automated purge and trap and solid-phase microextraction for routine determination of volatile organic compounds in drinking waters by GC-MS
Author(s):Lara-Gonzalo A; Sanchez-Uria JE; Segovia-Garcia E; Sanz-Medel A;
Address:"Department of Physical and Analytical Chemistry, University of Oviedo, C/ Julian Claveria 8, 33006 Oviedo, Spain"
Journal Title:Talanta
Year:2008
Volume:20071002
Issue:5
Page Number:1455 - 1462
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2007.09.036
ISSN/ISBN:1873-3573 (Electronic) 0039-9140 (Linking)
Abstract:"The use of two automated sample preparation techniques, solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and purge and trap (P&T) systems are critically compared for the GC-MS determination of eight volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trihalomethanes (THMs), in drinking water samples. Compounds chosen for the comparison are regulated by Spanish and European official guidelines for drinking waters. Experimental parameters investigated for the two sample preparation techniques included SPME type of fibers, SPME modality, P&T gas flow, extraction and desorption times and desorption temperatures. Thus, optimal experimental conditions have been worked out for the SPME and P&T techniques. Under such optimised conditions, detection limits, precision and accuracy were evaluated. Both methods fulfilled the values that the official guidelines establish. The P&T-GC-MS method offers LDs ranged from 0.004 to 0.2 ng mL(-1), repeatabilities below 6% and recoveries between 81 and 117%; while LDs ranging from 0.008 to 0.7 ng mL(-1), 1-12% R.S.D. and recoveries from 80 to 119% were achieved with the SPME-GC-MS method. Finally, we chose P&T-GC-MS method as the best for this determination and we validate this methodology by its application to the analysis of an Aquacheck Interlaboratory Exercise"
Keywords:Organic Chemicals/*analysis Solid Phase Microextraction/*methods Spain Trihalomethanes/analysis Volatilization Water Pollutants/*analysis Water Supply/*analysis/legislation & jurisprudence;
Notes:"MedlineLara-Gonzalo, Azucena Sanchez-Uria, Jose Enrique Segovia-Garcia, Eva Sanz-Medel, Alfredo eng Evaluation Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Netherlands 2008/03/29 Talanta. 2008 Feb 15; 74(5):1455-62. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2007.09.036. Epub 2007 Oct 2"

 
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 25-11-2024