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 AbstractPassive breath monitoring of livestock: using factor analysis to deconvolve the cattle shed    Next AbstractSex recognition pheromone in tsetse fly Glossina morsitans »

Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom


Title:Rapid monitoring of volatile organic compounds: a comparison between gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry
Author(s):Langford VS; Graves I; McEwan MJ;
Address:"Syft Technologies Ltd, 3 Craft Pl, Christchurch, New Zealand"
Journal Title:Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom
Year:2014
Volume:28
Issue:1
Page Number:10 - 18
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.6747
ISSN/ISBN:1097-0231 (Electronic) 0951-4198 (Linking)
Abstract:"RATIONALE: The gold standard for monitoring volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). However, in many situations, when VOC concentrations are at the ppmv level, there are complicating factors for GC/MS. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) is an emerging technique for monitoring VOCs in air. It is simpler to use and provides results in real time. METHODS: Three different experiments were used for the comparison. First SIFT-MS was applied to monitor the concentrations of 25 VOCs in a mixture at concentrations up to 1 ppmv using only a generic database for known kinetic data of three reagent ions (H3O(+), NO(+) and O2(+)) with each VOC. In experiment 2, a side-by-side comparison was made of 17 VOCs at concentrations between 1 ppmv and 5 ppbv after small corrections had been made to the SIFT-MS kinetic data. In a third experiment, a side-by-side comparison examined two groups of samples received for commercial analysis. RESULTS: In experiment 1, 85% of the VOC concentrations were within 35% of their stated values without any calibration of the SIFT-MS instrument. In experiment 2, the two techniques yielded good correspondence between the measured VOC concentrations. In experiment 3, good correlation was found for VOCs from three of the samples. However, interferences from some product ions gave over-reported values in one sample from the SIFT-MS instrument. CONCLUSIONS: These three experiments showed that GC/MS was better suited to monitoring samples containing large numbers of VOCs at high concentrations. In all other applications, SIFT-MS proved simpler to use, was linear with concentration over a much wider concentration range than GC/MS and provided faster results"
Keywords:
Notes:"PubMed-not-MEDLINELangford, Vaughan S Graves, Ian McEwan, Murray J eng England 2013/11/29 Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2014 Jan 15; 28(1):10-8. doi: 10.1002/rcm.6747"

 
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