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 AbstractConditions for the optimal analysis of volatile organic compounds in air with sorbent tube sampling and liquid standard calibration: demonstration of solvent effect    Next AbstractIdentification and functional analysis of pheromone and receptor genes in the B3 mating locus of Pleurotus eryngii »

ScientificWorldJournal


Title:An exploration on the suitability of airborne carbonyl compounds analysis in relation to differences in instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and standard phases (gas versus liquid)
Author(s):Kim KH; Szulejko JE; Kim YH; Lee MH;
Address:"Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-Ro, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea"
Journal Title:ScientificWorldJournal
Year:2014
Volume:20140225
Issue:
Page Number:308405 -
DOI: 10.1155/2014/308405
ISSN/ISBN:1537-744X (Electronic) 2356-6140 (Print) 1537-744X (Linking)
Abstract:"The relative performance figure of merits was investigated for the two most common analytical methods employed for carbonyl compounds (CC), for example, between high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-UV detector (with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatization) and thermal desorption (TD)-gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) (without derivatization). To this end, the suitability of each method is assessed by computing the relative recovery (RR) between the gas- and liquid-phase standards containing a suite of CC such as formaldehyde (FA), acetaldehyde (AA), propionaldehyde (PA), butyraldehyde (BA), isovaleraldehyde (IA), and valeraldehyde (VA) along with benzene (B) as a recovery reference for the GC method. The results confirm that a TD-GC-MS is advantageous to attain the maximum recovery for the heavier CCs (i.e., with molecular weights (MW) above BA-MW >/= 74). On the other hand, the HPLC-UV is favorable for the lighter CCs (like FA and AA) with the least bias. Such compound-specific responses for each platform are validated by relative ordering of CCs as a function of response factor (RF), method detection limit (MDL), and recovery pattern. It is thus desirable to understand the advantages and limitations of each method to attain the CC data with the least experimental bias"
Keywords:"Air Pollutants/*analysis/chemistry Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid/instrumentation/*methods Environmental Monitoring/instrumentation/*methods Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/instrumentation/*methods Gases/*analysis/chemistry Phase Transition Sol;"
Notes:"MedlineKim, Ki-Hyun Szulejko, Jan E Kim, Yong-Hyun Lee, Min-Hee eng Comparative Study Evaluation Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 2014/04/11 ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Feb 25; 2014:308405. doi: 10.1155/2014/308405. eCollection 2014"

 
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 22-11-2024