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 AbstractUse of passive SPME sampling devices to determine exposure of oil painters to organic compounds    Next AbstractRole of the GacS Sensor Kinase in the Regulation of Volatile Production by Plant Growth-Promoting Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 »

Water Environ Res


Title:Wastewater analysis for volatile organic sulfides using purge-and-trap with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
Author(s):Cheng X; Peterkin E; Narangajavana K;
Address:"Bureau of Laboratory Services, Philadelphia Water Department, 1500 E. Hunting Park Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19124, USA. xianhao.cheng@phila.gov"
Journal Title:Water Environ Res
Year:2007
Volume:79
Issue:4
Page Number:442 - 446
DOI: 10.2175/106143006x111871
ISSN/ISBN:1061-4303 (Print) 1061-4303 (Linking)
Abstract:"This paper presented a modified method for the analysis of volatile organic sulfides (VOS) simultaneously with volatile organic compounds (VOC) in wastewater using purge-and-trap with gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry. Calibration standards were prepared using filtered and nitrogen-purged VOS-free wastewater, acidified to pH 1.4. Samples were also acidified to pH 1.4. This approach minimized the oxidation of methanethiol to dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), which hampered the liquid-phase analysis of VOS. Compounds were concentrated from the liquid phase, and automated analyses were performed without additional equipment, other than that required for routine wastewater VOC analysis. The linear range was 5 to 500 microg/L, with r2 > or = 0.99. The average recovery from replicate analyses of spiked samples was 81 +/- 0.5% for methanethiol, 100 +/- 1.5% fordimethyl sulfide (DMS), and 92 +/- 1.5% for DMDS. Method detection limits were 4.8, 2.8, and 1.2 microg/L for methanethiol, DMS, and DMDS, respectively. The relative percent differences were between 0 and 8%"
Keywords:"Environmental Monitoring/*methods Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/*methods Sulfides/*analysis Volatilization *Waste Disposal, Fluid Water Pollutants, Chemical/*analysis;"
Notes:"MedlineCheng, Xianhao Peterkin, Earl Narangajavana, Kanthaka eng Evaluation Study 2007/05/11 Water Environ Res. 2007 Apr; 79(4):442-6. doi: 10.2175/106143006x111871"

 
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 23-11-2024