TY - JOUR
T1 - Detection of volatile organic sulfur compounds in water by headspace gas chromatography and membrane inlet mass spectrometry
AU - Ojala, Marja
AU - Ketola, Raimo
AU - Mansikka, Timo
AU - Kotiaho, Tapio
AU - Kostiainen, Risto
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Two gas chromatographic methods, GC‐FID (flame ionization
detection) and GC‐ELCD (electrolytic conductivity detector) are compared
in tlie analysis of volatile organic sulfur compounds (VOSCs) in water
samples with a membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) technique. Carbon
disulfide, ethanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, ethyl‐methyl sulfide,
thiophene, and dimethyl disulfide were used as test compounds. Linear
dynamic ranges were found to be two decades with the GC‐ELCD method and
four decades with the GC‐FID and MIMS methods. Detection limits were at
low (μg/1 levels with the two gas chromatographic methods and clearly
below μg/1 level with the MIMS method. Analysis of one sample takes 40
min with the gas chromatographic methods and five minutes with the MIMS
method. The selectivity was good, especially with the GC‐ELCD and the
MIMS method. In addition, quantitative results obtained with spiked
water samples by the three methods are compared.
AB - Two gas chromatographic methods, GC‐FID (flame ionization
detection) and GC‐ELCD (electrolytic conductivity detector) are compared
in tlie analysis of volatile organic sulfur compounds (VOSCs) in water
samples with a membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) technique. Carbon
disulfide, ethanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, ethyl‐methyl sulfide,
thiophene, and dimethyl disulfide were used as test compounds. Linear
dynamic ranges were found to be two decades with the GC‐ELCD method and
four decades with the GC‐FID and MIMS methods. Detection limits were at
low (μg/1 levels with the two gas chromatographic methods and clearly
below μg/1 level with the MIMS method. Analysis of one sample takes 40
min with the gas chromatographic methods and five minutes with the MIMS
method. The selectivity was good, especially with the GC‐ELCD and the
MIMS method. In addition, quantitative results obtained with spiked
water samples by the three methods are compared.
U2 - 10.1002/jhrc.1240200307
DO - 10.1002/jhrc.1240200307
M3 - Article
SN - 0935-6304
VL - 20
SP - 165
EP - 169
JO - HRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography
JF - HRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography
IS - 3
ER -