Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 165 - 169 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | HRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1997 |
| MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Detection of volatile organic sulfur compounds in water by headspace gas chromatography and membrane inlet mass spectrometry. / Ojala, Marja (Corresponding Author); Ketola, Raimo; Mansikka, Timo; Kotiaho, Tapio; Kostiainen, Risto.
In: HRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1997, p. 165 - 169.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review
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
VL - 20
SP - 165
EP - 169
JO - Journal of Separation Science
JF - Journal of Separation Science
SN - 1615-9306
IS - 3
ER -