Detection of volatile organic sulfur compounds in water by headspace gas chromatography and membrane inlet mass spectrometry

Marja Ojala (Corresponding Author), Raimo Ketola, Timo Mansikka, Tapio Kotiaho, Risto Kostiainen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)165 - 169
Number of pages5
JournalHRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography
Volume20
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1997
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Sulfur Compounds
Sulfur compounds
Gas chromatography
Mass spectrometry
Membranes
Water
Gases
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon disulfide
Thiophenes
Thiophene
Ionization
Detectors

Cite this

Ojala, Marja ; Ketola, Raimo ; Mansikka, Timo ; Kotiaho, Tapio ; Kostiainen, Risto. / Detection of volatile organic sulfur compounds in water by headspace gas chromatography and membrane inlet mass spectrometry. In: HRC Journal of High Resolution Chromatography. 1997 ; Vol. 20, No. 3. pp. 165 - 169.
@article{c2ed8516504d437089dbf48d7e237f33,
title = "Detection of volatile organic sulfur compounds in water by headspace gas chromatography and membrane inlet mass spectrometry",
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.",
author = "Marja Ojala and Raimo Ketola and Timo Mansikka and Tapio Kotiaho and Risto Kostiainen",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1002/jhrc.1240200307",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "165 -- 169",
journal = "Journal of Separation Science",
issn = "1615-9306",
publisher = "Wiley-VCH Verlag",
number = "3",

}

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 journalArticleScientificpeer-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 -