4.7 Article

Characterization of the materials used in Chinese ink sticks by pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 147-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2011.02.001

Keywords

Chinese ink stick; Py-GC-MS; Lamp soot; Pine wood soot; Animal glue; PAHs

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [L 699] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chinese ink stick has a long history and a special importance in Chinese culture. Its main components are soot (normally pine wood soot and lamp soot) and animal glue; however, additives were added from time to time for different purposes. In order to see whether the two types of soot can be differentiated and the other constituents in Chinese ink sticks can be identified or not by Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) and GC-MS techniques, an initial study has been carried out. The main polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soot could be identified, which are anthracene, fluoranthene, triphenylene and benz[e]acephenanthrylene. The main difference between those two types of soot is that the detectable amount of PAHs in lamp soot is much lower than in pine wood soot. In addition to this, the relative concentration of the main polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, triphenylene and its isomer, benzo[k]fluoranthene and its isomers are different in the two types of soot. The relative content of benzo[k]fluoranthene is higher in pine soot than in lamp soot, which could be used to as a criterion to differentiate the two types of soot. Py-GC-MS technique is a very effective method to identify the main components of Chinese ink sticks, including the PAHs of soot, binding media and the additives of camphor and borneol in one analysis. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available