4.4 Article

Rapid online equilibration method to determine the D/H ratios of non-exchangeable hydrogen in cellulose

Journal

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
Volume 20, Issue 22, Pages 3337-3344

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.2743

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An improved method for the determination of deuterium-to-hydrogen (D/H) ratios of non-exchangeable hydrogen in cellulose is presented. The method is based on the equilibration reaction of the hydroxyl hydrogen of cellulose and water vapour of known isotopic composition. The equilibrated cellulose is pyrolysed and the total D/H ratio determined by subsequent online isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS). With a mass balance system the D/H ratio of non-exchangeable hydrogen is recalculated after an empirical calibration has been performed, yielding a mean exchangeability of 0.239 and an equilibrium fractionation factor of 1.082 between the hydroxyl hydrogen of cellulose and water hydrogen at 110 degrees C. Equilibration takes 10 min per sample. Results obtained by this online equilibration method agree very well with values obtained by the nitration technique (R-2 = 0.941). The uncertainty of the equilibration method is +/- 4 parts per thousand resulting from a single standard deviation of +/- 2.8 parts per thousand for the equilibration determined by standard cellulose and 2.8 parts per thousand from the variable exchangeability of the hydroxyl hydrogen in cellulose due to crystalline areas. The latter uncertainty may be lowered by minimising the crystallinity of the cellulose. Advantages of this new technique are (i) the considerably reduced sample amount required (as low as 0.2 mg, ideally 0.5 mg compared with 20 mg for the conventional nitration technique); (ii) an approximately 100-fold reduced process time; and (iii) no need for the hazardous chemicals used in the nitration technique. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available