4.7 Article

Headspace SPME followed by GC/PFPD for the analysis of malodorous sulfur compounds in liquid industrial effluents

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 378, Issue 1, Pages 190-196

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-003-2278-2

Keywords

SPME; sulfur compounds; liquid effluent; headspace

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Headspace SPME was used to analyse malodorous sulfur compounds in liquid industrial effluents. A pulsed flame photometric detector (PFPD) was selected for a specific and sensitive analysis. Two fibres, PDMS/Dvb and PDMS/Carboxen, which are particularly convenient for extracting small and volatile molecules were tested. To compare these fibres, both sensitivity and artefact formation were considered. The PDMS/Carboxen fibre showed the lower limits of detection and moreover the least artefact formation yields. It was therefore selected and headspace SPME extraction conditions were optimised. Limits of detection of the target compounds evaluated were 12-31 ng L-1 and repeatability was around 7%. Due to the adsorption mechanism involved, extraction is strongly influenced by the sample matrix and the low affinity compounds can suffer displacement effects. To investigate the occurrence of this phenomenon, two sampling times corresponding to non-equilibrium (5 min) and equilibrium conditions (60 min) were investigated. An external calibration was carried out by using standard solutions for both sampling times. The developed procedure was then compared to the standard addition method on a real industrial effluent. The results obtained from the two methods and for the two extraction times were in good agreement, demonstrating that even a long sampling time can be used. Therefore, the simple and timesaving external calibration was defined as relevant for an accurate quantification of sulfur compounds by headspace SPME.

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