4.7 Article

Re-evaluation of effective carbon number (ECN) approach to predict response factors of 'compounds lacking authentic standards or surrogates' (CLASS) by thermal desorption analysis with GC-MS

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 851, 期 -, 页码 14-22

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2014.08.033

关键词

Volatile organic compound; Carbon number; Effective carbon number; Sorbent tube; Thermal desorption; Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry applications

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) [2009-0093848]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In our recent study, we experimentally demonstrated the feasibility of an effective carbon number (ECN) approach for the prediction of the response factor (RF) values of 'compounds lacking authentic standards or surrogates' (CLASS) using a certified 54-mix containing 38 halogenated analytes as a pseudo-unknown. Although our recent analysis performed well in terms of RF predictive power for a 25-component learning set (for both Q-MS and TOF-MS detection), large physically unrealistic negative ECN and carbon number equivalent (CNE) values were noted for TOF-MS detection, e. g., ECN (acetic acid) = -16.96. Hence, to further improve the ECN-based quantitation procedure of CLASS, we re-challenged RF vs. ECN linear regression analysis with additional descriptors (i.e., -Cl, -Br, C-C , and a group ECN offset (O-k)) using the 1-point RF values. With an O-k, all compound classes, e. g., halo-alkanes/-alkenes and aromatics can now be fitted to yield consistently positive set of ECN values for most analytes (e. g., 3 outliers out of 29, Q-MS detection). In this way, we were able to further refine our approach so that the absolute percentage difference (PD) +/- standard deviation (SD) between mass detected vs. mass loaded is reduced from 39.0 +/- 34.1% (previous work) to 13.1 +/- 12.0% (this work) for 29 C-1-C-4 halocarbons (Q-MS detector). (C) 2014 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据