4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact of phase ratio, polydimethylsiloxane volume and size, and sampling temperature and time on headspace sorptive extraction recovery of some volatile compounds in the essential oil field

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1071, 期 1-2, 页码 111-118

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2004.09.054

关键词

headspace; headspace sorptive extraction; PDMS stir bar; phase ratio beta; K-0/W; PDMS volume; sampling temperature; sampling time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates concentration capability of headspace sorptive extraction (HSSE) and the influence of sampling conditions on HSSE recovery of an analyte. A standard mixture in water of six high-to-medium volatility analytes (isobutyl methyl ketone, 3-hexanol, isoamyl acetate, 1,8-cineole, linalool and carvone) was used to sample the headspace by HSSE with stir bars coated with different polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) volumes (20, 40, 55 and 110 mu L, respectively), headspace vial volumes (8, 21.2, 40, 250 and 1000 mL), sampling temperatures (25, 50 and 75 degrees C) and sampling times (30, 60 and 120 min, and 4, 8 and 16 h). The concentration factors (CFs) of HSSE versus static headspace (S-HS) were also determined. Analytes sampled by the PDMS stir bars were recovered by thermal desorption (TDS) and analysed by capillary GC-MS. This study demonstrates how analyte recovery depends on its physico-chemical characteristics and affinity for PDMS (octanol-water partition coefficients), sampling temperatures (50 degrees C) and times (60 min), the volumes of headspace (40 mL) and of PDMS (in particular, for high volatility analytes). HSSE is also shown to be very effective for trace analysis. The HSSE CFs calculated versus S-HS with a 1000 mL headspace volumes at 25 degrees C during 4 h sampling ranged between 10(3) and 10(4) times for all analytes investigated while the limits of quantitation determined under the same conditions were in the nmol/L range. (c) 2004 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

4.6
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