4.7 Review

Review of recent developments and applications in low-pressure (vacuum outlet) gas chromatography

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 899, 期 -, 页码 13-22

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.10.003

关键词

Low-pressure vacuum outlet gas chromatography; Mass spectrometry; Fast analysis; High sample throughput

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of low pressure (LP) vacuum outlet gas chromatography (GC) was introduced more than 50 years ago, but it was not until the 2000s that its theoretical applicability to fast analysis of GC-amenable chemicals was realized. In practice, LPGC is implemented by placing the outlet of a short, wide (typically 10-15 m, 0.53 mm inner diameter) analytical column under vacuum conditions, which speeds the separation by reducing viscosity of the carrier gas, thereby leading to a higher optimal flow rate for the most separation efficiency. To keep the inlet at normal operating pressures, the analytical column is commonly coupled to a short, narrow uncoated restriction capillary that also acts as a guard column. The faster separations in LPGC usually result in worse separation efficiency relative to conventional GC, but selective detection usually overcomes this drawback. Mass spectrometry (MS) provides highly selective and sensitive universal detection, and nearly all GC-MS instruments provide vacuum outlet conditions for implementation of LPGC-MS(/MS) without need for adaptations. In addition to higher sample throughput, LPGC provides other benefits, including lower detection limits, less chance of analyte degradation, reduced peak tailing, increased sample loadability, and more ruggedness without overly narrow peaks that would necessitate excessively fast data acquisition rates. This critical review summarizes recent developments in the application of LPGC with MS and other detectors in the analysis of pesticides, environmental contaminants, explosives, phytosterols, and other semi-volatile compounds. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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