http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Experimental choices for the determination of carbonyl compounds in air
Pal, Raktim,Kim, Ki-Hyun WILEY-VCH Verlag 2007 Journal of Separation Science Vol.30 No.16
<P>The analysis of carbonyls in ambient air has received a great deal of scientific attention with the advancement of analytical techniques and increased demand for the build-up of its data base. In this review article, we have attempted to provide some insight into the relative performance of different instrumental approaches available for the analysis of ambient carbonyls with a major emphasis on high performance liquid chromatographic and gas chromatographic methods. Reported in several international standard procedures, derivatization of carbonyls with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH) with either an impinger or cartridges is the most commonly used method of HPLC detection. In this respect, a number of alternative hydrazine reagents have also been discussed for use with HPLC. In contrast, GC methods based on the combined application of adsorptive enrichment on solid sorbents and thermal desorption are examined with regard to their suitability for carbonyl analysis in air. Particular emphasis has been directed towards the advantages and drawbacks of these different instrumental techniques for ambient carbonyls. Based on this comparative approach, we discuss the suitability for each method for carbonyl analysis.</P>
Kim, Ki-Hyun,Pandey, Sudhir Kumar,Pal, Raktim WILEY-VCH Verlag 2009 Journal of separation science Vol.32 No.4
<P>In this study, the analytical compatibility of the gas chromatographic (GC) approach was evaluated through a cross-calibration exercise. To this end, three aromatic volatile organic compounds (VOCs: benzene, toluene, and p-xylene (BTX)) were simultaneously analyzed with four individual instrumental setups (type I = GC with MS plus solid phase microextraction (SPME) method, II = GC with flame ionization detection (FID) plus SPME, III = fast GC-FID plus SPME, and IV = GC-FID plus air server/thermal desorption (AS/TD) method). A comparison of basic quality assurance (QA) data revealed considerable differences in DL values among the methods with moderate variabilities in the intercompound sensitivity. In light of the differences in detection properties, the analytical bias involved for each methodological approach was assessed by the relative relationship between analytes and basic operating conditions. The results suggest that the analysis of environmental samples at ultra-low concentration levels (at or below ppb level) can be subject to diverse sources of bias. Although detection properties of target compounds seem to be affected by the combined effects of various factors, changes in the sample concentration levels were seen to be the most consistent under the experimental setups analyzed in this study.</P>