Cargando…
An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid)
The relative performance figure of merits was investigated for the two most common analytical methods employed for carbonyl compounds (CC), for example, between high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-UV detector (with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatization) and thermal desorption (T...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24719571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/308405 |
_version_ | 1782307682993045504 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Ki-Hyun Szulejko, Jan E. Kim, Yong-Hyun Lee, Min-Hee |
author_facet | Kim, Ki-Hyun Szulejko, Jan E. Kim, Yong-Hyun Lee, Min-Hee |
author_sort | Kim, Ki-Hyun |
collection | PubMed |
description | The relative performance figure of merits was investigated for the two most common analytical methods employed for carbonyl compounds (CC), for example, between high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-UV detector (with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatization) and thermal desorption (TD)-gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) (without derivatization). To this end, the suitability of each method is assessed by computing the relative recovery (RR) between the gas- and liquid-phase standards containing a suite of CC such as formaldehyde (FA), acetaldehyde (AA), propionaldehyde (PA), butyraldehyde (BA), isovaleraldehyde (IA), and valeraldehyde (VA) along with benzene (B) as a recovery reference for the GC method. The results confirm that a TD-GC-MS is advantageous to attain the maximum recovery for the heavier CCs (i.e., with molecular weights (MW) above BA−MW ≥ 74). On the other hand, the HPLC-UV is favorable for the lighter CCs (like FA and AA) with the least bias. Such compound-specific responses for each platform are validated by relative ordering of CCs as a function of response factor (RF), method detection limit (MDL), and recovery pattern. It is thus desirable to understand the advantages and limitations of each method to attain the CC data with the least experimental bias. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3956549 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39565492014-04-09 An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) Kim, Ki-Hyun Szulejko, Jan E. Kim, Yong-Hyun Lee, Min-Hee ScientificWorldJournal Research Article The relative performance figure of merits was investigated for the two most common analytical methods employed for carbonyl compounds (CC), for example, between high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-UV detector (with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatization) and thermal desorption (TD)-gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) (without derivatization). To this end, the suitability of each method is assessed by computing the relative recovery (RR) between the gas- and liquid-phase standards containing a suite of CC such as formaldehyde (FA), acetaldehyde (AA), propionaldehyde (PA), butyraldehyde (BA), isovaleraldehyde (IA), and valeraldehyde (VA) along with benzene (B) as a recovery reference for the GC method. The results confirm that a TD-GC-MS is advantageous to attain the maximum recovery for the heavier CCs (i.e., with molecular weights (MW) above BA−MW ≥ 74). On the other hand, the HPLC-UV is favorable for the lighter CCs (like FA and AA) with the least bias. Such compound-specific responses for each platform are validated by relative ordering of CCs as a function of response factor (RF), method detection limit (MDL), and recovery pattern. It is thus desirable to understand the advantages and limitations of each method to attain the CC data with the least experimental bias. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3956549/ /pubmed/24719571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/308405 Text en Copyright © 2014 Ki-Hyun Kim et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kim, Ki-Hyun Szulejko, Jan E. Kim, Yong-Hyun Lee, Min-Hee An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title | An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title_full | An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title_fullStr | An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title_full_unstemmed | An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title_short | An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid) |
title_sort | exploration on the suitability of airborne carbonyl compounds analysis in relation to differences in instrumentation (gc-ms versus hplc-uv) and standard phases (gas versus liquid) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24719571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/308405 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimkihyun anexplorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT szulejkojane anexplorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT kimyonghyun anexplorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT leeminhee anexplorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT kimkihyun explorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT szulejkojane explorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT kimyonghyun explorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid AT leeminhee explorationonthesuitabilityofairbornecarbonylcompoundsanalysisinrelationtodifferencesininstrumentationgcmsversushplcuvandstandardphasesgasversusliquid |