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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Ki-Hyun, Szulejko, Jan E., Kim, Yong-Hyun, Lee, Min-Hee
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