I would have to disagree with Wolfram.
We have used both thermal desorption and solvent
extraction with sorbent tubes for isotopic
analyses quite successfully. Fractionation is
always a concern, as Wolfram says. However, each
such project for us begins with extensive tests
establishing that we can sample a standard mix of
known isotopic composition and get reliable
measurements after sorption/desorption without an appreciable shift.
We have had similar experience with SPME.
Paul Eby
University of Victoria
At 02:07 AM 29/07/2006, you wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>
>I'm afraid to say either method you think of
>using will carry the risk of non-quantitative
>recovery and, hence isotopic fractionation.
>
>Direct injection or cryo-focusing are the only
>methods that avoid this problem. That said, if
>you are only interested in a particular group of
>VOCs, say BTEX, you can try SPME. I am not
>saying this process is free of mass
>discrimination because it is not but you may be
>able to determine the extent of the isotope
>shift (for 13C in the region of 2-5 o/oo if
>memory serves) and how to control and, hence correct for it.
>
>Incidentally, as far as I am aware the thorny
>issue of recovery of air sampling methods has
>prompted the EPA to revisit all air sampling
>methods (for VOCs) and instead of adsorbtive
>sampling followed by thermal desorption now
>recommends either bag or evacuated container (canister) sampling.
>
>I have to admit I was rather pleased when I
>learned about this. Whenever I critised
>adsorptive VOC sampling methods (esp. Tennax) at
>conferences, workshops, meetings etc, I was made
>to feel as welcome as a garlic and holy water
>merchant at a vampires' convention. You can
>imagine how popular I was with the company reps.
>
>As long as there is some recovery, one can
>correct for this effect using a standard
>calibration curve as long as one is only
>interested in presence and concentration thought
>even this can be dicey at the lower
>concentration end of things. For isotope
>analysis however, desorption tubes filled with
>Tennax are completely and utterly useless.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Wolfram
>
>
>
>On Jul 28 2006, Widory David wrote:
>
>>Dear all, we are currently trying to set our
>>equipment up for analysis of atmospheric VOC
>>(on a Delta plus XP). For sampling, we are
>>tending towards the use of small glass sorbent
>>tubes. My main question would be to identify
>>what is the most appropriate device for
>>introduction into the GC-C/TC ? According to me
>>we have to choose between a thermal desorption
>>unit and solvent extraction followed by liquid
>>injection (with a GC-PAL or similar). Can
>>anyone share its experience on the pros and
>>cons of each technique, as well as related
>>papers ? Thanking you in advance. Cordially, David
>>
>>
>>Dr D. Widory
>>Stable Isotope Laboratory Manager
>>BRGM MMA/ISO
>>3 avenue Claude Guillemin
>>BP 36009
>>45060 Orléans Cedex 2
>>France
>>e-mail : [log in to unmask]
>>Tel : +33-(0)2 38 64 47 72
>>Fax : +33-(0)2 38 64 37 11
>>
>>**********************************************************************************************
>>Le contenu de cet e-mail et de ses pièces
>>jointes est destiné à l'usage exclusif du (des)
>>destinataire(s) expressément désigné(s) comme
>>tel(s). En cas de réception de cet
>> e-mail par erreur, le signaler à son
>> expéditeur et ne pas en divulguer le contenu.
>> L'absence de virus a été vérifié à l'émission
>> du message. Il convient néanmoins de vérifier
>> l'absence de corruption à sa réception. The
>> contents of this email and any attachments are
>> confidential. They are intended for the named
>> recipient(s) only. If you have received this
>> email in error please notify the system
>> manager or the sender immediately and do not
>> disclose the contents to anyone or make
>> copies. eSafe scanned this email for viruses,
>> vandals and malicious content.
>> **********************************************************************************************
|