Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in water

dc.contributor.authorWooding, Madelien
dc.contributor.authorRohwer, Egmont Richard
dc.contributor.authorNaude, Yvette
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-07T05:47:46Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-01
dc.description.abstractThe presence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment is a worldwide environmental concern. The diversity of micropollutants and the low concentration levels at which they may occur in the aquatic environment have greatly complicated the analysis and detection of these chemicals. Two sorptive extraction samplers and two thermal desorption methods for the detection of micropollutants in water were compared. A low-cost, disposable, in-house made sorptive extraction sampler was compared to SBSE using a commercial Twister sorptive sampler. Both samplers consisted of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as a sorptive medium to concentrate micropollutants. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable samplers in the inlet of a GC was compared to conventional thermal desorption using a commercial thermal desorber system (TDS). Comprehensive gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS) was used for compound separation and identification. Ten micropollutants, representing a range of heterogeneous compounds, were selected to evaluate the performance of the methods. The in-house constructed sampler, with its associated benefits of low-cost and disposability, gave results comparable to commercial SBSE. Direct thermal desorption of the disposable sampler in the inlet of a GC eliminated the need for expensive consumable cryogenics and total analysis time was greatly reduced as a lengthy desorption temperature programme was not required. Limits of detection for the methods ranged from 0.0010 ng L−1 to 0.19 ng L−1. For most compounds, the mean (n = 3) recoveries ranged from 85% to 129% and the % relative standard deviation (% RSD) ranged from 1% to 58% with the majority of the analytes having a % RSD of less than 30%.en_ZA
dc.description.departmentChemistryen_ZA
dc.description.embargo2018-09-01
dc.description.librarianhj2017en_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipThe National Research Foundation (NRF)en_ZA
dc.description.urihttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/acaen_ZA
dc.identifier.citationWooding, M., Rohwer, E.R. & Naudé, Y., Comparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in water, Analytica Chimica Acta (2017), vol. 984, pp. 107-115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1873-4324 (online)
dc.identifier.issn0003-2670 (print)
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/61594
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherElsevieren_ZA
dc.rights© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Notice : this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Analytica Chimica Acta. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. A definitive version was subsequently published in Analytica Chimica Acta, vol. 984, pp. 107-115, 2017. doi : 10.1016/j.aca.2017.06.030.en_ZA
dc.subjectDisposable PDMS sampleren_ZA
dc.subjectStir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE)en_ZA
dc.subjectMicropollutantsen_ZA
dc.subjectWateren_ZA
dc.subjectThermal desorptionen_ZA
dc.subjectThermal desorber system (TDS)en_ZA
dc.subjectPolydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)en_ZA
dc.subjectGas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS)en_ZA
dc.titleComparison of a disposable sorptive sampler with thermal desorption in a gas chromatographic inlet, or in a dedicated thermal desorber, to conventional stir bar sorptive extraction-thermal desorption for the determination of micropollutants in wateren_ZA
dc.typePostprint Articleen_ZA

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Wooding_Comparison_2017.pdf
Size:
482.74 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Postprint Article

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: