Gas chromatography–atomic emission detection for quantification of polycyclic aromatic sulfur heterocycles

Development of novel and sensitive methods for the determination of sulfide in aqueous samples by hydrogen sulfide generation-inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy

“…These spectroscopic interferences can be avoided by desolvation, the introduction of a reaction-collision cell or a combination of both [26][27][28][29][30] as well by as the use of high resolution ICP-MS [31]. On the other hand, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) has also been used for the determination of elementary sulfur [32,33]. Nakahara et al described a method based on helium microwave-induced plasma (MIP-AES), where the sample was introduced in gas-phase, for the determination of sulfide and sulfite in aqueous samples [34].…”

Some unique properties of gas chromatography coupled with atomic-emission detection

“…This has been contradicted by other findings that report an identical response for sulfur in different functional groups [52,56,57] and in 15 compounds containing the same functional group but of different molecular weight, for which the average deviation of the response factor from the real value was 4.0% (for 0.1 ng sulfur injected) [58]. Overloading of the detector leads to a lower response [58]. It has been postulated that tailing of the sulfur peaks as a result of interactions with the plasma quartz tube were responsible for difficulties in integrating the peak areas which led to large variation in the dependence of relative response factors on concentration; no dependence on the identity of the compounds could be demonstrated [53].…”

“…The closer the chemical structure of the reference compound was to that of the analyte, the better the quantification. This has been contradicted by other findings that report an identical response for sulfur in different functional groups [52,56,57] and in 15 compounds containing the same functional group but of different molecular weight, for which the average deviation of the response factor from the real value was 4.0% (for 0.1 ng sulfur injected) [58]. Overloading of the detector leads to a lower response [58].…”

“…some are 97%, others better than 99%. If no correction is made this difference in purity will naturally lead to biased response factors for some of the compounds [58]. Sample preparation can also contribute to response variations of several percent.…”

Speciation Analysis of Non-Metallic Elements Using Plasma-Based Atomic Spectrometry for Detection

“…(4)) GC-MIP-AED --- [90] obtained by using different detectors such as ECD, ICP-MS, MIP-AED (microwave induced plasma with atomic elemental detector), and ESI-MS (electrospray mass spectrometry) observing that the best results were obtained with the ECD detector. In an other attempts to analyze halogenated VOCs in seawater samples, GC-MIP-OES was used to separate and determine chlorinated VOCs [45].…”