Kim Ki-Hyun, Pandey Sudhir Kumar, Pal Raktim
Atmospheric Environment Laboratory, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea.
J Sep Sci. 2009 Feb;32(4):549-58. doi: 10.1002/jssc.200800556.
In this study, the analytical compatibility of the gas chromatographic (GC) approach was evaluated through a cross-calibration exercise. To this end, three aromatic volatile organic compounds (VOCs: benzene, toluene, and p-xylene (BTX)) were simultaneously analyzed with four individual instrumental setups (type I = GC with MS plus solid phase microextraction (SPME) method, II = GC with flame ionization detection (FID) plus SPME, III = fast GC-FID plus SPME, and IV = GC-FID plus air server/thermal desorption (AS/TD) method). A comparison of basic quality assurance (QA) data revealed considerable differences in DL values among the methods with moderate variabilities in the intercompound sensitivity. In light of the differences in detection properties, the analytical bias involved for each methodological approach was assessed by the relative relationship between analytes and basic operating conditions. The results suggest that the analysis of environmental samples at ultra-low concentration levels (at or below ppb level) can be subject to diverse sources of bias. Although detection properties of target compounds seem to be affected by the combined effects of various factors, changes in the sample concentration levels were seen to be the most consistent under the experimental setups analyzed in this study.
在本研究中，通过交叉校准实验评估了气相色谱（GC）方法的分析兼容性。为此，使用四种不同的仪器装置同时分析了三种芳香族挥发性有机化合物（VOCs：苯、甲苯和对二甲苯（BTX））（装置I = 配有质谱仪的GC加上固相微萃取（SPME）方法，II = 配有火焰离子化检测器（FID）的GC加上SPME，III = 快速GC-FID加上SPME，以及IV = GC-FID加上空气服务器/热脱附（AS/TD）方法）。基本质量保证（QA）数据的比较显示，各方法之间的检测限（DL）值存在显著差异，化合物间的灵敏度变化适中。鉴于检测特性的差异，通过分析物与基本操作条件之间的相对关系评估了每种方法所涉及的分析偏差。结果表明，对超低浓度水平（等于或低于十亿分之一水平）的环境样品进行分析可能会受到多种偏差来源的影响。尽管目标化合物的检测特性似乎受到多种因素的综合影响，但在本研究分析的实验设置下，样品浓度水平的变化最为一致。
