PMID- 27526093
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
DCOM- 20180105
LR  - 20180105
IS  - 1618-2650 (Electronic)
IS  - 1618-2642 (Linking)
VI  - 408
IP  - 24
DP  - 2016 Sep
TI  - Systematic comparison of static and dynamic headspace sampling techniques for gas 
      chromatography.
PG  - 6567-79
LID - 10.1007/s00216-016-9843-y [doi]
AB  - Six automated, headspace-based sample preparation techniques were used to extract 
      volatile analytes from water with the goal of establishing a systematic 
      comparison between commonly available instrumental alternatives. To that end, 
      these six techniques were used in conjunction with the same gas chromatography 
      instrument for analysis of a common set of volatile organic carbon (VOC) 
      analytes. The methods were thereby divided into three classes: static sampling 
      (by syringe or loop), static enrichment (SPME and PAL SPME Arrow), and dynamic 
      enrichment (ITEX and trap sampling). For PAL SPME Arrow, different sorption phase 
      materials were also included in the evaluation. To enable an effective 
      comparison, method detection limits (MDLs), relative standard deviations (RSDs), 
      and extraction yields were determined and are discussed for all techniques. While 
      static sampling techniques exhibited sufficient extraction yields (approx. 
      10-20 %) to be reliably used down to approx. 100 ng L(-1), enrichment techniques 
      displayed extraction yields of up to 80 %, resulting in MDLs down to the picogram 
      per liter range. RSDs for all techniques were below 27 %. The choice on one of 
      the different instrumental modes of operation (aforementioned classes) was 
      thereby the most influential parameter in terms of extraction yields and MDLs. 
      Individual methods inside each class showed smaller deviations, and the least 
      influences were observed when evaluating different sorption phase materials for 
      the individual enrichment techniques. The option of selecting specialized 
      sorption phase materials may, however, be more important when analyzing analytes 
      with different properties such as high polarity or the capability of specific 
      molecular interactions. Graphical Abstract PAL SPME Arrow during the extraction 
      of volatile analytes from the headspace of an aqueous sample.
FAU - Kremser, Andreas
AU  - Kremser A
AD  - Instrumental Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, 
      Universitatsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany.
FAU - Jochmann, Maik A
AU  - Jochmann MA
AD  - Instrumental Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, 
      Universitatsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany.
FAU - Schmidt, Torsten C
AU  - Schmidt TC
AD  - Instrumental Analytical Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, 
      Universitatsstrasse 5, 45141, Essen, Germany. torsten.schmidt@uni-due.de.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20160815
PL  - Germany
TA  - Anal Bioanal Chem
JT  - Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry
JID - 101134327
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Headspace analysis
OT  - ITEX
OT  - Microextraction
OT  - PAL SPME Arrow
OT  - SPME
OT  - Sample preparation
EDAT- 2016/08/16 06:00
MHDA- 2016/08/16 06:01
CRDT- 2016/08/16 06:00
PHST- 2016/05/28 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2016/07/27 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2016/07/22 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2016/08/16 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2016/08/16 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2016/08/16 06:01 [medline]
AID - 10.1007/s00216-016-9843-y [pii]
AID - 10.1007/s00216-016-9843-y [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016 Sep;408(24):6567-79. doi: 10.1007/s00216-016-9843-y. Epub 
      2016 Aug 15.