Peter, 1.1mL and 1.0mL will put the same concentration of gas in the headspace pretty much as my example(ethanol in water). The partition coeffcient dominates the denominator because it is so much larger than the phase ratio. So when you mass correct the 1.1mL you are creating a 10% error.
And the original inquiry was about volume tolerance and the effects of volume changes on sample analysis. What you have told her will lead her to generate what may be invalid results for her needs. She would be best served to perform robustness testing where she varies the weight or volume of the sample addition (preferably spiked samples with known concentrations) and analytically determine the effects of the volume change on her analysis.
I am guilty of making an assumption - because Karen was worried about the effect of sample volume on headspace results I assumed that she had analytes for which volume would make a difference - which might have been completely wrong. However she did ask about adding an internal standard, and clearly then she has to know how much sample is in the vial, and the best way to determine that is by weighing, irrespective of the partition behaviour of the analytes.
What happens when Karen finds that her analysis is not robust to sample volume ? (and whether it is or not depends on whether any of the analytes partition strongly to the headspace) - what is you suggestion for how she can make the method robust ?.
Karen, forgive me if I have sent you down the wrong track (your last post leads me to think that this is not the case) - can you tell us what the matrix is (aqueous or non-polaor organic) and what the analytes are ?
Peter