-
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:14 pm
Advertisement
Tailing Alcohols - Headspace Analysis
Discussions about GC and other "gas phase" separation techniques.
44 posts
Page 2 of 3
There is no reason why you can't run the GC at 10:1 or even 5:1 split ratio. To isolate where the problem is, you can connect the carrier gas line directly to the injector port by bypassing HT3. Try run the GC @10:1 or 5:1 split ratio, if it still shuts down, it's probably a leak in the injector port. If it runs fine, it's a HT3 issue.
-
- Posts: 5433
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Hi Schmitty
I'll go with Rod, you sample is sticking in the 4-5 inch bit of unheated metal tube. Getting this up to the temperature of the transfer line is going to be tricky. just insulating it will probably not be enough becuase its only sources of heat are via conduction from the inlet and transfer line. Can you wrap a bit of heater tape around it, or just to confirm that it is the source of the problem, blow on it with ahot air gun just for a couple of test runs.
Peter
I'll go with Rod, you sample is sticking in the 4-5 inch bit of unheated metal tube. Getting this up to the temperature of the transfer line is going to be tricky. just insulating it will probably not be enough becuase its only sources of heat are via conduction from the inlet and transfer line. Can you wrap a bit of heater tape around it, or just to confirm that it is the source of the problem, blow on it with ahot air gun just for a couple of test runs.
Peter
Peter Apps
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:06 pm
The split does work fine with the HT3 bypassed. I will look for a leak when I get some time, and will ask around for some heat tape or some better insulation.
Thanks all!
Thanks all!
-
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:14 pm
Can you tell us exactly when the GC starts to beep? My guess is it happens during the desorb of HT3. If that's the case, the leak is in the carrier gas flow path during the desorb.
-
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:33 pm
Schmitty,
I would guess your problem is water from the headspace. You are probably not scanning that low (a wise thing) and you are probably getting a large amount of water coming over. The split scheme (have used, works great) is a good starting point but the early eluters are probably sitting in a sea of water at the head of the column. Evidence of this is the peak shape when you did a solvent injection. Try a long dry purge time or perhaps a J trap. Best of luck.
I would guess your problem is water from the headspace. You are probably not scanning that low (a wise thing) and you are probably getting a large amount of water coming over. The split scheme (have used, works great) is a good starting point but the early eluters are probably sitting in a sea of water at the head of the column. Evidence of this is the peak shape when you did a solvent injection. Try a long dry purge time or perhaps a J trap. Best of luck.
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:06 pm
I am awaiting a small rheostat and heat tape combination from Fisher right now. I can try a longer dry purge, thanks for the tip.
A type J trap seems to be significantly different than the K. I am looking at the Tekmar conditions now, and I see for their Vocarb 3000 trap (same as a "K"), a time of 4-8 minutes on the dry purge is recommended. Currently I am at 2 minutes.
A type J trap seems to be significantly different than the K. I am looking at the Tekmar conditions now, and I see for their Vocarb 3000 trap (same as a "K"), a time of 4-8 minutes on the dry purge is recommended. Currently I am at 2 minutes.
-
- Posts: 5433
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:29 pm
AICMM has a good point about the water distorting alcohol peaks by a solvent effect at the head of the column, but this alone would probably not put a step onto the ether peak.
Peter
Peter
Peter Apps
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:06 pm
I tried a high level sample overnight, with better results using a dry purge time of 6 minutes.
Next test will be to use the method modification software to adjust the dry purge time in 1 minute increments to see if a real change is taking place in a single run.
Thanks all.
Next test will be to use the method modification software to adjust the dry purge time in 1 minute increments to see if a real change is taking place in a single run.
Thanks all.
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:06 pm
Well, after months of accepting mediocre peakshape, I have made another commitment to improving the chromatography. Below are two chromats. One bad, and one much better (but still not good). I have been messing with some of the HT3 purge settings, like desorb time, sweep time, and dry purge time, all with little success. The recent peakshape degradation seems to be associated with going to an 80°C sample temp from a 60°C sample temperature.
Also of note: All of the other compounds (hexanes, benzene, xylenes, butyl ether, methylene chloride and 10 others) all have great peak shapes and reproducibility (for the most part).
Any further suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
Also of note: All of the other compounds (hexanes, benzene, xylenes, butyl ether, methylene chloride and 10 others) all have great peak shapes and reproducibility (for the most part).
Any further suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.
-
- Posts: 5433
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Hi Schmitty
Increasing the sample temp will be putting more water vapour onto the column, so AICMM's explanation is looking strong.
Just for troubleshooting, can you run a dry sample - just put the analytes, with no water, into a HS vial and purge onto the trap. Getting small enough quantities into the vial might be tricky, but it really starts to look as if water is the problem.
Peter
Increasing the sample temp will be putting more water vapour onto the column, so AICMM's explanation is looking strong.
Just for troubleshooting, can you run a dry sample - just put the analytes, with no water, into a HS vial and purge onto the trap. Getting small enough quantities into the vial might be tricky, but it really starts to look as if water is the problem.
Peter
Peter Apps
-
- Posts: 5433
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:29 pm
Hi Schmitty
Increasing the sample temp will be putting more water vapour onto the column, so AICMM's explanation is looking strong.
Just for troubleshooting, can you run a dry sample - just put the analytes, with no water, into a HS vial and purge onto the trap. Getting small enough quantities into the vial might be tricky, but it really starts to look as if water is the problem.
Peter
Increasing the sample temp will be putting more water vapour onto the column, so AICMM's explanation is looking strong.
Just for troubleshooting, can you run a dry sample - just put the analytes, with no water, into a HS vial and purge onto the trap. Getting small enough quantities into the vial might be tricky, but it really starts to look as if water is the problem.
Peter
Peter Apps
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:06 pm
Peter,Hi Schmitty
Increasing the sample temp will be putting more water vapour onto the column, so AICMM's explanation is looking strong.
Just for troubleshooting, can you run a dry sample - just put the analytes, with no water, into a HS vial and purge onto the trap. Getting small enough quantities into the vial might be tricky, but it really starts to look as if water is the problem.
Peter
I will try that, as my stock is in DMA.
Thanks,
Schmitty
-
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:33 pm
Schmitty,
Several things occured to me in reviewing your post. First, I still think water is a big part of your problem. Raising from 60 to 80 would put a lot more water on the trap so I am not sure why you would want to do that. Increased split should help with that if you have the sensitivity. Second, the fact that you are dynamically purging the headspace means that you are also moving the analytes deeper and deeper into the trap. The non-polars don't go as deep, probably stuck in the first phase of the trap, but the polars are going to go very deep, especially since they are low carbon compounds. A long equilibration time with a short purge and hot desorb should indicate whether this is the case. This would also explain the stepped shape as you are getting two loadings on the head of the column, one from the first trap material and one from the second trap material.
One other thing to think about trying. Throw a chunk of dry ice in the oven and go for the low initial oven temp (18 or 20) and see what happens to the peak shape. May not be a solution but could provide insight.
Best regards.
Several things occured to me in reviewing your post. First, I still think water is a big part of your problem. Raising from 60 to 80 would put a lot more water on the trap so I am not sure why you would want to do that. Increased split should help with that if you have the sensitivity. Second, the fact that you are dynamically purging the headspace means that you are also moving the analytes deeper and deeper into the trap. The non-polars don't go as deep, probably stuck in the first phase of the trap, but the polars are going to go very deep, especially since they are low carbon compounds. A long equilibration time with a short purge and hot desorb should indicate whether this is the case. This would also explain the stepped shape as you are getting two loadings on the head of the column, one from the first trap material and one from the second trap material.
One other thing to think about trying. Throw a chunk of dry ice in the oven and go for the low initial oven temp (18 or 20) and see what happens to the peak shape. May not be a solution but could provide insight.
Best regards.
-
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:33 pm
Schmitty,
Sorry, one more comment. How long do you sweep (dynamic headspace?) Earlier post shows great peak shape for static headspace, sweeping may be the problem (see my earlier post) , solvent injection looked good you said, so why not try long hot equilibrium and static sample or very short sweep time?
Best regards.
Sorry, one more comment. How long do you sweep (dynamic headspace?) Earlier post shows great peak shape for static headspace, sweeping may be the problem (see my earlier post) , solvent injection looked good you said, so why not try long hot equilibrium and static sample or very short sweep time?
Best regards.
-
- Posts: 3210
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:28 pm
The other thing you can do if you do not chose to change parameters in your purge and trap is to use a short piece of thick film Supelcowax capillary column in front of your OV-1301 type column.
This will help focus your alcohol and water plug so you might get better chromatography.
best wishes,
Rod
This will help focus your alcohol and water plug so you might get better chromatography.
best wishes,
Rod
44 posts
Page 2 of 3
Who is online
In total there are 26 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 4374 on Fri Oct 03, 2025 12:41 am
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 25 guests
Most users ever online was 4374 on Fri Oct 03, 2025 12:41 am
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 25 guests
Latest Blog Posts from Separation Science
Separation Science offers free learning from the experts covering methods, applications, webinars, eSeminars, videos, tutorials for users of liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, sample preparation and related analytical techniques.
Subscribe to our eNewsletter with daily, weekly or monthly updates: Food & Beverage, Environmental, (Bio)Pharmaceutical, Bioclinical, Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry.
- Follow us on Twitter: @Sep_Science
- Follow us on Linkedin: Separation Science
