Page 1 of 1
Nicotine analysis
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:34 pm
by thachtruc
I am trying to use GC/FID to analyze Nicotine, LOD=0,04ppm. I know that NPD is more sensivity but I don't have. At present, I have GC/FID, GC/ECD, GC/FPD and a HPLC with DAD and FLD. Which instrument can use to get more sensivity than GC/FID? If anyone has any suggestions it would be very helpful.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:27 pm
by Mark
Thachtruc
Either the electron capture or the FPD (in the N mode) will be very much more sensitive than the FID for nicotine. Just watch that you don't inject a chlorinated solvent into the ECD. LC with UV detection might get you down to the levels you want also, but I am not as certain of that. Also just out of curiosity, what is the FLD you listed?
Regards,
Mark
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:32 am
by Ron
You probably will not do much better in terms of detection limit with the ECD if the sample matrix is as complex as I suspect. If you are analyzing nicotine in smoke the matrix will probably make the baseline noisy. I am not aware of any FPD that has a nitrogen mode that is really usable. I know that companies selling PFPDs claim to be able to do nitrogen, but the detection limit for a PFPD would be orders of magnitude higher than the FID. A standard FPD will not detect nitrogenous compounds at all.
Almost all nicotine analysis I have been involved in is performed using GCMS.
Re: Mark
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:15 am
by thachtruc
Thank you for your information
FLD means Fluorescence Detector.
I 've analysed Nicotine by ECD, it is more sesitive than FID but the reproduction is too bad.
Thach Truc
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:02 pm
by Mark
thachtruc and Ron,
Sorry, I was thinking about the NP detector (thermionic bead detector), not the FPD. Ron is right, the FPD is basically useless on nitrogen. The NPD does work nicely though. I am surprised that you are having reproducibility problems with the ECD for nicotine, I used on for years in an environmental lab have to meet EPA calibrations and as long as the detector was clean we had no serious problems meeting the EPA reproducibility and linearity requirements.
Anyway, sorry about the detector meix-up, really intended to mention the NPD, not the FPD.
Hanging my head in shame,
Mark