by
Ronaldo » Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:43 pm
Since 0.01 ppm = 10 ppb, you will not be able to quantitate below that level with your present procedure.
Depending on the details of how you are doing the analysis, however, you may be able to improve on that substantially by increasing the injection volume. Because your sample is in a weak solvent (water), dissolved hydrophobic compounds are concentrated on the head of the column during the injection. This is the "other side of the coin" of the problem with strong solvent diluents which shows up frequently on the forum. You will, of course, have to experiment to find out just how large an injection volume you can use.
Re filtration, this is not necessarily a problem, but you *will* have to do a recovery study to establish that your analyte is not lost by sticking to the filter, and also confirm that you are not leaching interferences from the filter.
Thanks Tom.Actually , i am using a very low walvelength which my analyte has the highest uv absorption on it .Also, there is no way to change my three long columns ( 250mm ,phenomenex ) due to economic restrictions .So , as i undersatnad from you that increasing the injection volume will optimise the loq ( say less than 10 ppb ) .Therefore, i have to change the loop as i read in the LC-GC troubleshooting book .i don't know if this expensive or not ? because i am using 20 micron ( the loop )
Regarding the filter you are reading my mind because i am now studying the recovery of my analyte in the filter paper .but please Tom can you give me more illustration in which other things i have to investigate in analysis pesticide in waste water because i looked in google but i really lost .Do you thing SPE WOULD BETTER than filtration ?
thanks Tom for your help i really appreciated