Page 1 of 1

Sensitivity decrease or standard solution expired

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:10 pm
by wraymogg
Hello,

I encountered a strange problem. Two weeks ago everything was fine with the BTEX method, and now suddenly I get a huge decrease in peak height for the same amount.

The STD and ISTD solutions were prepared 6 months ago with a concentration of 10 mg/l. They are prepared in acetone to be able to spike water but also prepare injection standards in pentane. I experimented with 700 ug/l (700 ppb). Two weeks ago the Full Scan spectrum looked like the top row, and the 91 ion looked like the second row. Now it looks like 3rd and the 91 ion XIC like the bottom one.

Image

The ratio is fixed so first thing is to notice is how little the bottom peaks are for Ethylbenzene and Xylens. Second thing to notice is the huge horrible peak at 9.01. Remember, this is the SAME standard solution I injected 2 weeks ago. Since is full scan I did a database search and identified the 9.01 to be:

Image

The small peak at 9.27 seems to be:

Image

Well, the original CRM ampule had the compounds in DMSO. The 2-Pentanone, 4-hydrohy-4-methyl I really don't know how it got there. Maybe is secondary reaction of the pentane with acetone or so...

My first reaction was to check all the ferrules, replace septa and liner, recondition the column. Nothing changed. Second thought was the ion source got dirty since I injected some horrible PAH samples and even with the backflush ON, some contaminants got through. But this does not explain the DMSO peak. Also I ran a PAH QC and for PAHs everything is fine sensitivity wise. Same goes for chloroform or DEHP. The only problem lies with the BTEX.

Do you think is possible, if some lab assistant left the standard solutions outside the fridge for a day, to destroy them ? I mean, it looks like the acetone vaporized and the DMSO concentrated while the BTEX vaporized too.

This is how it originally looked 2 weeks ago in SIM, the order is: Benzene, Toluene-D8, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene, o-Xylene.

Image

Now it looks like this:

Image

Sensitivity is down one order of magnitude, and the toluene peaks are horrible, with a huge tail.

To be sure the column is still OK, I prepared a 700 ppb BTEX in methanol (new CRM) and did a manual headspace analysis, 10 ml water, 30 min equilibrium time, 1ml injection, same GC conditions like for liquid injection. Resulted this full scan:

Image

So the column is OK.

For fun I injected the 700 ppb in menthanol. Resulted this in SIM:

Image

Conclusion: never use methanol as a GC solvent :)

So, what might be the problem with the BTEX in pentane ? Why the sudden sensitivity drop and the horrid peak shapes ?
Is the standard solution compromised or could be still a device loss of sensitivity ?

Notes:
- I use a backflush system with 2m deactivated non coated precolumn.
- I don't have automated headspace autosampler, this is why I use the liquid-liquid method also for BTEX.
- I use a 30 m DB5ms type of column (some Thermo equivalent) 0.25 um coating.
- For this BTEX method (both LL and HS) I use a 50:1 split ratio

Best regards,
Vlad

Re: Sensitivity decrease or standard solution expired

Posted: Wed May 27, 2015 8:31 pm
by MichaelVW
Hi Vlad,

Kind of a coincidence - just today I started seeing 4-hydrohy-4-methyl 2-Pentanone show up in some of my runs. I ran out of DCM so I was using 1:1 Hexane:Acetone in its place to do soil extractions. This compound is diacetone alcohol, and one source I found online said it's a common contaminent in acetone. I don't know what factors accelerate the formation (temp? active sites? contamination?) but maybe that's all it is.

As for your standards... I usually have to remake my calibration and cal check standards after two weeks or so. Even sealed in an ampoule on my autosampler, the IS and Surrogate seem to age a little bit (though mine are in MeOH at 2000 mg/l). The concentration of the heavier ones (1,4-dichlorobenzene) seems to increase and the lighter ones (2-fluorbenzene) decrease. I can get by for maybe a month before changing them. So I'm not sure what to say about the peak shapes, maybe you're right and your standards evaporated or got some crud in them. Have you tried just spiking a blank with your IS and Surr?