Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry

, Volume 339, Issue 7, pp 516–527

Characterization of groundwater contaminants using dynamic thermal stripping and adsorption/thermal desorption-GC-MS

  • Suzanne Lesage
Chromatographic Analytical Chemistry (Aquatic And Atmospheric Samples)


Alternate methods to the time consuming solvent extraction technique used in the characterization of groundwater contaminants were sought to reduce the analysis time and allow for automation. By adsorbing (ADS) groundwater samples on a quartz tube filled with graphitized charcoal (Carbotrap, Carbotrap C) and thermally desorbing it in a Envirochem Unacon 810 unit directly interfaced with a GC-MSD, it was possible to detect the major groundwater contaminants originating from several types of industrial landfills. Compounds such as aniline, dioxane, and phenols were measured simultaneously with minimal sample preparation. The results were compared to those obtained by dynamic thermal stripping (DTS) followed by GC-MS. These methods are much more cost effective than solvent extraction since they require only a few minutes of the analyst's time for the introduction of the sample. ADS was superior to DTS and solvent extraction for the analysis of water soluble compounds which are poorly extracted into solvents. DTS provided cleaner chromatograms and allowed for lower detection limit than ADS. The two techniques are therefore complementary.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Swallow KC, Shifrin NS, Doherty PJ (1988) Environ Sci Technol 22:36–142Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reinhard M, Goodman NL, Barker JF (1984) Environ Sci Technol 18:953–961Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodley PC, Thorp J Thermospray LC/MS and EPA Appendix VIII Compounds. Hewlett-Packard application note 23-5952-5851Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hellmann H (1988) Z Wasser-Abwasser Forsch 21:67–72Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan CC, Martin JW, Pond PJ, Williams DT (1986) Proceedings of the EPA/APCA Symposium on the Measurement of Toxic Air Pollutants. Air and Waste Management Association Publ 71–83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Püttmann W (1988) Chromatographia 26:171–177Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosen ME, Pankow JF (1990) Proceedings of the 4th National Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods. National Water Well Assoc, pp 329–340Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pankow JF, Ligocki MP, Rosen MP, Isabelle LM, Hart KM (1988) Anal Chem 60:40–47Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mosesman NH, Betz WR, Corman SD (1988) LC-GC 6:328, 332, 334, 336Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. EPA (1987) Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods, SW-846 Third edition, methods 3510 and 8270, revision 1, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pereira WE, Rostad CE (1986) Movement and fate of creosote waste in groundwater, Pensacola, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Waste-Ground-Water Contamination Program. U.S.G.S. Water Supply paper 2285:33–40Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goerlitz DF, Troutman DE, Godsy EM, Franks BJ (1985) Environ Sci Technol 19:955–961Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lesage S, Riemann P, McBride RA (1989) Proceedings of Environmental Research: 1989 Technology Transfer Conference. Environment Ontario. Nov 4–6. 2:88–97Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barker JF, Barbash JE, Labonté M (1988) J Contam Hydrol 3:1–25Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lesage S, Ritch JK, Treciokas EJ (1990) Water Pollut Res J Can (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne Lesage
    • 1
  1. 1.National Water Research InstituteEnvironment CanadaBurlingtonCanada

Personalised recommendations