Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 410, Issue 24, pp 6247–6255 | Cite as

Issues with analyzing noble gases using gas chromatography with thermal conductivity detection

  • George C. Rhoderick
  • Michael E. Kelley
  • Lyn Gameson
  • Kimberly J. Harris
  • Joseph T. Hodges
Research Paper

Abstract

The noble gases, namely neon, argon, krypton and xenon, have many uses including in incandescent and gas discharge lighting, in plasma televisions, shielding gas in welding, in lasers for surgery and semiconductors, and in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lungs. When incorporating these noble gases in industries, especially the medical field, it is important to know accurately the composition of the noble gas mixture. Therefore, there is a need for accurate gas standards that can be used to determine the noble gas amount-of-substance fraction in the appropriate mixture application. A recent comparison of mixtures containing four noble gases in a helium balance showed mixed results among National Metrology Institutes. Significant differences, 0.7 to 3.8% relative, were seen in the analytical amount-of-substance assignments versus the gravimetric value of the noble gases in the comparison mixture when using “binary standards”, i.e. neon in helium, argon in helium and krypton in helium, as applied by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Post-comparison studies showed that when all four noble gases were included in the standards, the agreement between analytical and gravimetric values was within 0.05% relative. Further research revealed that different carrier gases (hydrogen, helium and nitrogen) resulted in varying differences between the analytical and gravimetric values assignments. This paper will discuss the findings of these analytical comparisons.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Noble gases Primary standard mixtures Gas chromatography Thermal conductivity detection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2018_1235_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (79 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 78 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Häussinger P, Glatthaar R, Rhode W, Kick H, Benkmann C, Weber J, Wunschel HJ, Stenke V, Leicht E, Stenger H. Noble gases, Ullmann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. Wiley; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basting D, Marowsky G. Excimer laser technology, Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emsley J. Nature’s building blocks. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albert MS, Balamore D. Development of hyperpolarized noble gas MRI. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res A. 1998;  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00888-7.
  5. 5.
    Sanders RD, Ma D, Maze M. Xenon: elemental anesthesia in clinical practice. Br Med Bull. 2005;  https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldh034.
  6. 6.
    Lim LS, Lee J, Moon D, Tshilongo J, Lee J, Qiao H, et al. CCQM-113 final report Noble gas mixture. Metrologia. 2017;54:08009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milton MJT, Harris PM, Smith IM, Brown AS, Goody BA. Implementation of a generalized least-squares method for determining calibration curves from data with general uncertainty structures. Metrologia. 2006;43:291–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • George C. Rhoderick
    • 1
  • Michael E. Kelley
    • 1
  • Lyn Gameson
    • 2
  • Kimberly J. Harris
    • 1
  • Joseph T. Hodges
    • 1
  1. 1.Gas Sensing Metrology Group, Chemical Sciences Division, Materials Measurement LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Lyn SoftwareFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations