Quantitative Aspects of Flavour Analysis by Equilibrium and Dynamic Head-Space Gas Chromatography with Capillary Columns

Abstract

Equilibrium (E-HSGC) and dynamic (D-HSGC) headspace sampling procedures with capillary columns are compared. Split injection is widely used in headspace gas chromatography (HSGC) since a homogeneous gas mixture is injected and non linear split behaviour is unknown here. Splitless injection is recommended if headspace sampling is combined with cold trapping in order not to disturb the equilibrium, since a large sample is withdrawn over a longer period. In this case the well established methods for quantitave analyses with E-HSGC can be applied. These methods, including sample identification by pattern recognition, calibration by the technique of standard addition and the procedure of multiple headspace extraction (MHE) are discussed. Problems with D-HSGC techniques, particularly concerning an exhaustive stripping of all the volatile constituents from the sample without loss of the highly volatile ones by breakthrough in the adsorption tube are discussed also. In cases of mixtures with a wide range of volatilities, where the sample transfer can hardly be quantitative, the application of the MHE principle is suggested as a possible solution.

Keywords

Splitless Injection Peak Size Headspace Vial Dynamic Headspace Aroma Composition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Wyllie SG, Alves S, Filsoof M, Jennings WG. 1978, in: Analysis of Food and Beverages (Charalambous G, Ed.), New York, Academic Press Inc., p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Closta W, Klemm H, Pospisil P, Riegger R, Siess G, Kolb B. 1983, Chromatography Newsletter 11:13, Perkin-Elmer.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Kuck M. 1980, in: Applied Headspace Gas Chromatography (Kolb B, Ed.), London, Heyden & Son Ltd., p. 12.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    Kolb B, Auer M, Pospisil P. 1981, Applied Chromatography No. 35E, Ueberlingen, Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer & Co. GmbH.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    Kolb B. 1984, in: Topics in Forensic and Analytical Toxicology (Maes RAA, Ed.), Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 119.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    Kolb B. 1984, in: Analysis of Food Contaminants (Gilbert J, Ed.), London and New York, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., p. 117.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    Bencsath FA, Drysch K, List D, Weichardt H. 1978, Applied Chromatography No. 32E, Ueberlingen, Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer & Co. GmbH.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    Kolb B, Pospisil P. 1980, Applied Chromatography No. 33E, Ueberlingen, Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer & Co. GmbH.Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    Kolb B, Pospisil P. 1980, Chromatography Newsletter 8:35, Perkin-Elmer.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    Pankow JF. 1983, J. High Resol. Chromatogr. & Chromatogr. Commun. 6:292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    Deckert HG, Foelster U, Rueck A. 1984, Labor Praxis 8:130.Google Scholar
  12. (12).
    Hurrell RA. 1981, International Environment & Safety, June: 18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Kolb

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations