50
Applications Using GC/MS Detection Systems
EPAMethods 8260, 524.2, 624, 8240 andOLM 04.2
Method 8260:
Client target listsmay remain the same as theMethod 8240 compound list, but
the calibration criteria and low detection limits set byMethod 8260 are enforced (Figure 48,
page 52).
15
Chromatograms for the 8240 compound list can be produced from different GC
oven conditions, different compound concentrations, and alteredMS scanwindows.Alcohols
analyses require scanning below 35amu becausemany of the fragments used to identify the
spectra for these compounds are between 25 and 35amu.A good example is 2-chloroethanol
– this target analyte purges poorly and does not respondwell byMS detection. The best way
to increase sensitivity byMS detection is by changing the scan rate to include ion 31, the
base peak. This also improves the ability of the software and the analyst to identify alcohols
because it givesmore spectral data. The disadvantage of this approach is an increase in noise,
producing an overall decrease in sensitivity for all compounds. In Figure 48, the second chro-
matogram shows an increase in baseline noise as a result of the lower scanwindow.A com-
parison of peak 38 (2-chloroethanol) on the two chromatograms clearly shows a significantly
higher response on the second chromatogram, despite a lower concentration.
Method 8260 containsmanymid-range volatile compounds that are themost common non-
petroleum contaminants in the environment. Unfortunately, these compounds tend to exhibit
broad peak shapes due to poor sample transfer from the purge and trap, making them diffi-
cult to resolve. Rtx
®
-VMS columnswere designed using computer-assisted stationary phase
design (CASPD) software to improve solubility of these analytes in the stationary phase, and
thus provide greater separation for these compounds.
16
This tuned selectivity ensures separa-
tion of tetrahydrofuran/2-butanone, carbon tetrachloride/1,1,1-trichloroethane, andmethyl
acrylate/propionitrile.Although these compounds share common ions and have very similar
spectra, they are resolved by retention time difference on anRtx
®
-VMS column (Figure 49,
page 53).Analytes that share ions and coelute on anRtx
®
-624 column, but are resolved by
anRtx
®
-VMS column, include: ether/ethanol, vinyl acetate/ethyl-tert-butyl ether, and tert-
butyl alcohol/methyl-tert-butyl ether. Several of these compounds require a lower initial oven
temperature (35°C), which is not shown in these applications.
Higher-boiling volatile compounds, typically branched or substituted aromatic compounds,
provide analytical challenges of their own. Isomers of the branched aromatic compounds
share the same parent ions and cannot be identified accurately byMS alone. TheRtx
®
-VMS
phase alsowasmodeled formaximum separation of the substituted aromatic isomers, such
as 2- and 4-chlorotoluene. The comparison inTableVII shows isomer resolution on four
other stationary phases, modeled under the same conditions, compared to resolution on the
Rtx
®
-VMS phase. The tuned selectivity of theRtx
®
-VMS phase allows a rapid final GC oven
ramp rate of 40°C/min., or faster, thereby promoting fast analysis times.Also, initial temper-
atures of up to 60°C are possible (Figure 49, page 53). This higher initial temperature pro-
vides the required separation and allows faster oven cycle times, although some laboratories
prefer to start at 50°C, to better enhance the resolution of chloromethane from vinyl chloride
(peaks 2 and 3).
Figure 47 (page 51) shows an analysis of theMethod 8260B compound list, using anRtx
®
-
VMS column (20m, 0.18mm ID, 1.0µm film) without cryogenic cooling. Resolution is
greatly enhanced, due to the higher efficiency of the 0.18mm ID column. The desorb flow
rate is set at 40mL/min. for 1minute.Many laboratories desorb under these conditions for 2
minutes, but theRtx
®
-VMS columnmakes this unnecessary, because the higher flow rate
will desorb the volatiles from the trap in less than aminute.
Advances in Sample Throughput
The demand for increased productivity in
volatiles analysis by GC/MS has resulted in the
creation of automatedwater and soil autosam-
plers that reduce the amount of manual sample
preparation required. Autosamplers enable
environmental laboratories to run purge and
trap systems around the clock. Even though
prices for analyses of samples byMethods
8260 and 524.2 have stabilized, laboratories
still push for faster turn-around-time, to get a
better return on capital equipment invest-
ments. This has resulted in a need for columns
that can drastically reduce separation time and
for instruments that can accommodate short
cycle times. Currently, the limiting factor in
VOA is the purge and trap cycle time, because
it includes an 11-minute purge time followed
by a 6-12minute bake-out time. AmodernGC,
on the other hand, can acquire a sample in 10
minutes or less. To overcome the time limita-
tions of the purge and trap, connect two purge
and traps, eachwith its own autosampler unit,
to one GC/MS operating system. Use the dual-
concentrator configuration to synchronize the
steps sowhile the first system is desorbing the
sample and starting the GC/MS analysis, the
second system is completing the bake cycle
and starting to purge the next sample to be
desorbed onto the column. The Duet
®
system,
designed and sold by Tekmar-Dohrmann,
allows communication between the two con-
centrators for configuration to one GC/MS. The
Duet
®
interface gates the signals between the
concentrators to prevent a faster system from
catching up to a slightly slower one and allow-
ing a double injection. Calibration curves and
quality control samples (QC, MS, MSD)must
be run for each concentrator.
A tracer compoundmust be added to one of
the concentrators, to eliminate any potential
question as towhich purge and trap system
purged/desorbed the sample. With this system
it is possible to run 80 samples in 24 hours,
thereby increasing output from a single GC/MS
instrument. Figure 47 (page 51) shows an
analysis on anRtx
®
-VMS column according to
US EPAMethod 8260B, using the correct inter-
nal standards and surrogates. Formore infor-
mation see the literature cited.
14
Table VII.
AnRtx
®
-VMS column best separates 2- and 4-chlorotoluene.
Retention Time (min.)
Rtx
®
-VMS
Rtx
®
-624 Rtx
®
-502.2 Rtx
®
-VRX
Rtx
®
-1
2-Chlorotoluene
8.35
8.63
8.80
8.49
8.38
4-Chlorotoluene
8.44
8.69
8.84
8.53
8.41
RT diff.
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
