Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Schlagworte
- Benz[a]anthracene (BaA) (1)
- Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) (1)
- EURAMET.QM-K111 (1)
- Gas analysis (1)
- Gas chromatography (GC) (1)
- Isotope dilution (ID) (1)
- Liquid chromatography (LC) (1)
- Mass spectrometry (MS) (1)
- Naphthalene (Nap) (1)
- Nitrogen (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Solutions of organic analytes of known mass fraction are typically used to calibrate the measurement processes used to determine these compounds in matrix samples. Appropriate value assignments and uncertainty calculations for calibration solutions are critical for accurate measurements. Evidence of successful participation in formal, relevant international comparisons is needed to document measurement capability claims (CMCs) made by national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated institutes (DIs). To enable NMIs and DIs to update or establish their claims, in 2015 the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) sponsored CCQM-K131 "Low-Polarity Analytes in a Multicomponent Organic Solution: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Acetonitrile".
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) result from combustion sources and are ubiquitous in environmental samples. The PAH congeners, benz[a]anthracene (BaA), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), and naphthalene (Nap) were selected as the target analytes for CCQM-K131. These targets span the volatility range of PAHs found in environmental samples and include potentially problematic chromatographic separations. Nineteen NMIs participated in CCQM-K131. The consensus summary mass fractions for the three PAHs are in the range of (5 to 25) μg/g with relative standard deviations of (2.5 to 3.5) %.
Successful participation in CCQM-K131 demonstrates the following measurement capabilities in determining mass fraction of organic compounds of moderate to insignificant volatility, molar mass of 100 g/mol up to 500 g/mol, and polarity pKow < −2 in a multicomponent organic solution ranging in mass fraction from 100 ng/g to 100 μg/g: (1) value assignment of primary reference standards (if in-house purity assessment carried out), (2) value assignment of single and/or multi-component organic solutions, and (3) separation and quantification using gas chromatography or liquid chromatography.
This key comparison aims to assess the core capabilities of the participants in gas analysis. Such competences include, among others, the capabilities to prepare Primary Standard gas Mixtures (PSMs), perform the necessary purity analysis on the materials used in the gas mixture preparation, the verification of the composition of newly prepared PSMs against existing ones, and the capability of calibrating the composition of a gas mixture. According to the Strategy for Key Comparisons of the Gas Analysis Working Group, this key comparison is classified as an RMO track A key comparison.
The artefacts were binary mixtures of propane in nitrogen at a nominal amount-of-substance fraction level of 1000 μmol/mol. The values and uncertainties from the gravimetric gas mixture preparation were used as key comparison reference values (KCRVs). Each transfer standard had its own KCRV. The results are generally good. All results are within ± 1 % of the KCRV.
This project concerns the purity analysis of nitrogen as used in reference gas mixture preparation. This project was carried out without adding impurities to the gas used for this comparison, and is therefore more representative to evaluate the analysis of CO, CO2, CH4, O2, Ar and H2O impurities in high purity nitrogen. The analysis of the amount–of–substance fraction water was optional.
Two 50 litre high purity nitrogen cylinders were purchased from a well-qualified supplier of specialty gases. The listed components were expected to be present in the pure nitrogen at the target levels as a result of the purification of the nitrogen. From the start of this comparison it was clear that the comparison may not lead to reference values for the constituents analysed.
The results indicate that analyses of high purity gases are often limited by the limits of detection of analytical equipment used. The reports of the participating laboratories also indicate that there is no agreed method of determination of the uncertainty on a detection Limit value. The results provide useful information on the Performance of participants. For all analysed components there is reasonable agreement in results for LNE, VSL, Metas and NPL.
For BAM only the Argon result is in agreement.