4.7 Article

Fast method to quantify PAHs in contaminated soils by direct thermodesorption using analytical pyrolysis

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 166, Issue -, Pages 241-248

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.01.055

Keywords

Thermal desorption; Gas chromatography; Mass spectrometry; Flame ionization detection; Accelerated solvent extraction; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

Funding

  1. Lorraine Energy and Environment Carnot Institute (ICEEL)
  2. French Geological Survey (BRGM) [1.12Action54OTELoMACRODISP, CR213/233-BFC30033895]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A method for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) quantification, based on pyrolysis at 450 C combined with gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry and flame ionization detection (Py-GC-MS/FID), was developed and compared to a conventional PAH quantification method using accelerated solvent extraction and GC MS analyses. The PAH contents of three coking plant soils, one gas plant soil, two wood-treating facility soils and one certified reference material (CRM- BCR 524) were determined using both methods. The results obtained with both methods showed a good match, especially in the case of the CRM. The other soil samples presented higher variability which was greatly reduced by crushing the samples to lower particle size (from < 500 to < 100 mu m). Higher contents of low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs were quantified with the Py-GC-MS/ FID than with the conventional method, probably because of a slight cracking phenomenon occurring during the pyrolysis and/or a loss of the LMW compounds during the sample concentration required for the conventional method. Because of the limited sample preparation and the fact that no solvent was used, the pyrolysis-based method was proven to be a faster, less expensive and more environmentally friendly than the classical methods for PAH quantification in contaminated soils.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available