Comparison of two methods of measuring wood pyrolysis tar

Two methods for the sampling and analysis of tar produced from wood pyrolysis were compared. The first method used a conventional cold-trapping technique in solvent-filled impingers followed by liquid injection. The second one is a new application of multibed solid-phase adsorbent (SPA) tubes follow...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Chromatography A 2007-09, Vol.1164 (1), p.240-247
Main Authors: Dufour, A., Girods, P., Masson, E., Normand, S., Rogaume, Y., Zoulalian, A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
adsorption
Analytical chemistry
Biomass pyrolysis
chemical analysis
Chemical and Process Engineering
Chemical Sciences
Chemistry
Chromatographic methods and physical methods associated with chromatography
desorption
Engineering Sciences
Environmental Sciences
Exact sciences and technology
Gas chromatographic methods
gas chromatography
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - instrumentation
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - methods
GC–MS analysis
Hydrocarbons, Aromatic - analysis
Hydrocarbons, Aromatic - chemistry
mass spectrometry
pyrolysis
Reproducibility of Results
solid phase adsorbent tubes
Solid-phase adsorption
Tar sampling
Tars - chemistry
tthermal desorption
wood
wood pyrolysis tar
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Two methods for the sampling and analysis of tar produced from wood pyrolysis were compared. The first method used a conventional cold-trapping technique in solvent-filled impingers followed by liquid injection. The second one is a new application of multibed solid-phase adsorbent (SPA) tubes followed by thermal desorption (TD). Both methods are based on gas chromatography (GC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). Quantification was performed with a well reproducible GC–MS method with three internal deuterated standards. The SPA/TD method offers several advantages. No solvent is required, the detection levels are improved, and gas chromatography separation is easier. Moreover, sampling time is reduced from about 1 h (for the conventional cold-trapping technique in impingers) to a few seconds. No discrimination was observed between the two sampling methods for the 10 quantified compounds (aromatic compounds from benzene to phenanthrene and phenols) except for benzene.
ISSN:0021-9673
1873-3778
DOI:10.1016/j.chroma.2007.06.049