2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.proche.2015.12.080
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison between GC-TCD and GC-FID for the determination of propane in gas mixture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Separation was made by two porous polymer bead columns, 5 m Hayesep N R 80/100 (Supelco Analytical; Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) for compounds with a low molecular weight, and 3 ft Molesieve 5A R 80/100 (Restek) for large-molecule adsorption (Espinoza et al, 2018). Quantification with TCD, which is a universal detector that has good sensitivity, extended linearity, and excellent stability (Hilborn and Monkman, 1975;McNair and Miller, 2008), was carried out based on the difference of thermal conductivity between the mobile phase and the gas to be analyzed (Budiman and Nuryatini, 2015). For data acquisition, interpretation, and chromatogram representation, the software Total Chrome Navigator (PerkinElmer) was used.…”
Section: Chromatographic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Separation was made by two porous polymer bead columns, 5 m Hayesep N R 80/100 (Supelco Analytical; Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) for compounds with a low molecular weight, and 3 ft Molesieve 5A R 80/100 (Restek) for large-molecule adsorption (Espinoza et al, 2018). Quantification with TCD, which is a universal detector that has good sensitivity, extended linearity, and excellent stability (Hilborn and Monkman, 1975;McNair and Miller, 2008), was carried out based on the difference of thermal conductivity between the mobile phase and the gas to be analyzed (Budiman and Nuryatini, 2015). For data acquisition, interpretation, and chromatogram representation, the software Total Chrome Navigator (PerkinElmer) was used.…”
Section: Chromatographic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The four collected samples, approximately 100 mL each in isopropanol were prepared and analysed to identify the fingerprint of all chromatographable compounds present using gas chromatography-flame ionisation detector (GC-FID). The FID specifically responds to all hydrocarbon compounds which burns in Oxy Hydrogen flame [14][15]. The signals produced by the FID represent most of the typical tar components [14].…”
Section: Sample Preparation and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FID specifically responds to all hydrocarbon compounds which burns in Oxy Hydrogen flame [14][15]. The signals produced by the FID represent most of the typical tar components [14].…”
Section: Sample Preparation and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For repeatability (intra-day precision), the investigation was conducted to assess the closeness between measured values of a number of measurements for a short time period (the same day) [36]. The repeatability for measurement method was verified by injecting the five replicate injections of the SF 6 standard for each concentration level.…”
Section: Precisionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, conducting a set of measurement to obtain a lower %RSD was not needed because the repeatability of the method is sufficient enough [37]. The reproducibility (inter-day precision) refers to the variability results of a repeated measurement that are obtained with the same test method at different and longer periods [36]. In the reproducibility study to evaluate the effect of make-up gas used, the procedure was similar to that of repeatability except the measurement period where a longer period was conducted instead of the same day.…”
Section: Precisionmentioning
confidence: 99%