Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Laboratory inter-comparison of dissolved dimethyl sulphide (DMS) measurements using purge-and-trap and solid-phase microextraction techniques during a mesocosm experiment

Vogt, M., Turner, S., Yassaa, N., Steinke, M., Williams, J., & Liss, P. (2008). Laboratory inter-comparison of dissolved dimethyl sulphide (DMS) measurements using purge-and-trap and solid-phase microextraction techniques during a mesocosm experiment. Marine Chemistry, 108(1-2), 32-39. doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2007.10.001.

Item is

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
BGC1077.pdf (Verlagsversion), 4MB
 
Datei-Permalink:
-
Name:
BGC1077.pdf
Beschreibung:
-
OA-Status:
Sichtbarkeit:
Eingeschränkt (Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, MJBK; )
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/octet-stream
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-
Lizenz:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Vogt, M.1, Autor           
Turner, S., Autor
Yassaa, N., Autor
Steinke, M., Autor
Williams, J., Autor
Liss, P., Autor
Affiliations:
1Department Biogeochemical Synthesis, Prof. C. Prentice, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society, ou_1497753              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: Dimethylsulphide Seawater Solid-phase microextraction Purge and trap Sample preparation Norwegian fjord mesocosm Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry Phytoplankton Sulfur Bloom Air
 Zusammenfassung: We compare dissolved dimethyl sulphide (DMS) measurements made by our independent laboratories during a mesocosm study of marine phytoplankton under different CO2 regimes in a Norwegian fjord. Sample preparation and analyses were conducted using headspace solid-phase microextraction (SPME) with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, MPIC), and purge-and-trap extraction (P&T) with gas chromatography and flame photometric detection (University of East Anglia, UEA). The two analytical systems were calibrated independently. During the evolution of the bloom (22 days) DMS concentrations ranged from 1-35 nM and 90 pairs of data were available for comparison. We found a small systematic difference between the two methods, with UEA measuring on average 8% more DMS than MPIC. Overall, there was good correlation between the datasets (r(2)=0.997, P=0.01), with higher correlation for concentrations greater than 5 nM (r(2)=0.998, P=0.01) and increased scatter at lower concentrations (r(2)=0.833, P=0.01). We discuss potential reasons for the differences between the measurements and address the treatment of natural samples for DMS analysis. We recommend SPME be considered for wider use and encourage full analytical comparisons in the low concentration range. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. [References: 20]

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n):
 Datum: 2008
 Publikationsstatus: Erschienen
 Seiten: -
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: -
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2007.10.001
Anderer: BGC1077
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Marine Chemistry
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: Amsterdam : Elsevier
Seiten: - Band / Heft: 108 (1-2) Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: 32 - 39 Identifikator: CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/954925512459
ISSN: 0304-4203