de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
Deutsch
 
Hilfe Wegweiser Impressum Kontakt Einloggen
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

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

MPG-Autoren
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons62595

Vogt,  M.
Department Biogeochemical Synthesis, Prof. C. Prentice, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine Externen Ressourcen verfügbar
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte verfügbar
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

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.


Zitierlink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-D790-F
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]