English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

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

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons62595

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

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

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.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-D790-F
Abstract
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]