Application of a data-processing model to determine the optimal sampling conditions for liquid phase trapping of atmospheric carbonyl compounds
Résumé
The reactivity of two fluorescent derivatization reagents, 2-diphenyl-1,3-indandione-1-hydrazone (DIH) and 2-aminooxy-N-[3-(5-dimethylamino-naphtalene-1-sulfonamino)-propyl]-acetamide (dansylacetamidooxyamine, DNSAOA), was studied towards selected atmospheric carbonyl compounds. The results were compared to those obtained using the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH) UV–vis reagent, a standard well-established technique used to detect atmospheric carbonyl compounds. The experimental rate constant were integrated into a data-processing model developed in the laboratory to simulate the trapping efficiencies of a mist chamber device as a function of temperature, reagent and solvent type among others. The results showed that in an aqueous solution, DNSAOA exhibits a higher reactivity towards carbonyl compounds without the addition of an acidic catalyst than 2,4-DNPH. It was observed that DNSAOA can trap efficiently water-soluble gaseous compounds (for example formaldehyde). However, because of a high initial contamination of the reagent caused by the synthesis procedure used in this work, DNSAOA cannot be used in high concentrations. As a result, very low trapping efficiencies of less reactive water-insoluble gaseous compounds (acetone) using DNSAOA are observed. However, the use of an organic solvent such as acetonitrile improved the trapping efficiencies of the carbonyl compounds. In this case, using DIH as the derivatization reagent (DNSAOA is not soluble in acetonitrile), trapping efficiencies greater than 95% were obtained, similar to 2,4-DNPH. Moreover, fluorescence associated with DIH derivatives (detection limits 3.33 × 10−8 M and 1.72 × 10−8 M for formaldehyde and acetone, respectively) is further advantage of this method for the determination of carbonyl compounds in complex matrix compared to the classical UV–vis detection method (detection limits 3.20 × 10−8 M and 2.9 × 10−8 M for formaldehyde and acetone, respectively).