工作场所空气中氯乙烯用FID与ECD气相色谱测定方法的比较研究  

Research and comparison of determining chloroethylene in air of workplace by gas chromatography,ECD and FID

作　　者：李颜岩 史立新[1] 郭宏[1] 翟城[2] 李刚[1] 

机构地区：[1]辽宁省职业病防治院,沈阳110005 [2]中国医科大学,沈阳110005

出　　处：《中国卫生检验杂志》2009年第6期1267-1268,共2页Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology

基　　金：卫生部科学基金资助项目(2005DE101439)

摘　　要：目的：比较工作场所空气中氯乙烯采用FID与ECD气相色谱测定方法的技术参数。方法：氯乙烯分别采用直接进样或用活性炭管采集,热解吸进样,经DNP色谱柱分离,分别采用FID、ECD进行检测,比较技术指标。结果：FID测定氯乙烯在4.9×10^-4～2.0μg/m l范围内线性关系良好,r=0.9996,检出限为4.9×10^-4μg/ml;ECD测定氯乙烯在4.4×10^-5～2.0μg/m l范围内线性关系良好,r=0.9998,检出限为4.4×10^-5μg/ml。结论：采用ECD气相色谱测定空气中的氯乙烯优于FID,且对于含量较低需直接进样的氯乙烯测定更具优势。Objective：To compare the results of determining chloroethylene in air of workplace by gas chromatography with FID and ECD. nethods：Chloroethylene in air was either directly detected or was detected in the way of thermal desorption after being adsorbed by charcoal tube sampling, then it was analyzed by gas chromatography with FID （or ECD） determination with DNP capillapy column and the result was compared. Results：FID was good to determine chloroethylene when the concentration of chloroethylene was between 4. 9 × 10^- 4 - 2.0 μg/ml, r =0. 9996, the detection limit was 4. 9 × 10^ -4 μg/ml. However, ECD was better to determine chloroethylene than FID when the concentration of chloroethylene was between 4.4 × 10^ -5 -2.0 μg/ml, r = 0. 9998, the detection limit was 4. 4 × 10^-5 μg/ml. Conclusion：ECD is better to determine chloroethylene than FID, especially when there is lower content and direct detection.

关 键 词：氯乙烯 气相色谱 ECD FID 

分 类 号：O657.71[理学—分析化学]