Comparison of two validated gas-chromatographic methods for the determination of trihalomethanes in drinking water

Authors

  • Maria Yumiko Tominaga CETESB - Cia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental
  • Antonio Flavio Mídio Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas; Departamento de Análises Clínicas e Toxicológicas-Toxicologia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-93322003000200010

Keywords:

Trihalomethanes, Gas-chromatographic detection, Comparison of methods, Drinking water

Abstract

In this paper the results obtained using two validated gas-chromatographic procedures on drinking water for the determination of trihalomethanes are compared. The volatile compounds, chloroform (CF), bromodichloromethane (BDCM), dibromochloromethane (DBCM) and bromoform (BF) were detected by purge and trap capillary column gas-chromatography with electrolytic conductivity detector ( ELCD) and the simple and rapid gas-chromatographic method by electron capture detector (ECD) after liquid-liquid extraction with n-pentane. For purge and trap ELCD method the response for the volatile compounds was linear for the concentrations of 0.5 to 40 µg/L. For liquid-liquid extraction ECD method the response was linear for the concentrations of 0.5 to 100 µg/L. The comparison of both methods was achieved by analyzing samples of drinking water collected in the city of São. Paulo, Brazil. The ratios of concentrations obtained by the two methods (ECD/ELCD) were as follows: l.l3 ± 0.9 for chloroform; 0.93 ± 0.15 for BDCM and 0.92 ± 0.17 for DBCM. Bromoform was not detected in the drinking water samples. The ratio of 1.08 ± 0.047 for total triahalomethane - THMt ( the sum of the three compounds) shows the equivalence of the compared methods.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2003-06-01

Issue

Section

Original Papers

How to Cite

Comparison of two validated gas-chromatographic methods for the determination of trihalomethanes in drinking water. (2003). Revista Brasileira De Ciências Farmacêuticas, 39(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-93322003000200010