| Literature DB >> 28484807 |
Hafiz Abdul Azeem1, Johan Martinsson2,3, Kristina Eriksson Stenström2, Erik Swietlicki2, Margareta Sandahl4.
Abstract
Air-starved combustion of biomass and fossil fuels releases aerosols, including airborne carbonaceous particles, causing negative climatic and health effects. Radiocarbon analysis of the elemental carbon (EC) fraction can help apportion sources of its emission, which is greatly constrained by the challenges in isolation of EC from organic compounds in atmospheric aerosols. The isolation of EC using thermo-optical analysis is however biased by the presence of interfering compounds that undergo pyrolysis during the analysis. EC is considered insoluble in all acidic, basic, and organic solvents. Based on the property of insolubility, a sample preparation method using supercritical CO2 and methanol as co-solvent was developed to remove interfering organic compounds. The efficiency of the method was studied by varying the density of supercritical carbon dioxide by means of temperature and pressure and by varying the methanol content. Supercritical CO2 with 10% methanol by volume at a temperature of 60 °C, a pressure of 350 bar and 20 min static mode extraction were found to be the most suitable conditions for the removal of 59 ± 3% organic carbon, including compounds responsible for pyrolysis with 78 ± 16% EC recovery. The results indicate that the method has potential for the estimation and isolation of EC from OC for subsequent analysis methods and source apportionment studies.Entities:
Keywords: Atmospheric aerosols; Elemental carbon; Pyrolytic organic carbon; Source apportionment; Supercritical carbon dioxide; Thermo-optical analysis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28484807 PMCID: PMC5486914 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-017-0380-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Fig. 1Schematic extraction and TOA procedure for the removal of pyrolytic OC and isolation of EC from OC by supercritical fluid
Fig. 2Orientation of filter punch inside scCO2 extraction cell. The filter punch is placed before cell outlet in the extraction cell with particulate matter facing towards cell inlet. This orientation allows all the fluid to pass through the filter punch
Fig. 3Different conditions of temperature and methanol content with different supercritical carbon dioxide densities used for screening experiments
Flter loadings for OC, EC, pyrolytic OC, and TC on a filter punch of 0.5 cm2 of untreated control samples estimated by TOA
| Loadings (μg/cm2) | Filter 1 | Filter 2 | Filter 3 | Filter 4 | Filter 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OC | 32.2 | 24.6 | 18.9 | 35.1 | 35.6 |
| EC | 8.9 | 8.2 | 5.7 | 20.9 | 12.2 |
| Pyrolytic OC | 3.2 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| TC | 41.2 | 32.8 | 24.5 | 56.0 | 47.8 |
Screening experiments showing the removal of OC and recovery of EC treating filter 1 with supercritical carbon dioxide at various conditions, relative standard deviations estimated on duplicates
| Treatment | Treatment conditions | Amounts of carbonaceous fractions estimated by TOA (μg/cm2) | OC removal (%) | EC recovery (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | Pressure (bar) | Density of scCO2 (g/mL) | CH3OH (%) | OC | EC | Pyrolytic OC | |||
| 1 | 40 | 98 | 0.6 | 0 | 20.9 | 9.2 | – | 35 | 103a |
| 2 | 60 | 150 | 0.6 | 0 | 23.8 ± 3.2 | 7.2 ± 3.1 | 2.1 | 26 ± 10 | 81 ± 35 |
| 3 | 40 | 270 | 0.8 | 0 | 24.7 | 6.2 | 3.1 | 23 | 69 |
| 4 | 60 | 350 | 0.8 | 0 | 28.3 | 6.2 | 5.0 | 12 | 69 |
| 5 | 40 | 98 | 0.6 | 10 | 17.1 ± 0.9 | 7.2 ± 0.3 | – | 47 ± 03 | 81 ± 03 |
| 6 | 60 | 150 | 0.6 | 10 | 16.4 | 7.3 | – | 49 | 82 |
| 7 | 40 | 270 | 0.8 | 10 | 15.2 ± 2.2 | 7.8 ± 0.42 | – | 53 ± 07 | 88 ± 05 |
| 8 | 60 | 350 | 0.8 | 10 | 13.9 | 7.4 | – | 57 | 82 |
aUntreated control pyrolyzed giving rise to less true EC as compared to the sample leading to an EC recovery of above 100%. Standard deviation is high enough that it may also be considered as EC recovery close to 100%
Comparison of treatments using water and scCO2 with 10% methanol (treatment 7 in Table 2), standard deviations estimated on duplicates for treatment 1 and triplicates for the rest
| No. | Treatment | Filter no. | OC removal (%) | EC recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | scCO2 at 40 °C and 270 bars ( | 1 | 53 ± 7 | 88 ± 5 |
| 2 | Ultrasonication with water | 4 | 31 ± 7 | 37 ± 5 |
| 3 | Soaking in water | 4 | 38 ± 3 | 38 ± 4 |
| 4 | Water pumping through filter | 4 | 42 ± 1 | 38 ± 4 |