Last week’s forum discussions were rich with technical insights and practical advice. Members engaged deeply with topics on analytical techniques, particularly focusing on the selection of suitable SPME fibers for volatile amines. There was also a lively debate on the pros and cons of various solvent extraction methods. Additionally, members shared experiences on navigating the complexities of regulatory compliance in chemical manufacturing.
This Week’s Hot Topics
SPME fiber choices for volatile amines
The community is exploring the best SPME fiber options for capturing volatile amines. This discussion is crucial for those working in analytical chemistry, aiming for precision in volatile compound detection. Read more here
Looking forward to another week of insightful discussions. If you have thoughts or questions, don’t hesitate to jump into the conversation.
For “volatile amines,” CAR/PDMS has given me the strongest headspace signal after basifying to pH >12 and adding about 25% NaCl — think of it like a flytrap for tiny amines, great but it clogs fast on dirty matrices. If the matrix is wet or funky, I switch to PDMS/DVB with quick isobutyl chloroformate derivatization to tame water uptake, as @ana-k mentioned.
Switching to deactivated/silanized vials gave me about 25% higher headspace response for methyl/ethylamine with CAR/PDMS and cut memory, likely by reducing glass adsorption; if you can’t get those, keep the extraction to about 60 s to dodge water and active sites, @lauras92.
Swapping to a straight deactivated inlet liner (no wool) doubled my C1–C3 amine response with the 75 µm triple‑phase; @tcooper92’s salting still helped, but expect slightly broader early peaks.