An Exploration on the Suitability of Airborne Carbonyl Compounds Analysis in relation to Differences in Instrumentation (GC-MS versus HPLC-UV) and Standard Phases (Gas versus Liquid)

Table 4

Comparison of relative recovery of each CC between different standard phases for a given method.

Method	Type	FA/B	AA	PA	BA	IA	VA
HPLC-UV	RF(L)	317,886	243,458	192,641	153,492	125,025	122,491
	RF(L) ∗ MW^a	9.6	10.7	11.2	11.0	10.8	10.5
	𝑅^2(L)	0.997	0.998	1.000	0.999	0.997	0.998
	RF(G)	371,552	207,145	111,828	100,553	62,964	94,871
	RF(G) ∗ MW^a	11.1	9.1	6.3	7.3	5.4	8.2
	𝑅^2(G)	1.000	0.997	0.980	0.959	0.999	0.997
	PD	−17	15	42	34	50	23
GC-EI-MS^b	RRF(𝜎𝑟)^c	100	66	67	68	69	69
	RF(L)	134,475	3,197	6,341	52,065	82,455	82,598
	Rel RF(L)	100	2.4	4.7	39	61	61
	𝑅^2(L)	0.9961	0.9968	0.976	0.9967	0.9961	0.9923
	RF(G)	134,336	747	10,874	55,232	81,249	76,956
	𝑅^2(G)	0.9979	0.906	0.9953	0.9998	0.9999	0.9986
	Rel RF(G)	100	0.56	8.1	41	60	57
	PD	0.10	76.65	−71.49	−6.08	1.46	6.83

aDivided by 1,000,0000 to give small numbers for convenience—essentially molar RF figure of merit; ^bbecause of limitation in the analysis of FA, benzene (B) is analyzed in replacement of FA, and ^cRRF(𝜎_𝑟) is based on estimated EI total ionization cross sections (see text for details).