Separation of thia-arenes and aza-arenes from polycyclic aromatics in snowpack samples from the Athabasca oil sands region by GC×GC/ToF-MS

ABSTRACT

Comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC×GC/ToF-MS) was used for the analysis of thia-arenes and aza-arenes in standard mixtures containing 45 polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs), and in the aromatic fraction of snowpack samples collected from the Athabasca oil sands area of Alberta, Canada. The GC columns used included a shape-selective liquid-crystalline stationary phase (LC-50) and a high-polarity ionic-liquid stationary phase (SLB-IL60), both in the first dimension. A fast diffusion and low-polarity nano-stationary phase (NSP-35) and a mid-polarity stationary phase (Rxi-17), were used in the second dimension, respectively. Both configurations showed good repeatability for retention times in the first and second dimensions, peak areas and peak heights. Instrument detection limits ranged from 0.5 to 10 pg µL⁻¹ for both configurations. In general, the LC-50×NSP-35 configuration favoured the separation of isomeric compounds by using more of the 2D chromatographic space available (>80%), particularly for compounds with molecular mass >160 u. Therefore, LC-50×NSP-35 was recommended for the analysis of thia-arenes and alkylated PAHs in environmental samples collected from the oil sands area. Alternatively, the SLB-IL60×Rxi-17 configuration favoured molecular similarity grouping over isomer separation. This was observed for a group of aza-arenes (i.e. carbazoles, benzo[a]carbazoles and alkylated-derivatives), which were resolved from other PACs and from the sample matrix. The risk of false positives and overestimations in the analysis of thia-arenes, aza-arenes and alkylated PACs in one-dimension GC/MS was explored and further reduced by using GC×GC/ToF-MS with LC-50×NSP-35 and SLB-IL60×Rxi-17.

KEYWORDS:

• Aza-arenes
• GC×GC/ToF-MS
• ionic-liquid
• liquid crystal
• thia-arenes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Research and Support Services and staff at the Environment and Climate Change Canada Centre for Inland Waters (CCIW) in Burlington, ON, for sample collection. Special thanks to Kaitlin Kennedy and Camilla Teixeira at CCIW, and May Siu and her team at the Environment and Climate Change Canada Air Quality Research Division in Ottawa, ON, for sample extraction and clean-up.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported and funded by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canada-Alberta Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program.