Enrichment Analysis of Volatile Components from Hairbrush ― Sampling Comparisons Between MonoTrap and Sampling Tube

Importance of the Topic

The analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from everyday objects such as hairbrushes is critical for applications in forensic science, environmental monitoring and product quality control. Capturing both low-boiling and higher-boiling volatiles can reveal information on user habits, material degradation and contamination sources.

Study Objectives and Overview

This study compared two sampling media – a MonoTrap RGC18 thermal desorption probe and a TenaxTA sampling tube – to assess their sensitivity and selectivity for VOCs emitted from a hairbrush. The goal was to determine which approach offers optimal performance for capturing a broad range of compounds under room-temperature, passive headspace conditions.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Sampling approaches:

• MonoTrap RGC18 TD: Two traps were placed inside a Tedlar bag containing a hairbrush. One trap contacted the bristles directly while the other sampled at a distance. Headspace gas was collected overnight (1 L) at ambient temperature.
• TenaxTA Tube: A hairbrush was enclosed in a Tedlar bag and left to equilibrate overnight. A 1 L aliquot of headspace air was pumped through a TenaxTA tube (100 mL/min).

Thermal desorption and GC/MS conditions:

• Thermal desorber (HandyTD TD265): pre-desorb at room temperature, ramp at 45 °C/s to 250 °C (5 min) for MonoTrap; ramp to 270 °C (5 min) for TenaxTA.
• Column: InertCap Pure-WAX (0.25 mm I.D. × 60 m, df = 0.5 µm).
• GC program: 40 °C (5 min) ramped at 5 °C/min to 250 °C; He carrier gas at 1 mL/min; inlet at 250 °C with split 10:1.
• MS detection: scan m/z 30–350.

Main Results and Discussion

Comparison of sensitivity:

• TenaxTA sampling exhibited higher sensitivity for low-boiling compounds such as toluene and xylene, attributed to efficient capture from the entire bag volume.
• MonoTrap RGC18 gave superior results for hydrocarbons like hexadecane, pentadecane and medium-to-high boiling compounds including methylbenzothiazole and phenanthrene, particularly when in direct contact with the brush.

Background levels (operating blanks) identified minimal contamination, primarily dimethylacetamide and phenol from the Tedlar bag. A total of 28 compounds were tentatively identified across both methods, spanning monoterpenes, aromatics, alkanes, ketones, and esters.

Benefits and Practical Applications

The MonoTrap allows targeted, proximity sampling, enhancing trace analysis of higher-boiling or low-volatility species. TenaxTA tubes offer efficient bulk sampling for volatile aromatics. Combined, these methods can support odor profiling, forensic investigations of personal items, indoor air quality surveys and QA/QC in consumer products.

Future Trends and Applications

Anticipated developments include integration of miniaturized, field-portable thermal desorption systems, tailored sorbent chemistries for specific compound classes, and real-time monitoring platforms. Advances in data analytics and library databases will improve compound identification and quantification in complex matrices.

Conclusion

This comparative evaluation demonstrated that MonoTrap RGC18 and TenaxTA tubes have complementary strengths. Selecting the appropriate sampling medium depends on target volatility range and desired sensitivity. Together, they expand capabilities for comprehensive VOC analysis from challenging solid surfaces.

Reference

• GL Sciences Inc. Technical Note GT122: Enrichment Analysis of Volatile Components from Hairbrush. GL Sciences Inc.