Amines Analysis by Packed Column GC

Importance of the Topic

Amines represent a challenging class of compounds for gas chromatography due to strong interactions with column surfaces, leading to peak tailing, adsorption losses, and poor quantitation. Reliable analysis methods are essential in environmental monitoring, pharmaceutical quality control, and industrial process supervision.

Objectives and Overview of the Study

• Assess various packed column gas chromatographic packings and deactivation methods for the separation of aliphatic, aromatic, and heterocyclic amines.
• Compare graphitized carbon coatings, porous polymer resins, and diatomaceous earth supports modified with basic additives.
• Define conditioning and sample introduction protocols for trace-level amine analysis in aqueous matrices.
• Evaluate perfluoroacyl derivatization strategies to reduce adsorption and enhance detector response.

Methodology and Instrumentation

• Packings: Carbopack B coated with 4% Carbowax® 20M/0.8% KOH; porous polymers (Chromosorb® 103); diatomaceous earth supports treated with KOH, PEI, TEPA, or amines.
• Deactivation: Base impregnation (KOH/NaOH), amine coatings; carrier gas conditioning with aqueous ammonium hydroxide or ammonia-saturated nitrogen.
• Sample introduction: Small-volume (0.01–1 µL) injections for neat amines; 0.2–1 µL injections of aqueous solutions for trace analysis after column conditioning.
• Derivatization: Trifluoroacetyl, pentafluoropropionyl, and heptafluorobutyryl reagents (anhydrides or imidazoles) to form volatile, less polar derivatives for FID or ECD detection.

Used Instrumentation

• Gas chromatograph fitted with flame ionization detector (FID) and electron capture detector (ECD) for perfluoroacyl derivatives.
• Glass-packed columns (6’ x 2 mm i.d.) with temperature programming from 75 °C to 230 °C.
• Nitrogen carrier gas at flows of 20–120 mL/min, adjusted for column backpressure and analyte volatility.

Key Results and Discussion

• Carbopack B/Carbowax 20M/KOH packings yielded sharp, non-tailing peaks for C1–C10 aliphatic amines, eluting in increasing carbon number order.
• Porous polymer packings and deactivated diatomaceous supports provided effective separation of heterocyclic and aromatic amines with reduced retention times for higher boiling compounds.
• Column conditioning with ammonium hydroxide minimized residual water peaks and maintained basic surface properties for trace aqueous analyses.
• Perfluoroacyl derivatives exhibited dramatically improved ECD sensitivity (up to 894× for heptafluorobutyrate) and reduced adsorption losses of polar amines.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Enhanced inertness and minimal peak tailing allow accurate quantification of trace amines in water, food, and pharmaceutical matrices.
• Custom packings and derivatization protocols extend GC applicability to challenging analytes such as polyamines, amino acids, and alkaloids.
• Validated procedures support compliance with regulatory requirements in environmental, QA/QC, and research laboratories.

Future Trends and Opportunities

• Design of novel carbon-based and polymeric stationary phases with engineered surface chemistry to further suppress analyte–surface interactions.
• Integration of on-line derivatization and automated conditioning modules to streamline trace amine workflows.
• Application of two-dimensional GC and GC–MS for comprehensive speciation of complex amine mixtures at ultra-trace levels.

Conclusion

Effective packed column GC analysis of amines requires a combination of optimized column deactivation, appropriate packing selection, and, when necessary, derivatization to mitigate adsorption and tailing. The study demonstrates that basic coatings on graphitized carbon, polymeric, and diatomaceous supports, together with perfluoroacyl derivatization, deliver high-performance separations and sensitive detection across diverse amine classes.

References

1. Andre, C.E.; Mosier, A.R. Anal. Chem., 1973, 45, 1971.
2. Bennington, F.; Christian, S.T.; Morin, R.D. J. Chromatogr., 1975, 106, 435.
3. Bergstedt, L.; Widmark, G. Acta Chem. Scand., 1970, 24, 2713.
4. Blau, K.; King, G. Handbook of Derivatives for Chromatography; Heyden & Son: London, 1977.
5. Brydia, L.E.; Persenger, H.E. Anal. Chem., 1967, 39, 1318.
6. Brydia, L.E.; Willeboordse, F. Anal. Chem., 1968, 40, 110.
7. Cincotta, J.J.; Feinland, R. Anal. Chem., 1962, 34, 774.
8. Clarke, D.D.; Wilk, S.; Gitlow, S.E. J. Gas Chromatogr., 1966, 4, 310.
9. Dave, S.B. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 1969, 7, 389.
10. Di Corcia, A.; Samperi, R. Anal. Chem., 1964, 46, 977.
11. Dove, R.A. Anal. Chem., 1967, 39, 1188.
12. Dunn, S.R.; Simenhoff, M.L.; Wesson, L.G. Jr. Anal. Chem., 1976, 48, 41.
13. Gehrke, C.W.; Shahrokhi, F. Anal. Biochem., 1966, 15, 97.
14. Giumanini, A.G.; Chiavari, G.; Scarponi, F.L. Anal. Chem., 1976, 48, 484.
15. Gruger, E.H. Jr. J. Agric. Food Chem., 1972, 20, 781.
16. Hollis, O.L. Anal. Chem., 1966, 38, 309.
17. Hollis, O.L. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 1973, 11, 335.
18. Irvine, W.J.; Saxby, M.J. Phytochemistry, 1969, 8, 473.
19. Johns-Manville Corp. Bulletin FF 202A.
20. Karoum, F.; Gillin, J.C.; Wyatt, R.J.; Costa, E. Biomed. Mass Spectrom., 1975, 2, 183.
21. Lindsay Smith, J.R.; Waddington, D.J. Anal. Chem., 1968, 40, 552.
22. McCurdy, W.H.; Reiser, R.W. Anal. Chem., 1966, 38, 795.
23. Morrisette, R.A.; Link, W.E. J. Gas Chromatogr., 1965, 5, 67.
24. Mosier, A.R.; Andre, C.E.; Viets, F.G. Jr. Environ. Sci. Technol., 1973, 7, 642.
25. O’Donnell, J.F.; Mann, C.K. Anal. Chem., 1964, 36, 2097.
26. Ottenstein, D.M. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 1973, 11, 136.
27. Pailer, M.; Hubsch, W.J. Monatsh. Chem., 1966, 97, 1541.
28. Poulson, R.E. J. Chromatogr. Sci., 1969, 7, 152.
29. Sie, Y.L.; Borke, M.L.; Ottenstein, D.M. Anal. Chem., 1963, 35, 240.
30. Smith, E.D.; Radford, R.D. Anal. Chem., 1961, 33, 1160.
31. Umbreit, G.R.; Nygren, R.E.; Testa, A.J. J. Chromatogr., 1969, 43, 25.