↓ Skip to main content

Issues with analyzing noble gases using gas chromatography with thermal conductivity detection

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Issues with analyzing noble gases using gas chromatography with thermal conductivity detection
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1235-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

George C. Rhoderick, Michael E. Kelley, Lyn Gameson, Kimberly J. Harris, Joseph T. Hodges

Abstract

The noble gases, namely neon, argon, krypton and xenon, have many uses including in incandescent and gas discharge lighting, in plasma televisions, shielding gas in welding, in lasers for surgery and semiconductors, and in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lungs. When incorporating these noble gases in industries, especially the medical field, it is important to know accurately the composition of the noble gas mixture. Therefore, there is a need for accurate gas standards that can be used to determine the noble gas amount-of-substance fraction in the appropriate mixture application. A recent comparison of mixtures containing four noble gases in a helium balance showed mixed results among National Metrology Institutes. Significant differences, 0.7 to 3.8% relative, were seen in the analytical amount-of-substance assignments versus the gravimetric value of the noble gases in the comparison mixture when using "binary standards", i.e. neon in helium, argon in helium and krypton in helium, as applied by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Post-comparison studies showed that when all four noble gases were included in the standards, the agreement between analytical and gravimetric values was within 0.05% relative. Further research revealed that different carrier gases (hydrogen, helium and nitrogen) resulted in varying differences between the analytical and gravimetric values assignments. This paper will discuss the findings of these analytical comparisons. Graphical abstract ᅟ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 25%
Unknown 3 75%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 4 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,543
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,030
of 341,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#126
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.