14 Analytical Instrumentation
Benefits and Considerations of Converting to Hydrogen Carrier Gas
Jaap de Zeeuw* and Jim Whitford, Restek Corporation Restek Corporation, 110 Benner Circle, Bellefonte, PA, US * Restek Corporation, Weerhaan 9, Middelburg, The Netherlands Tel: 1-814-353-1300 (outside U.S.) or 1-800-356-1688 (inside U.S.) • Email:
support@restek.com • Web:
www.restek.com
Many gas chromatography (GC) labs use helium as a carrier gas because it is faster than nitrogen and safer than hydrogen. Unfortunately, helium is a limited natural resource that is becoming much scarcer. Te current shortage has severely impacted chromatographers who are finding that helium has become significantly more expensive and is not always available when needed. While helium is abundant in the universe, it is rare on Earth where it is produced by fractional distillation of natural gas.
The United States is a primary producer, but its major reserve, the United States National Helium Reserve (which accounts for approximately 30% of the global supply) is expected to be depleted by 2018 [1]. Other helium supplies are not expected to alleviate the current shortage, so many GC labs are considering moving to hydrogen carrier gas as an alternative. The faster analysis times, lower cost, and unlimited availability of hydrogen make it the best chromatographic choice, but its flammability means implementation must be carefully considered. By using safe, reliable hydrogen generators and understanding how to adapt methods, labs can reap the productivity and cost savings of switching from helium to hydrogen.
Safety Considerations
The first concern when switching to hydrogen carrier gas is understanding and managing the safety issues. Fortunately hydrogen generators minimise much of the risk. In contrast to high- pressure gas cylinders, which typically contain 50 L at 200 atm, hydrogen generators generally store only 60 mL at 7 atm or less. This means that although a generator can continually produce hydrogen on demand, the stored quantity is quite small making it a considerably safer choice. In addition, the flow of hydrogen from the generator is controlled and on typical units the maximum flow is approximately 500 mL/min, which is well below the 2 L/min of flow required to reach the lower explosive limit (LEL) for hydrogen in air when released in the oven of an average GC. Generators are also equipped with built-in leak sensors and automatic shut-off features, which turn the unit off if a leak is detected. With soaring helium costs, generators pay for themselves, guarantee a gas supply, and also eliminate the risk posed by keeping high volumes of hydrogen in free-standing, high-pressure gas cylinders.
Another way safety can be improved is by using flow-controlled analysis. In today’s GC lab, analysts can choose between pressure and flow controlled analysis. When using hydrogen, flow- controlled operation is the best option as the worst that can happen is the fused silica capillary column breaks at the injection port. With the flow controlled method, only the volume of hydrogen in the inlet and column can be released. This is because the pressure regulator in the injector of an electronic pressure regulation GC will not be able to build pressure, so the system will sense a problem and will automatically enter standby mode. If greater assurances of safety are desired, systems are available that sample the oven air and detect the presence of a different gas (e.g., helium or hydrogen). As a further level of protection, analysts can use metal capillary MXT®
columns,
which are virtually unbreakable, instead of more fragile fused silica columns. Metal capillary columns are standard for high-temperature applications, such as simulated distillation and biodiesel analysis, but they also perform very well for lower temperature work. While some metal columns may have activity issues, excellent results can be obtained when highly inert, Siltek® columns are used.
-treated Benefits and Application
The biggest advantage to using hydrogen as a carrier gas is that it can significantly decrease analysis time. Realistically, analysis times can be reduced by a factor of 1.5 or 2 with only minor losses in separation, which greatly improves throughput and productivity. A quick review of a van Deemter plot for common carrier gases makes this quite clear (Figure 1). Nitrogen offers the greatest efficiency (shortest height equivalent to a theoretical plate), but its maximum efficiency is only obtained when operating at a very slow rate (~10 cm/sec); when linear velocity is increased, efficiency is lost at a dramatic rate. Helium is somewhat less efficient, but offers more reasonable operating rates (~25 cm/sec is optimal and less efficiency is lost at higher rates). However, the best chromatographic performance is seen using hydrogen. Maximum efficiency is comparable to helium, but good results can be obtained across a much wider operating range. Optimal linear velocity when using hydrogen is
Column: Rt® -Alumina BOND/MAPD; Sample: Hydrocarbon mixture; Injection: Split; Linear velocity: 23 cm/sec (helium), 46 cm/sec (hydrogen); Detector: FID. Annual Buyers’ Guide 2013 •
www.petro-online.com
approximately 40-45 cm/sec; this means analysis times are much faster compared to when using helium, and in many cases results can be obtained in half the time.
The theoretical benefits to productivity when using hydrogen are clear, but let’s look at a practical example. Figure 2 shows the analysis of a hydrocarbon mixture in the same GC using helium versus hydrogen. When using hydrogen, twice the linear velocity was used and the components eluted twice as fast with minimal negative impact on efficiency. Peak separations were
Figure 2: Hydrocarbons can be separated in half the time using hydrogen as the carrier gas, significantly improving productivity.
Figure 1: Using hydrogen as the carrier gas allows efficient separations to be obtained in half the time compared to when using helium.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
