Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The headspace of samples taken from fire scenes were passed through a tube packed with active charcoal granules. Desorption of the compounds by either pyrolysis or carbon disulfide (CS2) and subsequent analysis by gas chromatography showed enhanced sensitivity over the headspace method. Both methods were evaluated for the analysis of gasoline, kerosene, and diesel oil. Interference caused by the presence of water was eliminated by the use of 0.4-nm molecular sieve. Case study of samples was followed by both headspace and adsorption tube methods, the latter has been found to be of a higher sensitivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frenkel et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: