Hello, you can use GC-FID for analysis of your samples, but before injection perform methylation of your samples and analyze samples as fatty acid methyl esters which make them volatile enough for GC -FID analysis.

Good luck!

As stated above, typical bio oil analysis uses methylation to break the oil into smaller more volatile methyl esters (from their triglyceride forms). Using a wax column and GCFID you can separate most of these methyl esters for identification by carbon number and degree of unsaturation. I recommend researching the various methylation reagents/methods and getting a standard RT mix from Nu Chek Prep. It will make identifying the various peaks easy enough by GCFID. GCMS is not ideal unless you are mainly interested in the saturates/monounsaturates. When it comes to PUFAs typical EI GCMS doesn't get enough high end fragments for good database matching. For that you would need CI, best results with ammonia negative chemical ionization, but that is outside the scope of most GCMS instruments. Internal standards are available in odd numbered carbons (C23 or C19 for example).

Hello, you can use 37 component FAME MIX C4 - C24 as calibration standard which quite enough for oils quantification. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/supelco/crm47885?lang=en®ion=AM.

Good luck!

Thank you very much, Karen and Tanya

You both are suggesting for FAME conversion; however, I am not thinking to convert to FAME composition. We are planning to quantify the lighter and heavier fraction of the Carbon Fraction of the crude. After review, we decided to use a DB-5 column (attached) to analyze the crude sample. In addition, we are planning to calibrate the GC with "Hydrocarbon Window Defining Standard (attached)" for the C10-C40 fractionation. Will this work for us? Please advise.....Sorry I am very new to GC-FID....

Please look at the following below links which may help you in your analysis:

https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1311225

https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/osrr-oil-spill-response-research//120bh.pdf

Thanks

Thanks, Isam Eldin Hussein Elgailani . it didn't work for me

In this respect you are planing GC. The difference is just in detection way after the chromatography column. In case of FID you may apply it since you have your system calibrated for each compound with chromatopghaphic standards. If is for quality control I suggest it since after calibration it is quite easy to check retention times and peak areas with the GC software.

In case of using GC coupled to MS you avoid calibration and therefore the spend of standards, and then compare with MS catalogue. It is therefore more accurate than using FID.