The following article has been written by Dr Malcolm Cooper, the Group Managing Director of marine fuel testing and inspection agency Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS) explaining to Manifold Times readers the difference between various GCMS methods and their ability to detect contaminants in marine fuel:
Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) is a powerful analytical technique used in forensic analysis and drug testing because it detects organic compounds at very low levels with a high degree of confidence. The GC separates the fuel into individual organic compounds and the MS produces a fragmentation pattern for each compound. This pattern is a unique fingerprint that may be compared to a database of known organic compounds (typically 100,000 compounds) enabling each compound to be identified to a high degree of certainty. Although there are a range of techniques used for detecting contaminated fuels (FTIR, ICP, microbial contamination for distillates, etc) GCMS is the most suitable for detecting organic compounds.
VPS has recognised the power of the GCMS technique and we currently own a total of seven GCMS systems located at our four labs that are used to test bunker fuel. We have been using GCMS to test bunker fuels for 20 years and this history has enabled us to create a vast library of compounds that we have identified, which we can link to a variety of engine problems.
When a vessel reports engine problems using fuel that meets the standard ISO8217 tests, we attempt to identify the presence of organic contaminants using forensic investigation techniques because at this stage the contaminants are unknown. Since marine fuels are a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and in order to identify specific organic contaminants to a high level of confidence, samples are pre-treated prior to analysing by GCMS, with the aim of removing as much of the hydrocarbon matrix as possible to prevent interference.
VPS uses a range of sample pre-treatment methods detailed below including headspace, vacuum distillation, acid extraction, esterification and others. The choice of sample pre-treatment method depends upon the type of organic contaminant being detected and relies upon the experience and knowledge of the chemist. These sample pre-treatment methods can take much longer than the actual GCMS analysis but are essential in producing high quality results.
It is the sample pre-treatment method undertaken prior to the GCMS that is the rate-determining step in the process. An appropriate sample pre-treatment method is essential in producing high quality results, and the methods used by VPS have been developed and applied over many years, providing a high degree of confidence in our results.
The acid extraction sample pretreatment method that VPS uses is highly selective for all organic acids and uses a classic liquid-liquid extraction method which takes a long time. It is very sensitive and selective to all acidic contaminants (such as all phenols, fatty acids, etc. including all volatile and non-volatile contaminants).
There are other sample pre-treatment methods available which are not as sensitive or selective and therefore do not provide such a high level of confidence in the results.
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 26 October, 2018
Discussions around the need to develop methanol bunkering operations are taking place at numerous ports ahead of estimated demand of above 7M mtpa by 2030, says Chris Chatterton of Methanol Institute.
‘Economics of the shipping market will be the key driver enabling methanol to be adopted at a higher pace going forth over next couple years as market begins to return to more normal rates,’ states COO.
Integr8 Fuel injunction varied by Singapore Court to allow former employees to start work at Hartree Group in December 2022 following failure to produce evidence on biofuels development plans.
Variability of sources can affect the stability and performance of biofuel bunkers produced from these feedstocks, in turn leading to difficulties in meeting regulations and industry standards, shares Bryan Quek.
Top three positive movers in 2022 were Bunker House Petroleum Pte Ltd (+7), Eastpoint International Marketing Pte Ltd (+5), and Eng Hua Company (Pte) Ltd (+6); newcomer Sinopec Fuel Oil (Singapore) gets 19th spot.
Livestock carrier also involved in earlier bunker claim with Glander International Bunkering due to remaining unpaid fuel bill of approximately USD 116,000, according to court documents obtained by Manifold Times.