Determination of acetaldehyde in soil by gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector in combination with static headspace analysis

Introduction. Acetaldehyde is hazardous to the environment, and therefore its content in the air, water and soil is regulated. The maximum permissible concentration in soil is set at 10 mg/kg, but there are no regulatory and methodological documents for its determination in soil.

Objective of the study. Determination of acetaldehyde in soil by gas chromatography in combination with static headspace analysis.

Materials and methods. The studies were carried out on samples of sod-podzolic, sandy, and urban soils, as well as ordinary chernozem, collected in the Moscow, Kursk, Murmansk, and Tver regions. Acetaldehyde was detected using a hardware and software complex based on a Chromatec-Crystal 5000.2 gas chromatograph (Chromatec, Russia) with a flame ionization detector (FID) and an external Lab Hut HT 200 H-200 equilibrium vapor dispenser (HTA s.r.l., Italy), with a DB-624 capillary column (Agilent, USA) 60 m, 0.53 mm, 3 µm.

Results. A large array (more than a thousand) of soil samples was analyzed (list the characteristics of the soils). Acetaldehyde was present in all samples, the concentration of which ranged from 0.04 mg/kg to 6.0 mg/kg. The dependence of the FID signal on the sample mass, its humidity, time, and temperature of thermostatting was studied. The optimal sample mass when using 20 ml vials is 2 g, and the sample humidity for most soil types was found to be 20%. Analysis of soil samples by the EPA 5021 method with the addition of 10 cm³ of a modifying solution or reagent water to 2 g of soil leads to very low values ​​of the chromatographic peak areas, or their absence. Extraction of acetaldehyde directly from the soil sample allows increasing the sensitivity of the detection by 10–60 times.

Limitations. Calibration graphs constructed using different types of soils may have different slopes, therefore, for the purpose of unification, it is advisable to use aqueous solutions, although this approach may introduce a systematic error in the analysis results.

Conclusion. A method for detecting acetaldehyde in soil using gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector in combination with static headspace analysis has been developed. The detection limit was 0.04 mg/kg.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study does not require the conclusion of the Biomedical Ethics Committee.

Contribution:
Nekrasova L.P. – concept and design of the study, conducting experimental studies, writing the text, collecting material and processing data, editing;
Sbitnev A.V. – conducting experimental studies, collecting material and processing data;
Filimonova E.I. – conducting experimental studies, processing results, statistical processing;
Kuleshova O.Yu. – conducting experimental studies, collecting material and processing data;
Vodianova M.A. – collection of material, processing of results.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: September 18, 2025 / Revised: October 10, 2025 / Accepted: December 2, 2025 / Published: January 15, 2026

1. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 177, Acetaldehyde. Available at: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acetaldehyde

2. Sergienko L.I. Materials for substantiating the maximum permissible concentration of acetaldehyde in soil. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 1984; 63(2): 69–72. (in Russian)

3. Knunyants I.L., ed. Chemical Encyclopedia [Khimicheskaya entsiklopediya]. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia; 1988. (in Russian)

4. Jardine K., Harley P., Karl T., Guenther A., Lerdau M., Mak J.E. Plant physiological and environmental controls over the exchange of acetaldehyde between forest canopies and the atmosphere. Biogeosciences. 2008; 5(6): 1559–72. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-1559-2008

5. Brancato A., Lavanco G., Cavallaro A., Plescia F., Cannizzaro C. Acetaldehyde, motivation and stress: behavioral evidence of an addictive ménage à trois. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2017; 11: 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00023

6. Pesis E. The role of the anaerobic metabolites, acetaldehyde and ethanol, in fruit ripening, enhancement of fruit quality and fruit deterioration. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005; 37: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2005.03.001

7. Monard C., Caudal J.P., Cluzeau D., Le Garres J.L., Hellequin E., Hoeffer K., et. al. Short-term temporal dynamics of VOC emissions by soil systems in different biotopes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021; 9: 650701. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.650701

8. Mancuso S., Taiti C., Bazihizina N., Costa C., Menesatti P., Giagnoni L., et al. Soil volatile analysis by proton transfer reaction-time of flight mass spectrometry (PTR-TOF-MS). Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015; 86: 182–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.10.018

9. Panday R., Bhatt P.S., Tribikram Bhattarai T., Shakya K., Sreerama L. Seasonal and diurnal concentrations of ambient formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in Bangkok. BMC Res. Notes. 2016; 9: 491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2297-7

10. Salthammer T. Acetaldehyde in the indoor environment. Environ. Sci. Atmos. 2023; 3(3): 474–93. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00146B https://elibrary.ru/otbgan

11. Garetova L.A., Fisher N.K., Imranova E.L., Kirienko O.A., Koshelkov A.M. Features of formation of organic compounds in the ground and bottom sediments of the industrial zone of Khabarovsk. Geochem. Int. 2021; 59(5): 528–36. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016702921030058 https://elibrary.ru/pbblgx

12. Kalinnikova T.B., Timoshenko A.Kh., Kolsanova R.R., Zakharov S.V., Gainutdinov M.Kh., Shaguidullin R.R. Acetaldehyde action on the organism of free living soil nematodes Caenorhabditis elegans N2- and IPE1-lines. Toksikologicheskii vestnik. 2012; (4): 45–8. https://elibrary.ru/tqunzl (in Russian)

13. Rodinkov O.V. Modern trends in the development gas chromatographic head space analysis. Analitika. 2021; (1): 30–9. https://doi.org/10.22184/2227-572X.2021.11.1.30.39 https://elibrary.ru/dlugcc (in Russian)

14. Vitenberg A.G. Static headspace analysis. Physico-chemical fundamentals and areas of application. Rossiiskii khimicheskii zhurnal. 2003; 47(1): 7–22. (in Russian)

15. Method 5021. A volatile organic Compounds in various Sample Matrices using equilibrium Headspace Analysis; 2014. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/5021a.pdf

16. Nekrasova L.P. Detection of volatile organic compounds in soils (literature review). Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2024; 103(10): 1149–54. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2024-103-10-1149-1154 https://elibrary.ru/odtblm (in Russian)

17. Sotnikov E.E., Zagaynov V.F., Mikhaylova R.I., Milochkin D.A., Ryzhova I.N., Kornilov I.O. Headspace analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in drinking water by the method of gas chromatography. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2014; 93(2): 92–6. https://elibrary.ru/sbkjlz (in Russian)

18. Method 8260D. Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; 2017. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-04/documents/method_8260d_update_vi_ final_03-13-2017.pdf

19. Method 5030C. Purge-and-Trap for aqueous Samples. Revision 3 May 2003. EPA Method 5030C (SW-846): Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous Samples. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/epa-5030c.pdf

20. Method 5031 volatile, nonpurgeable water-soluble Compounds by azeotropic Distillation. Revision, 1996. Method 5031: Volatile, Nonpurgeable, Water-Soluble Compounds by Azeotropic Distillation, part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/5031.pdf

21. Method 5032 volatile organic Compounds by Vacuum Distillation. Revision 0 December 1996. Method 5032: Volatile Organic Compounds by Vacuum Distillation, part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/5032.pdf

22. Method 5035 Closed-System Purge-and-Trap and Extraction for volatile organics in Soil and Waste Samples. Revision, 1996. Method 5035: Closed-System Purge-and-Trap and Extraction for Volatile Organics in Soil and Waste Samples, part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Available at: https://epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/ documents/5035.pdf

23. Galaktionova E.B., Safarova V.I., Teplova G.I., Kudasheva F.Kh. Optimization of conditions for extraction and determination of volatile organic compounds in bottom sediments using static headspace analysis in combination with chromatograph mass spectrometry. Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta. Razdel khimiya. 2009; 14(1): 68–71. https://elibrary.ru/klttzz (in Russian)

24. Galaktionova E.B., Safarova V.I., Teplova G.I., Kudasheva F.K. Determination of organic compounds in bottom sediments by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry coupled with static headspace analysis. Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2012; 67(6): 555–9. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1061934812060020 https://elibrary.ru/rgkczj

25. Bolotnik T.A., Smolenkov A.D., Smirnov R.S., Shpigun O.A. Determination of rocket kerosene in soil by static headspace analysis coupled with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Moscow University Chemistry Bulletin. 2015; 70(4): 168–74. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0027131415040021 https://elibrary.ru/vaaqkr