For a rigorous assessment of the precise amount of sample loaded, for
quantitation purposes, different sample injection systems were evaluat
ed with two commercially available units, Waters Quanta 4000 and Beckm
an P/ACE 2100. In the first system, sample introduction by hydrostatic
means (i.e., placing the sample vial at some height, usually 10.1 cm,
above the other capillary end) was evaluated. It was found that in th
is system there is a constant positive bias, i.e. the amount of sample
loaded lies on a curve parallel and above the theoretically predicted
loading curve. However, the excess of mass loaded was constant along
the injection times explored (covering from 5 to 35 s) and, for a 75 m
u m capillary, was found to be of the order of +6 nL (above the expect
ed injected value). Thus it is easy to correct for this sample bias. I
n the electrokinetic mode, a very good correlation between expected an
d predicted sample loads was obtained for both units. In the pressure
system (by positive pressure from a nitrogen tank, Beekman unit) a sub
stantial discrepancy was found between experimental and predicted valu
es (13.5% overload). Since the manufacturer claims a constant pressure
of 0.5 psi, i.e. 3447.5 Pa, it would appear that the injection pressu
re is higher than the given value. Other causes for variation in sampl
e load (e.g., as caused by diffusion of sample in the capillary just p
rior to injection, by the sudden insertion of the capillary tip into t
he sample vial, etc., lumped together in a general term as ''extraneou
s injection'') have been evaluated and found to contribute to an addit
ional sample volume injection of the order of 1-2 nL, i.e. quite negli
gible. In conclusion, it is felt that both the hydrostatic and electro
kinetic injection modes are highly reliable. The positive pressure mod
e can fail due to leakage of O-rings, valve malfunctioning and to the
typical problems of mechanical systems. Thus, the latter injection sys
tem should be checked frequently for potential mechanical failures.