Bias assessment of current technologies used for the determination of low levels of moisture in mineral oil samples

The problem in the current debate on the accuracy of Karl Fischer (KF) titrations lies in the fact that coulometry is being compared to volumetry on mineral oil samples for which the true moisture content is unknown. To clarify this point, dehydrated oil samples equilibrated under known temperature and relative humidity conditions and equilibrated oil samples containing known amounts of added moisture were used to assess the accuracy of the determinations. In addition, the measurements were extended to other techniques given that it is unlikely that they would be affected by the same phenomenon causing the KF systematic errors. The samples sent to different laboratories were analyzed by headspace/capillary gas chromatography, gas-phase H2 sensor, oil-phase or gas-phase RH sensors, KF coulometric titration with direct or indirect injection, and KF volumetric titration using a standard or NIST modified procedure. The laboratory comparison showed that with the exception of 4 techniques out of 10 that were tested, the measurements gave results in the expected concentration range. Considering the exceptions, two techniques based on volumetric titration yielded results tainted with an important positive bias for both sample types. This bias, tentatively associated with the high iodine end point concentration used by these systems, was estimated at approximately 22 ppm under the conditions applied by NIST. On the other hand, the two RH sensors showed a marked tendency to underestimate the value of the samples containing high moisture content. In this case, a loss of analyte through wall adsorption during the time required to achieve steady-state conditions in the measuring chamber seems to be at the origin of the negative biases.