4.6 Article

Investigation of artifacts caused by deuterium background correction in the determination of phosphorus by electrothermal atomization using high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2007.11.038

关键词

high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry; deuterium background correction; phosphorus determination; electrothermal atomization; spectral interference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The artifacts created in the measurement of phosphorus at the 213.6-nm non-resonance line by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry using line source atomic absorption spectrometry (LS AAS) and deuterium lamp background correction (D(2) BC) have been investigated using high-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry (HR-CS AAS). The absorbance signals and the analytical curves obtained by LS AAS without and with D(2) BC, and with HR-CS AAS without and with automatic correction for continuous background absorption, and also with least-squares background correction for molecular absorption with rotational fine structure were compared. The molecular absorption due to the suboxide PO that exhibits pronounced fine structure could not be corrected by the D(2) BC system, causing significant overcorrection. Among the investigated chemical modifiers, NaF, La, Pd and Pd + Ca, the Pd modifier resulted in the best agreement of the results obtained with LS AAS and HR-CS AAS. However, a 15% to 100% higher sensitivity, expressed as slope of the analytical curve, was obtained for LS AAS compared to HR-CS AAS, depending on the modifier. Although no final proof could be found, the most likely explanation is that this artifact is caused by a yet unidentified phosphorus species that causes a spectrally continuous absorption, which is corrected without problems by HR-CS AAS, but which is not recognized and corrected by the D(2) BC system of LS AAS. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据