4.6 Article

Modular L-design of hydride atomizers for atomic absorption spectrometry

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2009.05.011

关键词

Atomic absorption spectrometry; Hydride generation; Quartz tube atomizer; Interferences; Multiatomizer

资金

  1. GA ASCR [A400310507, 203/09/1783, AV0Z40310501, 306/2006/B-CH/PrE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel modular L-shaped design of hydride atomizer for atomic absorption spectrometry is described. It makes it possible to replace the optical tube of the atomizer and, mainly, to employ optical tubes made also front other materials than fused quartz. The design is useful mainly for further improvement of hydride atomizers based on the multiatomizer concept. Employing selenium hydride as the analyte and arsine as the interferent, a preliminary evaluation of performance of three types of L-shaped multiatomizers based oil various optical tubes in terms of sensitivity, linearity of calibration graph and resistance to atomization interferences is made. The classical T-shaped multiatomizer was employed as a reference. The L-shaped multiatomizer with the optical tube analogous to that employed in the classical T-shaped multiatomizer offers virtually the same performance as the reference multiatomizer. Optical tube made of fused quartz with holes with smaller diameters does not offer significantly better performance compared to the reference T-shaped multiatomizer. However, the L-shaped multiatomizer with optical tube fabricated from porous quartz glass overpowers all the other multiatomizers substantially in terms of the resistance against interferences: even the maximum As interferent concentration of 5 mu g ml(-1) does not significantly influence the observed signal. This should be compared with multiatomizers based on plain fused quartz tubes with holes: tolerance limit around 0.5 mu g ml(-1); interferent concentration of 1 mu g ml(-1) causing 20% signal depression. (C) 2009 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