4.7 Article

Evaluation of liquid cathode glow discharge-atomic emission spectrometry for determination of copper and lead in ores samples

期刊

TALANTA
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 216-221

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2016.11.015

关键词

Liquid cathode glow discharge (LCGD); Atomic emission spectrometry (AES); Ores; Copper; Lead; Multi-elements determination

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21567025, 21367023, 11564037]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province, China [1308RJZA144, 1208RJZA161]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a liquid cathode glow discharge-atomic emission spectrometry (LCGD-AES) was constructed for simultaneously determination of Cu and Pb in digested ores samples, in which the glow discharge was produced between the needle-like Pt anode and electrolyte overflowing from quartz capillary. The stability of LCGD and the effects of discharge voltage, capillary diameter and flow rate on emission intensity were systematically investigated. The limits of detections (LODs) of Cu and Pb were compared with those measured by closed-type electrolyte cathode discharge-atomic emission spectrometry (ELCAD-AES). In addition, the measured results of LCGD were verified by ICP-AES. The results showed that the optimization analytical conditions were 675 V discharge voltage, 1.0 mm capillary diameter and 5.5 mL min(-1) flow rate. The analytical response curves had good linearity in the range of 1-10 mg L-1. The RSD was 2.05% for Cu and 1.27% for Pb. The LODs of Cu and Pb were 0.36 and 0.20 mg L-1, respectively, which are in agreement with the closed-type ELCAD. The obtained results of Cu and Pb in ore samples by LCGD are consistent with the reference materials of ICP. The recovery of samples is ranged from 85.2-105.6%, suggesting that the determinated results have high accuracy. All the results indicated that the LCGD can provide an alternative analytical method for the determination of metal elements in ores samples.

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

4.7
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