4.7 Article

LA-ICP-MS analysis of waste polymer materials

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 398, 期 1, 页码 415-424

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-3963-6

关键词

Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS); Polymer waste pellets; Certified reference materials; Cryogenic impact mill; Trace element detection

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth
  2. National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development in Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Waste polymer materials were analyzed by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). The concentrations of 35 elements were determined by using different types of external standards, namely glass and polyethylene (PE) based. Prior to the LA-ICP-MS analysis of determined elements, Na and/or Zn were used as internal standards. The investigations concentrated mainly on the detection of Cr, As, Cd, Sn, Sb, Hg, and Pb. Using PE-based calibration standards, the measured concentrations in the waste polymers were within 49% of the wet chemical data. The determined deviation was up to 102% when using the glass standards. Trace concentration of As and Hg (and also of S) could be determined with a concentration below 1 mg/kg. However, Hg provided very low intensity with a high relative standard deviation (RSD) and was therefore not further evaluated. Cryomilling of polymers was applied to reduce the particle size of the material and improved the precision and accuracy of LA-ICP-MS analysis. On average, the LA-ICP-MS results showed a deviation from the wet chemical reference analysis of 38% and an RSD of 56% for pressed polymer powder samples prepared by cryomilling. In general, waste pellets without sample preparation (i.e., use of pellets as delivered) are too heterogeneous, not suitable for micro-beam techniques, and showed a strong matrix dependence. With homogeneous pellets that appear similar to each other agreement in the determined concentrations was found for some elements.

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