4.4 Article

DETERMINATION OF SILICON IN LUBRICANT OIL BY HIGH-RESOLUTION CONTINUUM SOURCE FLAME ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROMETRY USING LEAST-SQUARE BACKGROUND CORRECTION AND INTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

期刊

ANALYTICAL LETTERS
卷 44, 期 12, 页码 2150-2161

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00032719.2010.546025

关键词

High-resolution continuum source atomic absorption spectrometry; Internal standardization; Lubricant oil; Silicon

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The least-squares background correction (LSBC) and internal standardization procedures were combined to eliminate spectral interferences caused by the CS molecular band (251.602 nm) and transport effects for determining Si in sulfuric acid digests of lubricant oil by high-resolution continuum source flame atomic absorption spectrometry. Aluminum, Ba, Ti, V, and W were tested as internal standard (IS) candidates, and W provided the best results. For absorbance measurements of solutions containing 0.5-5.0 mg L-1 Si in the presence of 25 mg L-1 W (at the wavelength integrated absorbance equivalent to 3 pixels), the correlation coefficient for the ratio of absorbance of Si to absorbance of W vs. analyte concentration was 0.9978. Fluctuations in analytical signals due to variations in sulfuric acid concentrations or acetylene/nitrous oxide flow-rate ratios were corrected by using this calibration plot. Relative standard deviations varied from 1.9 to 7.2% and 2.1 to 5.4% (n=12) with and without LSBC/IS, respectively. Recoveries for samples spiked with 2.0 mg L-1 Si in 5.0% (v/v) sulfuric acid were within the 72.5-82.5% and 94.0-99.0% ranges without correction and by LSBC associated with internal standardization procedure, respectively. Accuracy of the proposed method was checked for the determination of Si in commercial lubricant oils and results obtained with internal standardization were better than those without correction.

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

4.4
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