4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Investigation of equilibration and uncertainty contributions for the determination of inorganic mercury and methylmercury by isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 500, 期 1-2, 页码 155-170

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(03)00808-0

关键词

inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry; isotope dilution analysis; mercury speciation; uncertainty contributions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mass fractions of Hg and methylmercury, in two certified reference materials, NIST2710 and DORM-2, have been determined by total and species-specific isotope dilution analysis (IDA), respectively, and uncertainty budgets for each analysis calculated. The mass fraction of Hg in NIST2710 was determined by ID using multicollector sector field inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-SF-ICP-MS) whilst the mass fraction of methylmercury in DORM-2 was determined using HPLC coupled with quadrupole ICP-MS. The extent of equilibration between the spike and the particulate bound mercury compounds was studied temporally by monitoring the Hg-200:Hg-199 isotope amount ratio and by determining the total amount of Hg in the liquid phase. For the NIST2710 complete equilibration was only achieved when concentrated HNO3 in combination with a microwave digestion was employed, and good agreement between the found (31.7 +/- 4.0 mug g(-1), expanded uncertainty k = 2) and certified (32.6 +/- 1.8 mug g(-1)) values was obtained. For DORM-2 complete equilibration of methylmercury between the liquid and solid phases was achieved when using 50:50 H2O:CH3OH (v/v) and 0.01% 2-mercaptoethanol as the solvent. Even though only 50% of the analyte was extracted into the liquid phase, complete equilibration was achieved, hence, the found methylmercury mass fraction (4.25 +/- 0.47 mug g(-1), expanded uncertainty k = 2) was in good agreement with the certified value (4.47 +/- 0.32 mug g(-1)). (C) 2003 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

4.7
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