4.8 Article

Performance study of diffusive gradients in thin films for 55 elements

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 75, 期 14, 页码 3573-3580

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac026374n

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The technique of diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) is a fairly new and useful tool for in situ measurements of labile metal ions in water. The applicability of DGTs was investigated by comparing independently determined or estimated diffusion coefficients with DGT effective diffusion coefficients (D-DGT) for 55 elements. The DGTs were exposed at a controlled fluid velocity of 0.1 m s(-1) and a concentration of 1 ng mL(-1) at four pH levels between 4.7 and 6.0, and the DDGT values were determined from the uptake by the sampler. The measured DDGT values for the elements Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Ph, Al, Mn, and Ga were close to previously published values with some deviations for Ph and Zn. The uptake of V, Cr, Fe, U, Mo, Ti, Ba, and Sr varied with pH, and there were some experimental problems that require further investigations. A novel set of DDGT values for the lanthanides (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Th, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Th, Yb, Lu, Y) was established. The DDGT values for these were about 10-15% lower than for free ions in water and indicate that diffusion coefficients of metal ions in the agarose polyacrylamide diffusive hydrogel are 10-15% lower than in water. The high consistency of the data for the lanthanides establishes these elements as new performance test metals for the DGT sampler. The accumulation of the elements Li, Na, K, Rb, Mg, Ca, B, Tl, P, S, As, Bi, Se, Si, Sn, Sb, Te, Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta, W, Th, and Ag was low (DDGT lower than 10% of theoretical values). A more efficient elution procedure using concentrated nitric acid for the absorbent gel was established, with elution efficiencies between 95 and 100% for most metals. For deployment times of 24 h, detection limits from 0.001 to 1 ng mL(-1) were achieved with moderate precautions to prevent contamination.

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

4.8
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