4.7 Article

Determination of lead and mercury in sea water by preconcentration in a flow injection system followed by atomic absorption spectrometry detection

期刊

TALANTA
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 1071-1078

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0039-9140(01)00523-9

关键词

lead; mercury; on-line preconcentration; sea water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The capabilities of three solid chelating reagents were compared for the preconcentration of lead and mercury in high salinity aqueous samples (sea waters). The tested materials were 7-(4-ethyl-1-methyloctyl)-8-hydroxiquinoline (Kelex 100) adsorbed on Bondapack C18 (Kelex-100/C18), 8-hydroxiquinoline immobilized on vinyl co-polymer Toyopearl gel (TSK) and the commercial polystyrene/DVB ion exchange resin with paired iminodiacetate groups (Chelex-100). The two metals preconcentration and final determination were carried out in a flow injection system, coupled on-line to an atomic absorption spectrometric detector. Analytes were preconcentrated in the minicolumn, packed with the materials under investigation, while elution was achieved by injection of 500 mul of an adequate mineral acid solution. The different packing materials and minicolumn designs have been evaluated in terms of sensitivity for simultaneous preconcentration of both metals in sea water. Regarding the solid support, the best results were obtained for the TSK solid phase. Concerning the minicolumn design, the behavior was different for lead and mercury. Lead was quantitatively eluted with 0.5 M HCl and best performance was achieved when packing the solid material in a minicolumn with relatively small volume (1 cm length and 2.5 mm i.d.). In the case of mercury, bigger minicolumn volumes (5.5 cm length and 5.0 mm i.d.) and mixtures, 2 M HCl + 1 M HNO3, were required for its quantitative recovery and elution. The system has been evaluated for quantitative determination of the two metals under study in different Asturian coastal aqueous samples. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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