4.7 Article

Determination of trace elements in high-purity platinum by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry using solution calibration

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 603-606

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b008519g

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-element trace analysis by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) of high-purity metals, semiconductors and insulators (e.g., ceramics) is often limited by the lack of suitable standard reference materials (SRM) with the same matrix composition and also a lack of a significant number of certified trace element concentrations in the available SRMs. This paper describes a new and easy standard-free quantification strategy using solution-based calibration for the multi-element determination of trace impurities in high-purity platinum. For the mass spectrometric measurements, a quadrupole-based LA-ICP-MS instrument was coupled with an ultrasonic nebulizer (USN). Due to the lack of a high-purity blank platinum sample, quantification of the results of LA-ICP-MS measurements was carried out using the standard additions mode in solution-based calibration. In order to achieve matrix matching, the multi-element standard solutions (with different concentrations of analytes) were nebulized successively with a USN. Simultaneously the high-purity platinum target was ablated with a focused laser beam during solution calibration with the USN. The mass spectrometric method developed was validated using a platinum standard reference material (NIST SRM 681). The analytical results of the LA-ICP-MS of SRM 681 Platinum are in good agreement with the certified values. The relative standard deviation (RSD) of most elements (n=3) is between 2 and 10%. The proposed analysis method can be applied for other high-purity materials in a similar way, e.g., for trace and ultratrace analysis of high-purity metals, semiconductors and insulators such as high-purity ceramics.

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