Analytical Techniques

REVIEWS IN ECONOMIC GEOLOGY (ISSN 0741-0123) Volume 6A THE ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY OF MINERAL DEPOSITS Part A: Processes, Techniques, and Health Issues ISBN 1-887483-50-0 Volume Editors G.S. PLUMLEE M.J. Locspon U.S. Geological Survey Geochimica, Inc. MS964 Denver Federal Center 206 North Signal Street, Suite M Denver, CO 80225 Ojai, CA 93023 gplumlee@usgs.gov + mark.logsdon @ worldnet.att.net SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGISTS, INC.Chapter 13 LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES J.G. Crock, B.F. Arbogast, and P.J. Lamothe U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 973, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046 INTRODUCTION ‘The precise, accurate analysis of environmental materials for their total or partial elemental content is anything but a simple or routine task. There are numerous problems that must be addressed to assure a high quality analysis. The first and foremost problem to be addressed is to determine what is the question that the envi ~ ronmental scientist is really trying to answer and how to customize the analysis to meet that need, Is the scientist asking for a given species of an element, the amount of the analyte associated with a certain phase or fraction of the environmental sample, or would a total analysis answer the correct question? The scope of the phrase “Environmental Materials” is where the problems continue. Most naturally occurring materials and some man-made materials can fall into this classification. The concentration of an element of interest commonly ranges from one part per billion (microgram per kilogram or ig/kg) to the tens of weight percent. There are usually sampling problems in the analysis of environmental samples. These problems could include: a) Is the sample collected by the environmental scientist truly representative ofthe population to be studied? This problem will not be addressed for it is well outside the purpose of this chapter); ) Sample homogeneity—is the sample well mixed and ground to a sufficiently small particle size? ©) Sample size—is the sample to large to hanglle or is it too small for the required analysis? 4) Moisture content—do you analyze the sample in its “as-col- Tected-state” or should it be dried to a constant weight? ©) What is the proper pretreatment of the sample? and, £) Sample digestion or dissolution—some samples may completely dissolve in a water leach, whereas others may require a high temperature fusion. Other problems that often plague the analysis of environmental ‘materials include contamination of the element(s) of interest, spectral or background interferences from concomitant elements for a given method of determination, volatility of the analyte element during the collection, storage, preparation, and digestion of the materials, and lack of a sensitive enough method to determine levels of a given analyte at or below natural background levels, There are many complete references for the analysis of environmental and geological materials available. Some of the more noteworthy are Carter (1993), Jeffery and Hutchison (1983), Ingamells and Pitard (1986), Potts (1987), Smoley (1992), Stoch (1986), and Westerman (1990). Literature reviews of the analytical chemistry of geological materials (e.g., Jackson et al., 1995) and of environmental materials (e.g., Clement et al., 1995) offer an updated snapshot of the progress in analytical chemistry for these samples. Fishman and Friedman (1989) and Greenberg et al. (1992) offer an overview of the analytical chemistry of waters. Keith (1988) and LaFleur (1976) present excellent overviews of sampling and how to overcome many of the sampling problems which could render a study invalid. Zief and Mitchell (1976) address the control of contamination in trace analysis and how to minimize it. One of the most important aspects to the analysis of environ- ‘mental materials is the digestion/decomposition of the material prior to presenting the sample to the individual instrumental method. Excellent references for the total dissolution of environmental materials include Bock (1979) and Sulcek and Povondra (1989). Chao (1984) addresses in detail the application of partial and sequential dissolution schemes. Chao and Sanzolone (1992) discuss both total and partial dissolution. Often a method of deter- rmination is not sensitive enough, either because of the original concentration of the analyte or from the required dilution of the digestion method. This is commonly observed in baseline or back- ‘ground studies. Often the separation and (or) preconcentration of the analyte from the matrix is required. Minczewski et al. (1982) present a comprehensive overview of these iiseful techniques. ‘The analytical chemist must also address the mode of occurrence of a given analyte element. Adriano (1986), Greenwood and Eamshaw (1984), Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1984), and Rose etal. (1979) present comprehensive discussions on the generalized geochemistry and mode of occurrence of most elements. Batley (1989) addresses trace element speciation in environmental samples and the analytical problems associated with different modes of occurrences. Many of the methods outlined in this chapter are currently in use in the laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey. The general references for most of these methods are Arbogast (1990, 1996) ‘and Baedecker (1987). These methods will be presented along, with an overview to give the reader an introduction to the analytical chemistry of solid and aqueous environmental samples. TOTAL ANALYSIS OF SOLIDS ‘Sample preparation ‘The following is a discussion of the preparation of rock, sedi- ‘ment, soil, and vegetation samples. For anvanalysis to be of any ‘worth, the sample must first be prepared properly. Sample prepa- 265266 ration is the very important first step to all subsequent analyses. Most samples of naturally occurring material require some kind of physical preparation prior to chemical analysis. Samples require preparation to effect one or more of the following. a) Reduce the sample to a size that is more conveniently transported; b) Increase the sample surface area to enhance the efficiency of subsequent chemical attack; ©) Homogenize the sample to ensure that a subsample is representative of the entire sample; and, 4) Separate the sample into components based on mineralogy, grain size, or physical and morphological criteria, Sample preparation is an important step in the analytical process. Without careful preparation, and attention to inter-sample contamination, the worth of the subsequent analyses is significantly diminished. Rock sample preparation Rock samples are routinely reduced to <0.5-cm fragments in a jaw crusher. The crushed sample is split, if necessary, and fed into ‘an operating and properly adjusted Braun® vertical mechanical pulverizer! equipped with ceramic plates. The sample is pulver- ized to approximately minus 100-mesh (<150 um) and mixed to insure homogeneity for subsequent analysis. Mineral samples with distinctive cleavage planes (j.c., mica or clay minerals) can present a problem in pulverizing due to the crystal structure of the sample. For some methods where the quality of pulverization is critical in obtaining accurate results, the sample or a representative split is placed in either a ceramic or agate SPEX® shatterbox and ‘ground until 100% passes an 80-mesh (<180 jum) screen, Ground samples can be stored in cardboard, glass, or plastic containers. ‘Sediment sample preparation Dry sediment samples are disaggregated by hand and typically as much organic material as possible, such as leaves, twigs, oF roots, is manually removed. The samples are usually sieved to pass an appropriate screen size, usually 80-mesh, and mixed. Ifthe particle'size chosen is larger than 80-mesh (particle size 2180 hum), the sieved fraction is generally ground in a vertical mechanical pulverizer until 100% passes an 80-mesh screen and then mixed, Soil sample preparation Dry soil samples are disaggregated, if necessary, in a mechanical, ceramic mortar and pestle. Samples are sieved using a 10- mesh sieve (2 mm) and the plus 10-mesh material is usually dis- carded. The minus 10-mesh fraction is ground further with vertical mechanical pulverizer until 100% passes an 80-mesh screen. Both sediment and soil samples should be dried only under forced air at ambient temperature to minimize the possible loss of volatile elements, such as mercury, selenium, or sulfur. "Any use ofteade, product, or firm names in this publication efor deserve pur poses only and doesnot imply endorsement bythe U.S. Government. J.G. Crock, B.F, ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE Plant material preparation and determination of weight percent ash ‘The physical preparation of plant material generally consists of washing, drying, and milling, and the subsequent dry ashing of an aliquot, or subsplit of the sample (Peacock, 1992) ‘Washing of Vegetation Samples—Most plant samples shovla be washed to eliminate contamination from adhering soil or dust particles. Three common methods for washing plant samples are: a) “in the bag” washing by machine; b) “beaker soak” hand washing in tap or deionized/demineralized water in plastic beakers, large enough for complete immersion and manual agitation; and the most common, ©) “colander rinse” with tap or deionized/demineralized water. For the first method samples are run through at least one complete washirinse/spin cycle on gentle mode of a regular commercially. available clothes washing machine using cloth sample bags, All washing must be followed by a deionized/demineralized water rinse to prevent metal uptake from wash water. When the “beaker soak” method is used, water is constantly changed in the beakers since the sample is actually moved from one beaker to another over the course of a few minutes. For the last method the sample is rinsed in a plastic or aluminum colander sequentially with tap and deionized/demineralized water. Samples are transferred to a clean colander for drying. Drying temperatures are held under 40°C, usually under forced air. Material having a resinous coating on stems or leaves is dried without heat to minimize the possibility of its loss through liquification. Samples are dried to brittleness and this usually takes 24-48 hours. ing of Vegetation Samples—Dried samples can be put directly into a grinder. It has been found that the Wiley Mill® is best for young, woody growth up to a thickness of 5 mm. The Christy/Norris Mill® is used forall thicker materials such as twigs, roots, and branches up to about 13 mm in diameter. Mosses and lichens are ground in a blender, Wiley Mill®, or in a ceramic mortar and pestle after they have been frozen in liquid nitrogen. Larger diameter material must be first cut manually to prevent jamming of the mill. Samples are mixed using a rotary type of tumbling device after grinding. - Dry Ashing of Vegetation and Organic Carbon-Rich Samples—Whenever ashing is required by an analytical technique, a calculation of weight percent ash is required. The analytical results are converted back to a dry-weight basis for comparison with other analytical techniques. Commonly encountered problems for dry ashing include: 4) contamination from dust or soil from the sampling site which ‘may coat stems and leaves; }) loss of volatile elements at the ashing temperature; and, ©) incomplete ashing of certain species at the prescribed temperature. Most contamination of vegetation samples is by dust or soil and can be eliminated by washing in deionized/demineralized water. ‘An ashing temperature of 500°C is often chosen because itis the optimum temperature at which most plant materials will lose most of their organic components. This temperature is maintained for at least 12 hours to maximize loss of organic material. Material that does not ash completely at 500°C should remain in the furnace for a second ashing cycle. Volatile elements (i.e., Se, As, Hg, Cl, and P) are commonly determined in unashed subsplits of the sample Ashing requires only a portion of the sample, but enough to satisfy the analytical needs of the following digestion methods while‘LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES ¢ remaining representative of the entire sample. The amount of this ‘liquot” is also determined by its density, estimated ash yield, and amount of sample available. An aliquot of 10g is usually ade- ‘quate, although satisfactory results have been obtained from spits of 1 to 24 g, Ashing proceeds with the door of the muffle furnace fully closed. The small amount of oxygen necessary for the oxidizing process enters through the imperfect seal between door and wall bricks. Furnaces are programmed to “ramp” up to the ashing temperature of 500°C over a period of 5 hours. Complete ashing js insured by maintaining this temperature for 212 hours. The fur- races are allowed to cool for 28 hours before sample dishes are removed. While cooling, the door should be slightly open but not swung away until the inside temperature dips below 200°C. Sample dishes should remain undisturbed until cooled to <100°C. “The ash must then be mixed and reduced in volume, for it tends to be highly charged with static. This is done through the use of a ‘5-mm solid-borosilicate bead (placed into a plastic vial prior to addition of the ash), and 10 to 60s of shaking in a mixer/mill, This bead should remain in the plastic vial. The ash is then ready for laboratory analysis. ‘Total major, minor, and trace metal analyses Introduction With advancements in analytical instrumentation over the past three decades, the analyst has a choice of several precise and ‘accurate methods with sufficient sensitivity for most environmental study requirements. Some of the more popular methods of instrumental analysis are: flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (FAAS), graphite furnace-atomic absorption spectroscopy (GF- 'AAS), inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Table 13.1 lists detection limits for most elements for these four techniques. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Table 13.2 summarizes the comparative benefits of these methods. Few laboratories rely on only one of these analytical methods, but often use compatible combinations of these techniques. Other methods of analysis commonly used in the laboratory for environmentally important analytes inelude X-ray fluorescence, instrumental neutron activation analysis, electrochem- ical methods (especially specific ion electrode methods), infrared detection of combustion products, jon chromatography, and colorimetry. Colorimetry will not be addressed in this chapter, ‘Sandell (1959) offers a classic overview of this method and many applications. Various manufacturers of colorimeters also offer exeellent methods manuals for colorimetry (e.g. Hach® Chemical Company). Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy Since its introduction in the early 1970s, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) has become an important technique for the analysis of environmental and geochemical materials for their trace, minor, and major elemental content (Fassel and Kniseley, 1974). In this technique, element excitation is achieved by an argon plasma sustained by the inter- action of ionized argon gas inductively coupled to a radio-fre- {quency energy field. An inductively coupled plasma is an attrac- tive spectral source because of its high temperatures, as much as 10,000°K,, optical transparency, and long-term stability. About three-fourths of the common elements can be determined by this technique, with lower limits of detection in the range of 0.05 to 50 igi. This technique is noted for linearity of response, often cov- tring four to five orders of magnitude, and relative freedom from matrix affects which often plague other spectroscopic and classi- cal methods. The technique offers excellent measurement precision, usually from 1 to 3% relative standard deviation, and has ‘good accuracy. ICP-AES is a rapid multiclement technique, by Which 30 to 40 elements can be determined routinely within two ‘minutes (Crock et al, 1983). ‘Several books and articles on the ICP-AES technique explain in dotail the theory and chemistry of the plasma and the analysis ‘of environmental and geological materials. Montaser and Golightly (1992) present the theory and chemistry of the plasma, 1s well as its general application to analytical chemistry. A handbook of ICP-AES analysis (Thompson and Walsh, 1989) describes the complete and partial analyses of geological materials, water analysis, and the analysis of environmental samples. ‘Winge etal. (1985) present an excellent atlas of ICP-AES spectral information for most elements. This atlas aides in selecting the proper analytical wavelength to maximize sensitivity in @ given matrix while minimizing potential spectral overlap interfer- fences. Lichte et al. (1987a) present a condensed handbook of the routine ICP-AES analysis of geochemical materials. Reviews of the current literature on ICP-AES analyses of geological and inor- ganic materials are published annually or biennially in journals Such as the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry and ‘Analytical Chemistry. “The most common ICP-AES technique is to analyze an environmental material as an aqueous solution. However, there are techniques in which the elements of interest are extracted into an ‘organic solvent that is aspirated directly (c.g., Motooka, 1988). Limited success has been reported with the direct nebulization of a slurry powder or direct insertion of samples using a graphite cup (Thompson and Walsh, 1989). The most promising solid sampling technique is laser ablation of a solid sample into the plasma (Thompson et al., 1989). ‘Sample dissolution is usually the most tedious, time-consum- ing, and limiting factor in chemical analyses. A multiacid digestion, combining hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, nitric, and perchloric acids at low temperatures and pressures (Crock et al., 1983), is a ‘common dissolution method. Most of the common rock-forming alumino-silicate minerals can be dissolved by this method. The advantages of acid digestion are the ease of the method, use of large samples (as much as 2 g, although 0.2 g is more common), low reagent blanks, and low total dissolved salts in the analytical solution. With an acid digestion, the final dilution factor commonly is less than 100, allowing many elements to be determined at or near their crustal abundance. One disadvantage of acid digestion is the volatilization of some elements, such as silicon tnd boron as fluoride compounds. Commonly, a higher pressure, closed. vessel “bomb” digestion with addition of a complexing agent for the excess fluoride is used to avoid volatilization of sil- eon and boron, ‘Some minerals are resistant to routine acid digestions and require a more rigorous digestion. These minerals include spinels, beryl, tourmalines, chromite, zircon, monazite, niobates, tungstates, topaz, and cassiterite, These minerals can be completely dissolved by the proper choice of a sintér or fusion diges-268 J.G. Crock, B.F. ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE ‘TABLE 13.1—Atomie spectroscopy detection limits (ppb or micrograms/litr). Element ‘Symbol ‘Method Symbol GEAAS ICP-AES 1CeMS, - ‘Alternate Method — Aluminum Al 03 6 0.006 Al ‘Antimony Sb 04 90 o.001 Sb 0.15 (HG-AAS) Arsenic As 05 30 0.0006 As 0.03 (HG-AAS) Barium Ba 09, ols 0,002 Ba Beryllium Be 0.02 0.09 0.03 Be Bismuth Bi 30 06 30 0.0005 Bi Boro B 1000 45 3 0.09 B Bromine Br 02 Br Cadmium ca 08 0.02 Ls 0.003 ca Calcium Ca 1s 0.03 ous 2 Ca Cerium Ce 100,000, 1s 0.0004 ce Cesium Cs 15 3200 10,0005 Cs Chlorine a 10 a Cobalt Co 9 os 3 0.0009 Co ‘Chromium cr 3 0.08 3 6.02 cr Copper cu Ls 02s 1s 0.003, cu Dysprosium Dy 30 03 001 Dy Erbium Er 6 07 0.0008 Er Europium Eu 30 03 0.0007 Eu Gadolinium Ga 1800 25 0.002 Ga Gallium Ga 5 15 6.001 Ga Germanium Ge 300 15 0.003 Ge Gold Au 9 o4 6 0.001 Au Hafnivm HF 300 4 0.0006 Hr Holmium Ho 0 os -<0,0005 Ho Indium In 30 45 <0,0005 In Iodine I oo 0.008 I Isidium Ir 900, 1 30 0.0006 Ir Iron Fe 3 03 1s 04 Fe Lanthanum La 3000 1s 0.0008 La Lead Pb 15 os 30 0.001 Pb Lithium Li 08 ous 1s: 0.03 Li Lotetium Lu 1000 0s 0.0005 Lu ‘Magnesium Mg ous 01 ous 0.007 Mg Manganese Mn 15 0.09 06 0.002 Mn Mereury Hs 300 1s 30 0.004 Hg 0,009 (CV-AAS) ‘Molybdenum Mo 45 02 18 0.003 Mo Neodymium Na 1500 2 0.002 Na Nickel Ni 6 08 6 0.005 Ni Niobium Nb 1500 5 0.0009 Nb Osmium Os 120 5 os Palladium Pd 30 a 15 0.003, Pa Phosphorous P 75,000 320 45 03 P Platinum Pt 60 5 30 0.002 Pt Potassium K 3 0.02 15 1 K Praseodymium = Pr 7500 08 <0.0005 Pr Rhenium Re 750, 30 0.0006 Re Rhodium Rh 6 30 0.0008 Rh Rubidium Rb a 0.08 37 0.003 Rb Ruthenium Ru 100 3 6 0.002 Ru Samarium sm 3000 1 0.001 Sm Seandium Se 30 03 0.02 Se Selenium Se 100 o7 90 0.06 Se 0.03 (HG-AAS) Silicon Si 90 25 3 07 Si Silver Ag 15 os 1s 0.003 AgLABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES 269 TABLE 13.1—Continued Element _ Symbol Method I ‘Symbol FAAS GEAAS TCP-AES____ ICP-MS ‘Alternate Method Sodium Na 03 00s 6 0.05 Na Strontium Sr 3 0.03 0.075 0.0008 Se Tantalum Ta 1500 30 0.0006 Ta Tellurium Te 30 1 15 01 Te erbium Te 900 5 0.0005, Tm ‘Thallium a 1s o4 cy 0.0005 1 ‘Thorium Th 7 +<0.0005 Th Tholium Tm 15 1s -<0,0005 Tm Tin Sn 150 os 60 0.002 Sn Titanium Ti 15 09 075 0,006 Ti Tungsten w 1500 30 9.001 w - Uranium U 15,000 15 0.0005 U Vanadium v 60 03 3 0,002 v Yuerbium Yb 8 03 0.001 Yb Yecrium Y 15 03 0.0009 Y Zine Za 15 03 15 0.003 Zn Zirconium Ze 450 15 0.004 x Jirasecion nis waw decrnined wring lementl standards in dilate aqueous solutions vader optimized conditions for each individual clement All deetion Wns Aa ee snes tere @ standard deviations). ‘The aca detection limits observed when analyzing environmental samples wil be higher due opsomit ee- based ona 98% confidence ve! Cnuing on te motod of choice. These detection limits were deteined using Perkin-Elmer instrumentation (personal comm L-A- ‘Wepsin, Perkin Elmer Corp. Denver, Col, 1996), FAAS: Flame Atomie Absorption Spectrometry GAAS: Graphite Pumace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry ICP-AES: Inductively Coupled Plasms- Atomic Emission Spectrometry ICP-MS: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry HG-AAS: Hydride Generation-Atomie Absorption Spectrometry CV-AAS: Cold Vapor-Atomic Absorption Spectrometry “TABLE 13.2Relative advantages and disadvantages of the four com- tion procedure. A sodium peroxide sinter will dissolve most resis ron spectroscopic methods used in environmental analysis. tant minerals. For example, boron and siticon are routinely deter- ee §—— _ mned in tourmaline by ICP-AES following a sodium peroxide Benefit _—_—‘ICP-MS_ICP-AES_GE-AAS__F-AAS_ sinter in a zirconium crucible at 445°C. Lithium metaborate, sodi- Multiclement ‘um and (or) potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, and the alka characteristics + + - — Bi persulfates are commonly used as fusion reagents. However, ‘Qualitative analysis + + Fi = there are drawbacks to the use of fusions or sinters. They introduce Low detection limits + + = + a much higher total salt content into the analytical solution, which sat teal reed ie 7 a can clog the nebulizer and torch assembly. These fusions and sin- a ters also tend to have long-term memory effects and higher sagas ‘ . - “j_ Teagent blanks. A larger dilution factor is used because of the Problems from matix smaller sample size (10 to 100 mg is common) in a larger final imesferences| + a 4 solution volume. The final dilution factor is commonly 200 to 400, Problems from spectral making the determination of some trace elements impossible by interferences = + + ICP-AES direct aspiration without subsequent separation and pre- Ease of use ae + ae + concentration. Also, atleast one element common to the reagent is Stall same volomes - a = not determinable, such as lithium and boron from a lithium metab- wompembss ort xo ——. : a + * "To minimize matrix and spectral interference problems, and to bring elemental concentrations into the range of ICP-AES, chem- Relative advantage for hat method when compared to the other ical separation and preconcentration steps are sometimes used. An rmebods example is the analysis of geological materials for their rare-carth- ~t_ Rete andvacags fr nt ated when componet oe ober clement (REE) content at or below their chondritie abundance lev- 4: More ofan advantage than a disadvantage els. This method uses a lithium metaborate fusion or an acid diges- “Ye: More of a disadvantage than an advantage tion of the sample and subsequent separation and preconcentration of the REE by sequential-acid ion chromatography (Crock et al. 1986). The method has a final dilution factor as small as 5 (1g sample in 5 mi final solution), ‘270 ICP-AES is subject to spectral interferences, background shifts, and matrix effects (Thompson and Walsh, 1989). An internal standard, e.g. lutetium (Crock et al., 1983), should be used to help minimize these problems. Interelement correction factors and background corrections are applied routinely. Further correc tions are made when an element influences other elements beyond the “normal correction.” It is common to not report an effected clement due to the extraordinary interference of the affecting element. Matrix effects can generally be negated by proper matching, Of standard and sample matrices. ‘Analysis by ICP-AES for major, minor, and trace elements is useful for a variety of geochemical and environmental investiga tions, The lower and upper reporting limits used for this method following an acid digestion are shown in Table 13.3 (Arbogast, 1996). ‘AS an example of ICP-AES analysis of environmental solid materials, a method where forty major, minor, and trace elements, are determined in environmental materials ICP-AES is described here. The sample is decomposed using a mixture of hydrochloric, nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids at low temperature (Crock et al., 1983). The digested sample is aspirated into the ICP-AES discharge where the elemental emission signal is measured simultaneously for the forty elements. Calibration is performed using digested rock reference materials and a scries of multiclement solution standards (Lichte et al., 1987a). ‘Typically a 0.200 g sample, to which 50 ig lutetium has been added as an internal standard, is digested to incipient dryness with 3 ml concentrated (cone) HCl, 2 ml conc HNO,, i ml conc HCIO,, and 2 ml cone HF at 110°C. If the sample contains high ‘concentrations of organic carbon, the sample must be ashed prior to analysis by ICP-AES. Additional conc HCIO, and water are added to the residue and taken to dryness at 150°C. One ml aqua regia is added and the sample is brought to 10.00 g with 1% (v/v) HNO3. The solution is heated at 95°C for 1 hour after which it is analyzed by ICP-AES. J.G. Crock, B.F, ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE ‘Another typical method for the dissolution of more refractory materials is a sodium peroxide sinter. The resulting solution is, compatible with both ICP-AES and ICP-MS instruments ‘Typically a 0.100 g sample is weighed into a graphite or zirconi- tum crucible and 0.50 g of dry, fine-grained sodium peroxide is added, and mixed with the sample, The mixture is heated at 450°C for 30 minutes. The sinter cake is dissolved in 20 mi deionized/demineralized water, then 200 ug lutetium and 20 ml of 15% (v/v) HINO are added, and the solution is cooled. ‘The ICP-AES instrument is typically calibrated at the start of each day using established geological reference materials (e.g., USGS basalt BHVO-1 and Canadian Certified Reference Materials Project syenite SY-3) and four multiclement solutions. ‘The major and trace elements are determined by comparing the clement intensities obtained from the standards to those obtained from the samples. Three method preparation blanks should be digested with each sample set of 40-50 samples. A blank subtrac- tion is performed to minimize the effect of the reagents. Table 13.4 shows typical element wavelengths for this method. ‘The following equation is routinely used to calculate the ele- ‘ment concentration in the environmental sample: Element concentration = (IRU/IRS x CONSTD X WT SOLN/WT SAMPLE) + IEC in where: IRU = intensity of element/intensity of Lu IRS = intensity of calibration standard/intensity of Lu CONSTD = cone of calibration standard WT SOLN = weight of final solution WT SAMPLE = weight of sample IBC = interelement corrections ‘TABLE 13.3—Reporting limits for 40 elements by ICP-AES after an acid digestion. Element Concentration range Element Concentration range ‘Aluminum, Al 005 50% Gallium, Ga 4 50,000 meg Caleium, Ca 00s 50% Holmium, Ho 4 5000 me/ks Iron, Fe 002 25% Lanthanum, La 2 50,000 mers Potassium, K oot 50% thar, Li 2 50,000 me/kg Magnesium, Me 0.00 3% Manganese, Ma 4 50,000 merke ‘Sodium, Na 0,006 50% Molybdenum, Mo 2 50,000 mg/kg. Phosphorous, P 0.005 50% Niobium, Nb 4 50,000 mks Titanium, Th 00s 25% Neodymium, Na 9 50,000 mos Silver, Ag 2 10.000 mg/kg Nickel, Ni 3 50,000 mefkg “Arsenic, As 10 50,000 meres Lead, > 4 50,000 mek Gola, Au 8 50,000 mg/kg Scandium, Se 2 50,000 mprkg Barium, Ba 1 35,000 mefke Tin, Sn 5 50,000 merke Beryllium, Be 1 $000 me/k Strontium, Se 2 15,000 me/kg Bismuth, Bi 0 50,000 mere Tantalum, Ta 40 50,000 me/kg Cadmium, C8 2 25,000 mark Thor, Th 6 50,000 meg Cerium, Ce 3 50,000 meg Uranium, U 100 100,000 melke Cobalt, Co 2 25,000 merke Vanadium, V 2 30,000 marke Chromium, Cr 2 50,000 mprkg Yurium, ¥ 2 25,000 mele ‘Copper, Cu 2 15,000 mg/kg ‘Ytterbium, Yb 1 5000 mg/kg. Europivm, Eu 2 5000 marks Zine, Za 2 15,000 mg/kgLABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES “TABLE 13.4—Common wavelengths used for the analysis of environ- ‘mental samples by ICP-AES. Element Wavelength,nm __Element_ Wavelength, nm Ag 3280 Mg 285.2 0F 279.0 AL 309.2 Ma 257.6 As 1890 ‘Mo 2020 Au 242.7 Na 588.9 Ba 4554 Nb 309.4 Be 3130 Na 4303 Bi 223.0 Ni 231.6 ca 3179 P 213.6 ca 226.5 Pb 2203 Ce 4186 oF 413.7 Se 246 co 228.6 Sn 139.9 Cr 267.7 Sr 4215 cu 3247 Ta 2400 Eu 381.9 Th 4019 Fe 271.4 oF 273.9 Ti 3649 Ga 2943 u 409.0 Ho 345.6 v 292.4 K 766.4 Y 321.6 or 371.0 La 298.8 or 408.6 Yo 3289 Li 6707 Zn 2138 Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has recently become an important tool in the environmental laboratory despite its relative youth in terms of commercial instrumentation. ICP-MS has gained the U.S. Environmental Protection ‘Agency (U.S. EPA) approval for trace metal determinations, both in water and solids. This approval comes in the wake of lower detection limits required for the lower safe levels of various cont- aminants in drinking water. U.S. EPA methods 1638, 1640, and 200.8 are a few examples of where ICP-MS is the accepted ‘method of analysis. It has many of the attributes and capabilities of its companion technique, ICP-AES, namely the ability to sinnul- taneously determine a variety of elements over a wide dynamic concentration range. However the primary reasons for the popularity of ICP-MS are its great sensitivity and general lack of interferences for elements with masses greater than 70. In contrast to ICP-AES, ICP-MS is slower, less durable, and prone to drift. ‘Thus, in practice the major use of ICP-MS in environmental analysis has been for the determination of toxic elements such as AS, C4, Mo, Pb, Sb, Th, Tl, and U, as well as precious metals, REE, and refractory elements, all at crustal abundance levels and below (6ub mg/kg). The ICP-MS uses an argon plasma to generate ions of the trace elements for analysis by mass spectrometry, usually a uadrapole mass spectrometer. ICP-MS tends to have excellent detection limits, equal to or even better than GF-AAS, typically <0,0001 to 0.2 ug/l. Although a sequential method, ICP-MS can perform a rapid, complete elemental analysis in a single a ‘and has the ability to determine isotopic ratios and therefore, to perform isotopic dilution-type determinations. The analytical ben efits of ICP-MS include very low detection limits, rapid multiel ‘mental analysis, (both qualitative and quantitative), spectral simplicity (especially when compared to ICP-AES), a wide dynamic an analytical range, isotopic analysis capability, and a variety of sample introduction systems Environmental applications of ICP-MS include the analysis of natural waters, marine and river sediments, soils, and toxic wastes. It been applied to drinking water, food, air-borne particulates, and human and animal fluids and tissues for a large variety of major, ‘minor, and trace elements. Due to its accuracy using isotopic dil tion methods, ICP-MS finds a valuable application in the certifica- tion of reference materials. The benefits of ICP-MS in environ- ‘mental applications include the best features of both ICP-AES and ‘AAS, with the high sensitivity of GF-AAS and the rapid multiele- ‘ment throughput of ICP-AES. The semiquantitative mode of ICP- MS can estimate concentrations of over 80 elements in a few minutes. ICP-MS interferences come from matrix effects, instrumental drift, and isobaric overlap of some elemental isotopes by molecular ions formed in the plasma. For alumino-silicate analysis, a ‘glass standard is used so samples and standards are matrix ‘matched. Internal standards are added to compensate for matrix effects and instrumental drift. A standard solution should be analyzed every 15 samples, drift calculated, and drift corrections applied. The isotopes measured are selected to minimize isobaric overlap from other elements and from molecular species that might be present. ICP-MS is compatible with a variety of sampling devices for the introduction of the sample into the plasma. These include direct laser ablation (LA) sampling (Lichte, 1995; Thompson et al., 1989). The benefits of LA-ICP-MS include minimized sample preparation, reduction of contamination, reduced spectral interfer- fences, the ability to analyze very small solid samples, and the ability to perform spot analyses on a given sample. Sample preparation for LA-ICP-MS can be as simple as combining a finely ground ‘sample with a suitable binding agent, such as paraffin or cellulose, and pressing it into a pellet at high pressure. Alternatively, the sample can be fused with a suitable flux and then the fusion bead analyzed directly. Flow injection (FI) is also available as a sample introduction technique. The benefits of FI-ICP-MS include practical automation of on-line pretreatment procedures (including pre- ‘concentration with ion exchange), low sample and reagent volume usage, high sample throughput, improved stability with harsh sample matrices, and protection from contamination, FI-ICP-MS can be applied in micro sampling, on-line dilutions, hydride generation, solvent extraction preconcentration, and matrix modification, Electro-thermal vaporization (ETV), or graphite furnace technolo- 2, is also applicable for ICP-MS. With ETV-ICP-MS even better detection limits are achieved. For example, using a 50 ui sample, 0.00002 pg/l (1x10-15g) of uranium can be determined. ETV also permits the analysis of slurries and selected solids. For multiclement analysis, compromise conditions, similar to GF-AAS, must bee used for the temperature program, gas flows, and matrix modi- fiers. The benefits of ETV-ICP-MS include reduced sample vol- ‘ume requirements (usually less than 100 yl.) and reduced poly- ‘atomic matrix and background interferences. Difficult samples can also be analyzed. These include solutions with high salt concentrations, high concentrations of mineral acids, viscous or organic samples, or volatile solids. ET-ICP-MS has multielement capability with extremely low detection limits. Rare Earth Elements By ICP-MS—The REE (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; Lu is excluded since it is added as the internal standard) are determined by ICP-MS in geologic materials (Lichte, et al., 1987b) and this method is pre-272 sented here as an example of the usefulness of ICP-MS. The REE are made soluble by sintering the sample with sodium peroxide, Teaching with water, and acidifying with nitric acid. Lutetium is, added as an internal standard to correct for instrument drift Calibration for each of the REE is made by using the average intensity of five blanks taken through the entire procedure and the intensities acquired on a solution of a glass standard containing a known concentration of each REE. Rocks and sediments can be analyzed by this method from lower reporting limits of 1.0 La, 2.0, Ce, 0.2 Pr, LON, 0.4 Sm, 0.1 Eu, 0.5 Gd, 0.1 Tb, 0.5 Dy, 0.1 Ho, 0.4 Er, 0.1 Tm, and 0.4 Yb mg/kg, to approximately 500 mg/kg in the sample. Samples that contain higher concentrations of REE ust be diluted before analysis. Atomic absorption spectroscopy Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) became the backbone of many of the environmental and geochemical laboratories by the ‘mid 1970s and continues today to be a very important technique for the determination of many environmentally important ele- ‘ments, Among the reasons for AAS popularity are its relative low purchase price and maintenance cost, abundant literature and applications, acceptance by many regulatory agencies, capability of determining about 70 elements, sensitivity and detection limits which satisfy many studies, speed of analysis, relative freedom from interferences, reasonable precision and accuracy, simplicity, and its field portability. But AAS also has its limitations. AAS is, not useful for determining nonmetals such as sulfur, or refractory elements (¢.g., the REE) at useful levels. AAS also tends to be a sequential method of analysis. Simultaneous multielement AAS determinations have not yet proven to be practical. There are several excellent comprehensive discussions of AAS, including Varma (1984) and Welz (1985). Viets and O’Leary (1992) present an overview of AAS and its application to geochemical exploration. This discussion also applies to environmental analysis. ‘AAS has been subdivided into four main categories. These categories are based on the method of sample introduction and the absorption cell. These include flame-AAS (F-AAS), graphite furnace-AAS (GF-AAS), hydride generation-AAS (HG-AAS), both continuous flow and flow injection HG-AAS, and cold vapor- AAS (CV-AAS). F-AAS has seen great application over the years as the method of choice for trace element analysis, replacing many of the colorimetric methods. A sample is first dissolved, diluted to an appropriate concentration level, and then aspirated into the flame of the AAS instrument. There are different flames available, dependent on the temperature required to desolvate and. atomize the analyte of concer. These flames include an air/acetylene flame for most nonrefractory elements, a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame for the more refractory elements, and an air/hydrogen flame for the easily atomized elements, such as arsenic or selenium. F-AAS is simple to perform and has few spectral interfer- ‘ences and minimal chemical interferences. However, F-AAS is not always sensitive enough for the levels of analytes found in environmental samples. (For comparison of detection limits of the four common spectroscopic techniques, consult Table 13.1). To increase sensitivity and to make the analysis of small volumes possible, GF-AAS was developed. Here the flame has been replaced with a heated graphite tube and the sample injected into this tube for a more complete and efficient atomization of the sample. GF-AAS however, tends to be a very tedious, slow method. It also suffers from more chemical and spectral interfer- J.G. Crock, B.F. ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE, ences, often giving the illusion that GF-AAS is to be considered more art than science. For the hydride-forming elements, such a5 As, Sb, Se, Bi, Sn, and Pb, the introduction of continuous flow HG-AAS offered a reduction in both chemical and spectral inter. ferences while offering increased automation with the sensitivities of the GF-AAS methods (¢.g., Crock and Lichte, 1982; Sanzolone and Chao, 1987). Burguera (1989) discusses flow injection AAS and ils relationship to both flame and hydride generation AAS, CY-AAS remains the chosen method of analysis for mercury in most matrices (Crock, 1996) and follows the principles that were first given by Hatch and Ott (1968). HG-AAS methods for As, Sb, and Se will be summarized here as an example of hydride generation. The determination of Ag and Cd after a separation and preconcentration will serve as an example of F-AAS. A standard CV-AAS method is presented for the determination of mercury in environmental samples. For more methods commoily used for F-AAS and GF-AAS, the analyst should consult the AAS methods books listed earlier or the “Methods Manuals” supplied by most commercial companies with their instruments. Arsenic, Antimony, and Selenium By Flow Injection or Continuous Flow-HG-AAS—The determinations of arsenic, antimony, and selegjum byMflow injection or continuous flow. hydride generation-AAS are presented here as examples of the usefulness of HG-AAS in the modem environmental laboratory. Environmental samples are digested using a multacid procedure in an open Teflon® vessel. At the end of the digestion period, arsenic, antimony, and selenium are reduced to oxidation states, +3, +3, and +4, respectively. Sodium borohydride is added to the solution resulting in rapid formation of the hydrides as illustrated by the following equations: 3 NaBH, + 4H,AsO, — 4 AsH,(g) +3 HBO, +3 NaOH [2] 3 NaBH, + 4H,SbO, ~> 4 SbH,(g) + 3 HyBO, +3 NaOH [3] 3 NaBH, + 4H,SeO, — 4 H,Se(g) +3 HBO, +3NaOH [4] ‘The gaseous hydrides are stripped from the analytical stream and transported with inert gas to the atomizer (a heated quartz furnace) of the atomic absorption spectrophotometer. For selenium, the quartz furnace is heated by an air/acetylene flame to 2000°C; the arsenic and antimony furnace is electrically heated to 900° and 1000°C respectively. Concentrations of the elements are deter- ‘mined using calibration standards in solutions of similar matrix. Interferences usually associated with atomic absorption analysis are negligible, but incomplete recoveries of the elements from the digest solution may yield low analytical results. Incomplete recov- cries are principally due to concentration of certain transition and heavy metals (¢-g., Cu, Fe, Ni, and Sn) of more than $00 mg/l in the sample digest competing with As, Sb, and Se, for available NaBH, according to equation 5: 2M"?42 NaBH, > 2M‘ +H +ByHg+2Nat! (51 This competition results in insufficient NaBH, for completion of the hydride-forming reaction. Other interferences occur when concentrations of one or more of the hydride forming elements areLABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES present in excess of 1,000 mg/kg in the original sample Eompeting hydride clements deplete the oxygen supply in the fur- face which is needed to convert hydrides to ground state ele- nents, Interference of hydride formation by incompletely digest- fd organic material, possible volatility losses ofthe analyte in an ‘rganie rich matrix due to organometallic compounds, and copre~ ipitation of the hydride elements if a metal is reduced to the ‘metallic form, (as is seen with Ag or Au) all will lead to low recov- cries of the hydride analyte. Problems from the first two are generally of minimal concem in environmental samples because the probability of high interfer- nce element concentrations are quite low. More often, interfer- fence problems occur in mineralized samples, but they can be Sesolved by dilution ofthe sample solution. Special care should be faken to ensure that all the organic material in an organic-tich sample is thoroughly and rapidly digested (i.e. oxidized) to tenable the reaction to reach completion and to avoid loss through volatilization. “The digestion procedure for rock, soil, and sediment is a8 fol; lows: ‘Weigh 0.250 g sample (<80-mesh) into a 30-ml Teflon® vessel, add 9 ml conc HNO, and 0.25 ml of 10% (v/v) HCI. Allow to stand for 3 hours. Add 2 ml conc HC1O,, 2-ml cone H,S0y, 10 {nl cone HF and heat overnight at 125°C. Cool, add 25 ml 309% (viv) HCl and let stand for half an hour. Transfer the sample sol tion to a 60-ml polyethylene bottle and bring up to 55.0 g with cionized/demineralized water. Approximately 8 ml of the solution is decanted into atest tube for selenium analysis and another $ ml is mixed with 2 ml of a potassium-ascorbic acid solution in a test tube and allowed to stand for 1 hour prior to arsenic or antimony analysis. Arsenic and antimony are measured using a flow jection hydride generation-AAS method modified from the continuous flow hydride generation-AAS (CF-HG-AAS) method as given in Crock and Lichte (1982) using pre-reduced solutions. Samples are analyzed for their Se content using the CF-HG-AAS method as given in Briggs and Crock (1986) and Sanzolone and Chao (1987) on a separate aliquot of the digest. Routinely 0.2 mghkg As, $b, and Se can be determined in most solid matrices, and 0-1 ug/l can be determined in most waters and extracts. “The digestion procedure for coal and vegetation is as follows: Weigh 20.100 g sample of coal ora 1.00 g sample of plant material into a 125 ml Erlenmeyer flask. Add 20 ml cone HNO,, 2 ml cone H,SO,, and let sland overnight. Then ‘add 3 ml of cone HCIO,,dnsett claw refluxers, and heat at about 175°C for 30 min- ates, Remove refluxers and continue to heat to dense white fumes. Cool, and 25 mi 50% (v/v) HCI and continue as above. ‘Aruscavage (1977) presents a GF-AAS method for the determina tion of arsenic, antimony, and selenium in coal and offers rea~ sonable alternative HG-AAS method. "The digestion procedure for water and extracts is as follows: Weigh 10.0 g liquid sample into a 30-m! Teflon® vessel. Add 1 ml of aqueous saturated potassium persulfate and let stand for 1 hour ‘Add I ml cone HCI and heat at 110°C with watch glass in place. Remove watch glass after 1 hour and continue heating for rough ly 24 to 3 hours or until the volume is reduced to somewhere between 2 and $ ml. Then add another 2 ml cone HCI, replace the swatch glass, and heat for another hour. Cool, add 25 ml 50% (v/v) HCI and let stand for half an hour. Transfer to 60-ml polyethylene bottles with deionizedidemineralized water, bring to final weight of 55.0 g, and analyze as given above. ‘Mereury in Water, Geologic Materials, and Vegetation By Continuous Flow-CV-AAS—The most widely accepted method 273 of analysis for mercury isthe cold vapor method first described by Hatch and Ott (1968). Over the years many modifications have been made to this method, but it still remains the method of choice for environmental samples. To determine mercury in water, ge0- Jogic, and plant materials, samples are digested with nitric acid ‘and sodium dichromate in a disposable test tube. After digestion, Samples are diluted with water to a constant volume. To determine mercury in water, samples must be preserved upon collection in glass bottles with a 1% sodium dichromate (w/v) and cone nitric ‘cid solution (1 part preserving solution to 19 parts water sample). ‘All samples are mixed with air and a sodium chloride-hydroxy! famine hydrochloride-sulfuric acid solution and then Hg (I) is reduced to Hg with stannous chloride in a continuous flow mani- fold. The mercury vapor is separated and measured using continu cous-flow CV-AAS. This method is a variation of Kennedy and Crock (1987). ‘Samples containing high concentrations of Ag, Au, Pt, Te, and ‘se may diminish the extraction efficiency of the Hg in environ- ‘mental samples (Bartha and Ikrenyi, 1982). Of these elements, only selenium poses a significant problem for nonmineralized geologic or environmental materials. Although a 1 mg/l solution of the other elements causes greater than a 90% suppression of a 0.01 g/l Hg solution, these elements either will not be dissolved (Av, Pd) or ate normally present at low concentrations (Ag, Te). Silver does not become 2 problem until its concentration 0 ‘mg/kg in sample. Samples containing silver above 10 mg/kg need to be diluted. Concentrations above 25 mg/kg Se suppress recov cry of Hg and should also be diluted or a smaller sample size used. ‘The CV-AAS method offers a lower reporting limit of 0.02 mg/kg ‘mercury in solid-phase samples. Samples exceeding the working. range of 0.02-1.8 mg/kg mercury require dilution. For water samples or extracts, the method offers a lower reporting limit of 0.1 Heyl. Samples exceeding the working range of 0.11.5 g/l mercury must be diluted. “Mercury in Whole Coal or Biological Tissue By Continuous Flow-CV-AAS—To determine mercury, weigh 0.150 g of whole coal or dried biological tissue (0.75 to 1.5 g raw, as received, bio- Jogical tissue) into a 16 x 150-mm disposable flint glass test tube. ‘Then add approximately 0.1 g vanadium pentoxide, 3.5 ml conc HINO,, and 1.5 ml conc HSO, to the sample. Vortex to wet the entire sample. Place test tube in an aluminum heating block, cover ‘with watch glass, and ramp gradually to 150°C over a 2-hour peri- ‘od, Heat overnight at this temperature, Remove the tube, allow to Cool and dilute sample solution to 15.0 ml with deionized/dem- {neralized water, cap and shake for 5 minutes. Centrifuge at 1,000 pm for 5 minutes. Analyze the solutions as given above. ‘Mercury by Atomic Fluorescence Detection—The determination of mercury can be broken into four basic steps: sample ‘decomposition, reduction of the mercuric ion into metallic mer- ccury, phase separation of the metallic mercury vapor from the aqueous matrix, and the measurement of the mercury. The latest innovations in the determination of mercury in environmental ‘samples have focused on using atomic fluorescence as the method of detection afier standard digestion and separation procedures. Mercury both absorbs and fluoresces at 254 nm. Atomic fluores. ccence inherently has a much larger dynamic analytical range and tends to be atleast two orders of magnitude more sensitive than the CV-AAS method. Cold vapor-atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CV-AFS) offers the ability to determine mercury at or below the part per trillion levels (ng/l) in water. CV-AFS tends to be rela tively interference free when compared to;the CV-AAS method,214 J.G. Crock, B.F. ARBoGaST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE but the analyst must be very careful of sample contamination and reagent purity. The U.S. EPA has recently proposed a CV-AFS ‘method for the determination of mercury in water (U.S. EPA, 1995). ‘Cadmium and Silver By F-AAS—Cadmium and silver are determined by a modified F-AAS method developed by O'Leary and Viets (1986) and this method is presented here as an example of F-AAS. The sample is decomposed by hydrofluoric acid and the residue is treated with hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide. Cadmium and silver are selectively extracted into a 10% (v/v) Aliquat 336®-MIBK organic phase in the presence of ascorbic acid and potassium iodide. The organic solution is atomized by F- ‘AAS for determination of silver and cadmium concentrations. Calcium and iron are major interfering elements in the deter- ‘mination of cadmium and silver in environmental materials by F- ‘AAS. However, these interferences are eliminated by use of 1096(v/v) Aliquat 336®-MIBK which will not extract calcium, and will not extract iron in the presence of ascorbic acid and potassium iodide. ‘A.0.50 g sample is digested in 50-ml Teflon beakers with 5-ml conc HF at 110°C and taken to dryness. The residue is treated with S-ml conc HCI and 1-ml 30% H,0, and heated until the remaining hydrogen peroxide and chlorine gas are evolved. The mixture and a 4-ml ascorbic acid-potassium. iodide solution (30%-15% w/v) rinse are transferred to disposable test tubes and ‘mixed. After 20 minutes, 3 ml Aliquat 336-MIBK are added to the tubes. The tubes are then capped, shaken for 5 minutes, and cen- ttifuged. The organic layer is then atomized in the flame AA. The reporting limits for cadmium are 0.1 to 10 mg/kg and 0.2 to 10 mg/kg for silver. The upper limit can be extended by diluting an aliquot of the organic layer. Instrumental neutron activation analysis Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) selectively measures radioactive nuclide activity produced by nuclear reactions on naturally occurring isotopes. The activity of the indicator radionuclide produced during irradiation is directly proportional to the amount of the element in the sample."The analytical determination is made by comparing the induced activity in the sample with well-characterized standards activated under identical conditions of neutron flux. The activities of the samples and standards are measured using gamma-ray spectroscopy. Gamma-ray radiation emitted by a radionuclide is converted into an electrical signal by a semiconductor detector. The electrical signal is analyzed by a multichannel analyzer. Semiconductor detectors, such as high-purity and lithium-drifted germanium detectors, are used to exploit their high resolution. Spectra produced are analyzed by software which locates peaks, identifies peaks, and calculates the area of each peak. Refer to Gordon et al. (1968), Baedecker and McKown (1987), and Laul (1979) for more detailed descriptions of the principles of INAA. Neutron activation analysis tends to be matrix dependent. Uranium concentrations higher than 100 ppm increase the detection limits for select REE, Mo, and Zr from the generation of fission products, Detection limits are also effected by samples with high REE abundances, and ore-type samples. Ore-type samples require special counting and computer analysis for accurate determinations. Metamorphic marbles/limestones and quartzites, ‘because of their very low abundances of most trace elements also require special handling and analysis. Samples that have low abundances of elements, such as Fe, Co, and Sc, will normally decrease the detection limits for other determined elements. INAA, also has other factors effecting its precision and accuracy. The factors effecting precision include: a) weighing errors; b) nonreproducible positioning of the sample during counting; ©) nonuniform distribution of the neutron flux across the sample irradiation position; 4) errors due to poor counting statistics and to photopeak baseline selection during photopeak integration; and, ) sampling errors. To help minimize these problems, duplicate analysis should be done and the results averaged. The factors effecting accuracy include: 4) interfering nuclear reactions on the other elements that yield the same indicator radionuclide, especially for high U samples; ) gamma-ray spectral interferences; 6) self shielging, especially for samples high in the REE; 4) dead-time errors, especially for the short-lived half lives; ©) differences in the powder density of the samples and the stan dards; and, {errors in the preparation or calibration of the standards ‘A detailed discussion of these and other known interferences on specific elements can be found in Baedecker and McKown (1987). ‘Not all elements will be detectable for all matrixes. Samples having unusual matrixes will require adjustments to the counting protocol. A minimum of 4 months is required for completion of the analysis. The technique is “nondestructive” and sample may, with some restrictions, be analyzed by other methods if the amount of a sample is limited. A lower limit on the concentration of an element is calculated by estimating the minimum detectable peak area above the observed background using a peak detection criteria used in a peak fitting algorithm. The minimum detectable peak is determined by 3 sigma of the blank. Reporting limits are matrix dependent and may be higher for routine analysis, The following are two examples of INAA useful for the nondestructive analysis of environmental samples. By measuring only long-lived nuclides, ie., nuclides with a half life of greater than one day, 24 clements can routinely be determined in most environmental samples. For coals or other carbonaceous samples, up to 29 elements can be determined. If the analyst is able to measure the shorter- lived half lives, using better automation with rapid sample transfer and handling systems and shorter counting times, up t0 an additional 7 elements can be determined, INAA Short Count (24 Elements)—Sample aliquots of 0.5 to 1.0 g each are irradiated in a neutron flux for 6 to 8 hours Standards for most elements are aliquots of a prepared natural obsidian or high purity quartz spiked with primary solutions for selected elements, taken to dryness and homogenized. Standards for Au are homogeneous low-Au quartz. Samples are counted twice on co-axial Ge and (or) Ge(Li) detectors using 1-hour counts after 6 to 8 days of decay, and 2-hour counts approximate ly 50 days after irradiation. Computerized data reduction proce dures are used to measure the activities of the following indicator radio nuclides in the acquired spectra: "Na, °K, 4c, >!Cr, Fe, Co, 58Co, Zn, TAs, SRD, *5r, To, 728b, Cs, SBA, MOLs, Hie, NG, gm, 1S2Eu, 16 Tb, 5p, IM7Lu, HE, 18274, 198u, 25Pa, and 2Np, Corrections are made for spectral interferences and interfering nuclear reactions. Table 13.5 lists the lower limits of determination for the abbreviated INAA method (Arbogast, 1996).LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES ‘TABLE 13.5—Lower limits of determination for abbrevisted-count INAA. NAA Element [Lower reporting imit__ Ba 100 ppm Na, Fe, Ni Sr 10 ppm Za, Rb, NA 1 ppm Cr. Co, Sb, Cs, Ce, Sm, Yb, Th, U 0.1 ppm Se,Ls, Bu, Tb, Lu, Hf, Ta oot “The determination of several elements, particularly Cr, Ni, Zn, Ba, Ce, Sm, Tb, Yb, Lu, Hf, Au, and U may be stbject to spec troscopic interferences. Corrections must also be made for inter~ ferences on the determination of Mo, Ba, La, Ce, and Nd from the products of 235-U fission produced in the sample during neutron radiation. Special handling is required for the analysis of samples with >100 ppm Gd, >500 ppm As or U, >1% B,0s or Pb, oF 359% P,0, due to a variety of analytical problems associated with ‘high concentrations of these elements. INAA Long Count (40 Elements)—Sample aliquots of 0.5 to 1.0 g cach are irradiated in a neutron flux for 6 to 8 hours. Standards for most elements are aliquots of a powdered natural ‘obsidian or high purity quartz spiked with primary solutions, taken to dryness and homogenized. Standards for Ca, Ti, and Au are powdered CaCO, TiO,, and a homogeneous low-Au quartz standard reference material, respectively. At least one replicate sample and one USGS rock standard are irradiated together with the samples and standards. Samples are counted three times on co-axial Ge and (or) Ge(Li) detectors as follows: 1-hour counts after 6 to 8 days of decay, 2-hour counts after 14 to 17 days of decay, and 2 to 4 hour counts approximately 50 days after irradiation, In addition, one or more counts are taken on intrinsic Ge, low-energy photon detectors for the determination of selected elements. Computerized data reduction procedures are used to mea sure the activities of the following indicator radionuclides in the acquired spectra: Na, “K, “Ca, *8Sc, 3c, “1Cr, Fe, MCo, 58Co, Zn, TAs, 75Se, Br, Rb, *Sr, 921, PRTC, HOmAg, 153, 1228p, Cs, iBa, La, Ce, INA, “Sm, En, gg, Mery, pn, Yb, Lu, H, MPa, PW, Ir, 198 Au, 234g, 233Pa, and Np. Corrections are made for spectral interferences and interfering nuclear reactions. Reporting limits fre matrix dependent and these approximate lower limits are given in Table 13.6 (Arbogast, 1996). ‘TABLE 13,6—Approximate lower limits for long count INAA. Element — “Lower limit (ppm) —_ K, Ca, Ti, Zs Ca, Ba, HE 100 = 1000 Na. Fe Ni, Se Mo, Ag 10 = “to Za Rb, Na, Ga, Ten, W 1 = to Cer Co, As Se, Br, Sb, Cs, e, Sm, ¥b, W, Th, U o = 0 Se,La, Bu, To, Lu, Hf, Ta oo Taw door = 008 Iau ‘The determination of several elements, particularly Ca, Cr, Ni, Zn, Se. Zr, Ba, Ce, Sm, Tb, Yb, Lu, Hf, Au, and U may be subject to spectroscopic interferences. Corrections must also be made for 215 interferences on the determination of Zr, Mo, Ba, La, Ce, and Nd from the products of 235-U fission produced in the sample during neutron itradiation, Special handling is required forthe analysis of samples with >100 ppm Gd, >500 ppm As or U, >1% B05 or Pb, (or >5% PO, due to a variety of analytical problems associated ‘with high concentrations of these elements. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry ‘X-ray fluorescence spectrometry is commonly applied to the nondestructive analysis of environmental samples, both in the Iab- ‘ratory and in the field for many major, minor, and trace elements. ‘There are basically two different types of X-ray fluorescence analysis: wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WDXRF) and energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF). Both techniques entail the excitation of characteristic X-rays within a sample followed by their subsequent detection and measurement. WDXRF is very precise and accurate for major and selected trace constituents in a silicate matrix. EDXRF finds applications for minor and trace element determinations and is field portable. EDXRF is also a very fast and nondestructive qualitative and quantitative tool for measuring samples of unknown composition It is however, not as precise as some of the other trace element methods, In general, if an clement has a lower atomic number than Fe (26), WDXRF is the preferred method for its determination. Whereas if an element has an atomic number larger than Fe, EDXRF is the method of choice. Both methods are matrix dependent for their respective sensitivities and detection limits. An ‘example of each X-ray method follows. ‘Twelve Selected Trace Elements By EDXRF—Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (EDXRF) is a method for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of elemental composition in solid or liquid samples. It is based on the instantaneous generation, detection, and measurement of characteristic X-rays mitted by the elements in a sample, when the sample is bom- barded with high energy X-rays. This is a nondestructive analy! cal process that requires little or no sample preparation. With this method, 12 selected trace elements, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, St Ys Zt Nb, Ba, La, and Ce can be determined routinely. The analyst is referred to the literature (e.g., Bertin, 1975; Johnson and King, 1987) for more details on the use of EDXRF for geological and environmental applications. Spectral-line interferences include line overlap and absorp- tionfenhancement effeets (matrix effects). The problem of spectral-line overlap is shared by all emission and fluorescence meth- ‘ods. It is due to the incomplete resolution of two or more spectral Tines or peaks. There are two types of spectral line overlaps in routine EDXRF analysis. The first is a KB line from one element overlaps the Ko. Tine from the adjacent heavier element in the peri~ dic table (e.g., Ni KB overlaps Cu Ka. The second is L-series Tines from one element interfere with K Fines from another element (¢g4 Ba Ly! with Cr Ko). All these interferences can be removed by peak stripping or peak deconvolution techniques using computer algorithms. ‘Matrix effects (absorption/enhancement) occur when radiation ‘emitted by the analyte interacts with other components in the sam ple before it reaches the detector. The effects are corrected by a ‘cattered radiation method which has been widely used for routine trace-element analysis of various geologic materials (Johnson, 1984; Burkhalter, 1971; and King, 1987). This correction method is based on the fact that the analyte-line intensity and Compton-216 scatter intensity are affected in the same way by differences in ‘mass absorption coefficients from one sample to another. ‘Although the scatter line and the analyte line intensities vary with the matrix, their ratio is constant over a wide range of matrix com- positions. Furthermore, if the energy the Compton-scatter peak Ties close to the analyte line, the absorption, particle size, packing density, and instrumental effects are more effectively corrected. ‘The matrix effect of secondary enhancement is not corrected by this method, but is usually negligible for elements with an atomic ‘number greater than 26 (Fe) ‘This method is applicable to the analysis of the above-men- tioned 12 trace elements in rocks, stream sediments, and soils, samples in loose powder form (minus 200-mesh or <75pm). Because this method is nondestructive, the sample can be used for ‘other chemical and instrumental analyses after EDXRF analysis. ‘The detection limits and upper limit of calibration concentrations of the method are summarized in Table 13.7. TABLE 13.7—Lower limit of detection and upper limit of calibration for the EDXRF method. See Element ‘Lower limit, mg/kg" ‘Upper limit, mg/kg cr 20 4200" Ni 10 = 3000 ou 10 - 1000 Zn 10 - 1300 Rb 10 - 2000 Sr 10 - 2000 Y 10 - 200 ze 10 = 2000 No 10 - 500 Ba 30 = 00 la 30 1300 ce 30 500 Ce “Represents the highest LOD observed limits may vary witha calbaton ‘Other elements can be determined with similar lower limits of detection (LOD) for nonmineralized samples, but tend to be subject to matrix problems. Elements of environmental interest and their respective LOD include Bi (40 mg/kg), Cl (50 mg/kg), Mn (15 mg/kg), Se (10 mg/kg), and Te (10 mg/kg). Major Elements as Oxides By WDXRF—The following ‘WDXRF method is fully described by Taggart et al. (1987). Exactly 0.8000 g of powdered sample is ignited in a tared platinum crucible at 925°C for 45 minutes. The weight loss is report- ced as percent loss on ignition (LOD). An 8.000 g charge of lithium tetraborate is added to the sample and thoroughly mixed. A 0.250 ml aliquot of a 50% (w/y) lithium bromide solution is added as a nonwetting agent. The crucible is placed in a muffle furnace on an “automatic fluxer.” The combined sample and flux is melted at 1120°C. The melt is maintained in the furnace at this temperature for 40 minutes while it is simultaneously homogenized through the rocking motion of the fluxer. The molten homogenous mixture is poured into a specially designed platinum mold. When cool, the resulting glass disk is inspected and, if acceptable, introduced into the wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. The major element concentrations are determined” by comparing the fluorescence intensities obtained from standards to those obtained from the sample. Table 13.8 lists the concentration range for LOT and the 10 common rock-forming oxides determined by this tech- nigue. J.G. Crock, B.F. ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE, ‘TABLE 13.8—Concentration range for LOI and the 10 commen rock forming oxides determined by WDXRF. —_—e——e Consttvent Range _ ent) Si0, 0.10 - 90 and, 0.10 - 280 Fe,0; 0.04 - 280 Mio 0.10 - 0 20 0.02 - 60 Na,0 os - 300 KO 0.02 - 300 TiO, 0.02 - 100 P.O; 0.05 - soo Nad 001 - 150 LOL @25°C) 0.01 : 100) Interferencés may result from mineralogical or other structur- al effects, spectral line overlaps, and other matrix effects. The structure of the sample is eliminated through fusion with a suit able flux. Fusion of the sample also diminishes matrix effects and produces a stable, flat, homogeneous sample for presentation to the X-ray spectrometer. Maximizing the efficiency of the optics of the spectrometer and selecting certain types of erystal mono- cchrometers eliminates many of the overlap and multiorder line interferences. A deJongh (deJongh, 1973) mathematical correction procedure is used to correct for the absorption and enhancement matrix effects. Ion selective electrode methods and others ~~ {on selective electrode (ISE) methods are widely applicable in the modern environmental laboratory, from measuring liguid and solid pH to Eh and various free, uncomplexed cations and anions. ‘The voltage difference developed between a sensing electrode, an electrode usually very specific for a given species, and an appropriate reference electrode is a measure of the activity of that spe- Cific analyte in solution. The voltage developed is governed by the Nerst Equation. Table 13.9 lists the common electrodes available, the analyte measured, and the common concentration range mea- surable. As is seen, the ISE methods offer a large range of concentrations for some very important environmental species. Several of the more common ISE methods are presented here as examples of the applicability of ISE methods to environmental studies in the laboratory. Chloride By ISE Following a. KMnO,-H,SO,HF Dissolution—Chlorine in environmental materials is determined as chloride by the ion-selective electrode (ISE) potentiometric ‘method. The sample is digested in the outer compartment of sealed Conway diffusion cell with KMnO,, H,SO,, and HF. Chlorine is distilled from the outer chamber and reduced to chloride in the inner chamber, which contains Na,SO;, and KOH. The chloride is measured directly in the inner chamber with a chloride ion-selective electrode (Aruscavage and Campbell, 1983; Elsheimer, 1987) High concentrations of ions which form insoluble silver salts (bromide, iodide, and hydroxide) could deposit on the membrane surface, causing a malfunction, The diffusion of chloride ions between the outer and inner compartments of the Conway cell separates chloride from other interfering ions. The hydroxideLABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES molar concentration is constant from sample to sample, iodide is, not oxidized in an acidic permanganate solution, and bromide is generally much lower in concentratiom than chloride for a given Sample so that its molar ratio to that of chloride is not a problem. ‘The only other type of interference is caused by high concentra~ tions of sulfur, ferrous iron, or other oxidizable components which ‘would compete with chloride for the oxidizing power of the rock digestion solution. In such cases the sample size taken for analysis can be reduced to as little as 50 mg. Results are satisfactorily reproducible at this sample level, even with considerable competition from reducing species. The operatiffg range for chlorine in geologic and environmental materials is 0.01 to 2.0%. ‘TABLE 13.9—Ion-selective electrode applications to environmental analyses, a ‘Analyte Concentration Electrode measured range (mall ‘Ammonia NHL or NH,* 0.01 - 17,000 Bromide Br 0.4~ 79,900 Cadmium ca 0.01 11,200 Calcium ct (0.02 - 40,100 Carbon dioxide ‘coyco,* 44—440 Chloride cr 1.8 ~35,500 Cupric cu 10.0006 - 6,350 Cyanide ow 0.000008 ~0.01 Fluoride F 0.02 Saturated Solution Fluoroborate BF 0.61 ~ 86,800 Todide i (0.005 ~ 127,000 Lead Poet 0.2. 20,700 Nitrate NOx 0 — 14,000 Nitrite NO}. 0.02 100 Nitroge’ dxide NO, 018-230 Oxygen O, 0 14 (nominal) Perchlorate clo 0.7-99,500 Potassium Ke 0.04 38,000 Silver/Sullide te Agh 0.01 - 107,900 st 0.003 - 32,100, Sodium Nat 0.02 Saturated ‘Thiocyanate SCN 0.29 ~ 58,100, Water hardness x 16x10 molar ¢ Fluoride By ISE Following a LiBO, Fusion and HNO, Dissolution—Fluorine in silicate rocks and minerals is determined as fluoride by the ISE method (Bodkin, 1977; Cremer et al., 1984). Samples are fused with lithium metaborate and dissolved in nitric acid. A complexing buffer is added, and the potential of the solution is determined with a millivolt meter. A known volume of stan dard fluoride solution is added and the potential is again checked. ‘The concentration of fluoride in the sample is computed using the potential difference and the Nernst equation. 1,2-diaminocyclohexane-NNN'N‘-tetra-acetic acid (DCTA) buffers the solution to pH 5.5. At a pH below 5, hydrogen com- plexes fluoride as the undissociated acid HF and the ion HF,” Ata pH greater than seven, hydroxide ion interferes when the level of hydroxide is greater than one-tenth the level of fluoride ion present. DCTA also controls aluminum and iron interferences. Fluoride can be determined in silicate rocks and minerals with a lower reporting limit of 100 mg/kg and an upper limit of 2.7% ‘without modification of this procedure. If a sample is suspected of having a fluoride concentration greater than 2.7%, another fusion should be made and a suitable aliquot diluted with an appropriate 27 volume of DCTA buffer prior to measurement. Soil pH By ISE—A 20.0 g sample of minus 10-mesh (<2 mm) soil is mixed with 20 ml deionized/demineralized water for about 1 minute, remixed after 10 minutes two additional times, left to rest for 1 hour, and then the pH of the suspension determined using 1 combination pH electrode (Crock arid Severson, 1980). Soil pH values are normally reported for pH 0-12aising conventional clec- trodes without acid or alkaline error corrections. Soil pH is usually reported to the nearest 0.1 unit, but may be read to 0.01 unit, depending on the buffering capacity of the soil. The procedure must be followed exactly to obtain comparable results. Factors that ‘must be standardized include: size and shape of the extraction vessel, extraction time, mixing method, sample/water ratio, and temperature. If a sample contains a high percentage of clay or organ- jc matter, the resulting suspension may be very viscous. Redox-sensitive species ‘Many elements in nature ean occur in more than one oxidation state and tend to be very sensitive to Eh/pH conditions. It is often desired to have information concerning the relative abundances of each oxidation state, Most commonly, separation methods or sequential extractions will help define this relationship (c.g., Chao and Sanzolone, 1989). The following include several methods of analysis for a given oxidation state of an element. Also as men- tioned above, ISE technology is extremely valuable for the determination of a given species in solution, Ferrous Oxide By Potentiometric Titration—A 0.500-g sample is decomposed in a platinum crucible with a gently boiling mixture of sulfuric and hydrofluoric acids. The crucible and diges- {ate are immersed in a solution containing boric, sulfuric, and phosphoric acids. The solution is titrated electrochemically with potassium dichromate to determine FeO. “The range covered by this method is from 0.01% to 10.0% FeO. Several treatments with the mixed-acid digestion solution are necessary to entirely solubilize more-resistant minerals such as gamet. Similarly, repeated treatments are necessary for complete dissolution of ilmenite and magnetite. Pyrite is not appreciably attacked but if pyrite isthe only sulfur-bearing mineral in the sample, a correction can be calculated based on the sulfur content. For other insoluble minerals, such as staurolite and tourmaline, alternative digestion techniques which may not be entirely effective, are required. The presence of oxidizing or reducing agents in the ‘sample such as manganese dioxide, trivalent vanadium, or organic matter will adversely effect determination of FeO (Jackson et al., 1987). Forms of Arsenic in Sediments By Ton Exchange—The chemical speciation of any element in solid environmental materials requires an extraction procedure in which the extractant does rot alter the form of the element of interest. This is especially true for elements occurring in more than one oxidation state, such as arsenic. Arsenic can be present as As(III) and As(V). Ficklin (1990) presents a method to extract and speciate the forms of arsenic in lacustrine sediments. To minimize the rapid air oxidation of As(II1) to As(V), the sample must be frozen immediately after collection and stored frozen in an air-tight container. The samples are rapidly defrosted under cold water when the extraction is to be performed. A small representative sample is taken for extraction, total moisture (for correction to a dry-weight basis reporting of the results), and for total arsenic determination. It is usually very difficult to obtain a representative sample of muddy,218 JG. Crock, B, ‘wet material, especially if there is a range of grain sizes present. ‘Sampling tends to be the limiting factor for this method’s pre Arsenic is extracted from a subsample (0.50-0.70 g wet mate rial) of the thawed, frozen material with 4N HCI and heated to 90°C for 5 minutes. ‘The separation of As(IIl) from As(V) is accomplished by ion exchange on the acetate form of Dowex®1- XS ion exchange resin with 0.12 N HCI eluent. The As content of the eluent can be determined using GF-AAS with standard conditions or with HG-AAS as described earlier. The arsenic remaining in the solid after HCI extraction is reacted with potassium chlorate and conc HCI to dissolve sulfides. The arsenic determined from this extraction is assumed to be sulfide-bound arsenic, The lower reporting limit is 0.5 mg/kg for each of the three species, As(III), As(V), and sulfide-bound As. Carbon species Total Carbon By Combustion—Total carbon in geologic materials is most commonly determined by the use of an automated carbon analyzer (Jackson et al., 1987). A weighed sample (approximately 0.25g) is combusted in an oxygen atmosphere at 1370°C to oxidize all forms of carbon to carbon dioxide (CO,) Moisture and dust are removed and the carbon dioxide gas is measured by a solid state infrared detector. High concentrations of fluorine and molybdenum will interfere withthe detection of CO, by coating the cell walls and the detector of the carbon analyzer. Samples suspected to contain molybdenum in the range of 0.2 to 1% are analyzed using a reduced sample weight and a halogen trap is installed in the flow system when high concentrations of fluorine are present in the samples. Another problem may be encountered due to abnormally rapid combustion of organic-rich materials. This problem can be corrected by the addition of retardant (COM-ATD®) to the sample. Carbonate Carbon By Coulometric Titration—Carbonate carbon in geologic material is determined as carbon dioxide, CO, by coulometrc titration. The sample is treated with hot 2 N perchloric acid and the evolved CO, is passed into a cell containing a solution of monocthanolamine. The CO,, quantitatively absorbed by the monoethanolamine, is coulometrcally titrated using platinum and silver/potassium iodide electrodes (Jackson et al, 1987), Processing samples containing high concentrations of suifur quickly exhausts the sample prescrubber. The analyst must give close attention to the build-up of black sulfide precipitate in the prescrubber solution, The lower reporting limit is 0.01% CO, and samples containing up to 50.0% CO, may be analyzed. Sample size is adjusted from 0.5 g forthe range 0.01 to 5% COs, 0.1 gfor the range 5 to 10% CO,, and 0.02 g for greater than 10% CO, Total Organic Carbon (TOC)—Total organic carbon is not determined directly but is computed from the difference between total carbon and carbonate carbon determinations. A variety of procedures have been used to determine organic carbon directly. However, many of these procedures use an acid-leached sample that may have significant loss of soluble, hydrolyzable, or volatile ‘organic compounds due to leaching. Thus organic carbon determined by difference includes all forms of carbonaceous matter, including graphite. Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen By a CHN Elemental ‘Analyzer—Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen can be determined in seologic materials by a commercial gas chromatography/thermal JF. ARBOGAST, AND P.J. LAMOTHE ‘conductive analyzer. A 1 to 20-mg sample (depending on concen. tration and (or) sample type) is combusted in a pure oxygen environment in the CHN elemental analyzer. Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen present in the material are converted to CO,, H,0, and No, respectfully, and separated by a frontal gas chromatograph, Concentrations of these gases are determined by thermal conduc- tivity detectors. Acetanilide is commonly used as a calibration standard ‘The combination of reagents used in the combustion zone provide both efficient oxidative properties and a high-capacity scrub- bing efficiency, insuring the complete oxidation of volatile products and the effective removal of common interferences. ‘The range of concentration covered is from 0.01% for carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen to an upper limit of a 100% for each ele ‘ment; although, concentrations for carbon greater than 90%, hydrogen greater than 10%, and nitrogen greater than 15% are not sually observed Sulfur species ‘Total Sulfur By Combustion—Total sulfur in geologic materials is most commonly determined by the use of an automated sulfur analyzer (Jackson et al., 1985, 1987). Approximately 0.25 g sample is weighed and mixed with I g vanadium pentoxide flux ‘The sample is combusted in an oxygen atmosphere at 1370°C where the sulfur oxidizes to sulfur dioxide, Moisture and dust are removed and the sulfur dioxide gas is then measured by a solid state infrared detector. Possible interfering elements are fluorine ‘and molybdenum, both of which can coat the cell walls and the detector. Samples suspected to contain greater than 0.2% F or 1% Mo should be analyzed using a reduced sample weight. Also, a halogen trap must be installed in the flow system when higher concentrations of fluorine are present in the samples. A problem may be encountered due to abnormally rapid combustion of organic-rich materials. This problem can usually be corrected by the addition of a retardant (COM-AID®) to the sample. It may be necessary to cover some samples completely with vanadium pentoxide to assure complete conversion of the sulfur to the dioxide. ‘The reporting range for total sulfur is from 0.05% to about 35.0% sulfur. Samples containing more than 0.2% halogens or molybde- ‘num may be harmful to the detector. Samples suspected to contain high concentrations of these elements will be analyzed using a reduced sample weight. ‘Acid-Soluble Sulfate, Sulfide, and Organic Sulfur—Total sulfur is first determined on the sample to be analyzed for sulfur species. A separately weighed split of the sample is leached with 0.1 N HCI and the leached sample is analyzed for its sulfur content (residue #1). Another separately weighed split is sequentially extracted with 0.1 N HCI and 0.1 M sodium pyrophosphate to remove the acid-soluble sulfate and the organic sulfur leaving the sulfide behind (residue #2), which is then analyzed for its sulfur ‘content. The acid-soluble sulfate is determined as the difference between the total sulfur and residue #1. The organic sulfur is determined as the difference between residue #1 and residue #2. ‘The method is subjected to the same interferences as the method for the determination of total sulfur, such as fluorine greater than 0.2%, or molybdenum greater than 1%. These interferences can be minimized by reducing the sample size or by using a halogen trap for the sulfur instrument. This method is summarized from Arbogast (1996). ‘The separation of the sulfur species is operationally definedLABORATORY METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES and is dependent on the parameters used. The operating range for this method is from 0.05% to about 35.0% sulfur. Ifthe total sul- furin the sample is lower than 0.1%, species of sulfur should not determined. This method is applicable to the dissolution of the fcid-soluble sulfates but is not suitable for coal-like materials. ‘The acid-insoluble sulfates such as barite or alunite will be included with the sulfide fraction. ‘Laboratory experiments using mixtures of elemental sulfur and quartz, and also standards with known amounts of elemental sulfur, indicate elemental sulfur is not extracted with either the 0.1 N HCI or the 0.1 M sodium pyrophosphate. If elemental sulfur is present in the sample, it will be included with the sulfide fraction, Laboratory experiments on standards with known amounts of sulfides indicate that the best acid concentration for removing the acid-soluble sulfates without dissolving monosulfides is the cold 10.1 N HCI leach, Higher concentrations of the acid and heat dissolve part or all of the monosulfides. Laboratory experiments on monosulfide minerals show only negligible amounts of monosulfides are dissolved by the 0.1 M sodium pyrophosphate. PARTIAL ANALYSES OF SOLIDS Introduction Partial dissolution or sequential partial dissolution techniques ate developed to partition sample constituents into associations ‘with operationally defined sotid phases. These dissolution techniques provide information on the association or “mode of occurrence” of elements which leads to greater insight into controls on the dispersion of elements. The type of dissolution and the dissolution parameters are customized taking into account the goals of the study, the concentration of the constituents of interest, and the matrix of the sample. ‘These techniques have application in both environmental and ‘geochemical studies. The use of these techniques in geochemical exploration for concealed deposits is influenced by the observa tion that ore elements, or associated pathfinder elements, when released from buried deposits to the surficial environment, are held in relatively labile forms. These labile forms can be brought into solution by extractions less drastic in chemical action than total decomposition, Case histories have showin hat this approach results in greater geochemical contrast between background and anomalous values. ‘Environmental applications of these techniques provide information as to the potential availability of constituents to the environment as well as possible sources of enrichment. Chao (1984) presents an excellent discussion of partial and sequential dissolution/analysis methods. “Trace element concentrations in the me/kg range are typically determined, However, the lower reporting limit depends on disso- Iution parameters as well as method of detection. The dissolution parameters (including the number of steps in sequential schemes) fand the method of detection can be modified to maximize the number of values above the lower reporting limit. ‘Element phase associations or forms of elements are opera tionally defined (e.g., see Chao and Sanzolone (1989) for seleni- tum), Development of such techniques requires a thorough knowl edge of the matrix of the sample and the concentration level of constituents of interest. Partial dissolution techniques may pro- duce solution matrices that create severe instrumental interference problems, especially with high total dissolved salts. Pilot studies 219 are usually necessary to develop the appropriate technique and parameters. ‘Attaining acceptable precision and accuracy in sequential extractions or extractable elemental determinations is much more: Tal toxicity by AB-DTPA soil tet and ICPS; in Stewart, B.A. (ed) ‘Ravances in Soil Science, v. 16: Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 165-190. ‘toch, H., 1986, A manual of analytical methods used at Mintek: Council "oy Mineral ‘Technology (MINTEX), Spec. Pub. No. 7, Private Bag 3015, Randburg, 2125 South Africa, 426 pp. suleck,Z.,and Povondra,P, 1989, Methods of decomposition in inorgan- ie analysis: CRC Press, Inc, Boca Raton, Fia., 325 pp. ‘Taggart, JE. J, Lindsey, I, Scot, B.A.. Vivity D.V. Bartel, A, Seyart, KC, 1987, Analysis of geologic materials by wavelength-di pensive Xray fluorescence spectrometry; in Baedecker, PA. (ed) Riethods for Geochemical Analyses: U.S. Geological Survey ‘Professional Paper 1770, pp- EI-E19 ‘Thompson, M., and Walsh, J.N., 1989, A handbook of induc plasma spectrometry, 2nd ed, Blackie, London, 316 pp. ‘Thompson, M., Simon, C., and Bret. 1989, Calibration studies in laser Siblation microprobe-inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry: Journal of Atomic Spectroscopy, v. 4, pp. 11-16. US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, Draft method 1631— ‘Mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic Rhorescence spectrometry: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering, and Analysis Division (4303), Washington, D.C. 20460. ‘Varma, A. 1984, CRC handbook of atomic absorption analysis, v. and II: ‘CRC Press, Inc, Bora Raton, Fla., 510 pp. (v. 1), 444 pp. (v1). ly coupled 287 Viets, J.G. 1978, Determination of silver, bismuth, cadmium, copper ead and zine in geologic materials by atomic absorption spectrometry with {ricapryimethylammonium chloride: Analytical Chemisty, v.50, n0.8, pp. 1097-1101. Vide 1G, and O'Leary, RM., 1992, The role of atomic absorption spec- ‘rometty in geochemical exploration: Journal of Geochemical Exploration, v. 44, pp. 107-138. Welz, B.. 1985, Atomic absorption spectrometry: VCH Publishers, Deerfield Beach, Fla., 506 pp. “Westerman, RL (ed. 1990, Soil testing and plant analysis: Soil Science ‘Society of America, Inc, Madison, Wis., 784 Pp. Williams. SE, and Funston, R.S., 1987, Mercury; in Williams, R.D.. and ‘Schurnan, GE. (eds.), Reclaiming Mine Soils and Overburden in the ‘Western United States—Analytical Parameters and Procedures: Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Lowa, pp. 313-323. Wilson, SA. Tidball, R., Kennedy, K., Briggs, P, Hageman, P, and Cappalueci, T, 1991, Assessment of geochemical variability and alist {ng of geochemical data for sols, drain sediments, alfalfa, greasewood ground water and water extractable soil constituents from the T!-Drin Study Area, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-581, Winge, RK., Fassel, V.A., Peterson, VJ, and Floyd, M.A 1985, Taductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry —An atlas of spectral information: Elsevier, N.Y., 584 pp. ich M., and Mitchell, .W., 1976, Contamination control in trace element ‘analysis: John Wiley and Sons, New York, 262 pp.

Analytical Techniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Techniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like