Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Optimization of A Flow Injection Hydride Generation Atomic
Optimization of A Flow Injection Hydride Generation Atomic
Abstract
The flow injection hydride generation technique together with atomic absorption spectrometry was used for the determi-
nation of arsenic, antimony and selenium in the iron-based water treatment chemical FeClSO4 . Thiourea, l-cysteine and
potassium iodide–ascorbic acid were used as masking agents to diminish the interference caused by the very high iron con-
centrations in the samples. These reagents act also as prereductants for As(V) and Sb(V). Thiourea and l-cysteine did not
prevent the signal depression caused by such high iron content, but potassium iodide–ascorbic acid eliminated iron interference
well even up to 2500 mg Fe l−1 . The limits of detection (LODS) in aqueous solutions containing no iron were 0.037 g l−1 ,
0.121 g l−1 and 0.131 g l−1 for As, Sb and Se, respectively. The linear dynamic range was 0–10 g l−1 for As and 0–30 g l−1
for Sb and Se. The precision relative standard deviation was expressed as 2.6% for As, 4.4% for Sb and 2.9% for Se. The
precision determinations were done on the FeClSO4 matrix at the level 0.5–0.8 g l−1 for the elements to be analyzed. The
accuracies of the methods were tested by using two standard reference materials (SRM 361, LA Steel and SRM 2074, river
sediment). The concentrations obtained for As, Sb and Se were very close to the certified values. © 2001 Elsevier Science
B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Atomic absorption spectrometry; Hydride generation; Flow injection; Arsenic; Antimony; Selenium; Iron interference; Water
treatment chemical
0003-2670/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 2 6 7 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 0 0 1 - 7
230 T. Näykki et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 439 (2001) 229–238
species causing the suppression of the signal in hy- this observation. When using the FI system instead of
dride generation [6]. the batch system, the concentration of the reductant is
Iron is a common transition metal that is present usually lower and formation of the interfering precip-
at high concentrations in many type of samples. itates, e.g. borides, is decreased. Another reason can
However, only a few studies have been published be called kinetic discrimination. The reduction of the
where the iron concentrations of the samples are as hydride-forming elements is fast and the reaction is
high as in this work. Narsito et al. [7] found that completed before the reduction of the transition metal
the interference caused by 200 mg l−1 iron was re- ion to the interfering species. Also the separation of
moved when 1% thiourea was used as a prereductant. the hydrides from the sample matrix is very fast in a
Wickström et al. [8] studied hydride generation and gas–liquid separator.
the complexation reactions in an alkaline sample In this study, the parameters for the determina-
solution. The hydrides formed were evolved by sub- tion of As, Sb and Se from the PIX-110TM chemical
sequent acidification of the sample solution. They (FeClSO4 ) using flow-injection hydride generation
found that 0.3 mol l−1 tartrate completely removed (FI-HG) were optimized. The PIX-110TM water coag-
iron interference at the 500 mg Fe l−1 level and when ulant is a FeClSO4 solution manufactured by Kemira
the iron concentration was 5000 mg l−1 , the signal Chemicals Oy, containing approximately 12.0 wt.%
was depressed by only 15%. However, dissociation of (180 g l−1 ) of Fe3+ , 22.3% of SO4 2− and 7.5% of
the metal complex can occur during the acidification Cl− . Since As, Sb and Se are toxic, the European
of the sample. Thus, the formation of free metal ions Committee for Standardization (CEN) has laid down
and precipitation is possible. Boampong et al. [9] the maximum limits for these elements and therefore
used 3% l-cystine in 5 mol l−1 hydrochloric acid as it is essential to monitor their low amounts in water
a masking agent to prevent the interferences of very treatment chemicals [16].
high concentrations of iron. Welz and Sucmanova [10]
proposed the use of l-cysteine instead of l-cystine
as a masking agent. Earlier Chen et al. [11] had ob- 2. Experimental
served that l-cysteine removed iron interference up to
1000 mg l−1 even though the solution became turbid 2.1. Instrumentation
due to the formation of l-cystine when the iron(III)
concentration was greater than 200 mg l−1 . Gener- A Perkin-Elmer model 5100 Zeeman atomic ab-
ally l-cysteine has been proved to be very useful for sorption spectrometer equipped with a Perkin-Elmer
preventing iron interferences, but nearly all previ- model FIAS-400 flow injection system and an AS90
ous publications have focused on iron concentrations autosampler, controlled by Perkin-Elmer AA WinLab
below 1000 mg l−1 . Finally, it is worth noting that version 2.61 software, was used for the measurements.
iron(III) has also been used for minimizing interfer- Silicone pump tubes (NaBH4 : 1.14 mm i.d.; carrier
ence effects of the other transition metals in the HG HCl: 1.52 mm i.d.; sample loading and waste: 3.17 mm
technique. The high positive potential of the reduction i.d.) were used throughout this study, and all other
of iron(III) to iron(II) suggests a preferential reduc- tubing was 1 mm i.d. PTFE. An electrically heated
tion of this species. More seriously interfering metal quartz tube was used as an atomizer. Electrodeless dis-
ions, such nickel(II) and copper(II), will be reduced charge lamps, operated from an external power supply
to the metals and precipitated only after all the iron (Perkin-Elmer EDL system 2) were used for the mea-
has been reduced. [12,13]. surements. The instrumental parameters are shown in
The extent of the transition metal interference de- Tables 1 and 2; they were mainly chosen according to
pends very much on the HG system used. Severe in- the manufacturer’s recommendations.
terference was observed when we earlier used the
batch type hydride generation system described by 2.2. Reagents and standard solutions
Siemer and Hagemann [14]. The flow injection (FI)
technique is less prone to transition metal interfer- All reagents were of analytical-reagent grade un-
ence [10,15]. There are at least two main reasons for less otherwise stated. Ultrapure water (18 M cm−1 ),
T. Näykki et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 439 (2001) 229–238 231
Fig. 2. The effect of KI and ascorbic acid concentrations in the determination of As, when the iron concentration of the samples was:
(A) 1500 mg l−1 and (B) 5000 mg l−1 . Arsenic concentration in the samples was 1 g l−1 . HCl concentration of samples and carrier was
4.7 mol l−1 .
maximum sensitivity. The concentration of ascorbic matrix, the depression of the As signal was ony 50%
acid was kept at a constant level and the optimal KI of the signal measured without iron.
concentration was found to be 0.8% (w/v) (Fig. 2B). The prereduction times needed with the different
The sensitivity obtained with thiourea and l-cysteine prereductants were investigated by measuring the re-
was worse than that with KI. Using an iron concen- sponse of 1 g As(V) l−1 solutions as a function of the
tration, <200 mg l−1 and l-cysteine as the masking prereduction time (Fig. 3). For each measurement the
agent, the recovery of the signals of arsenic and anti- amount of As in the matrix/prereduction agents was
mony were excellent, as, for example, Welz [10] and subtracted from the results. When thiourea was used,
Chen [11] have reported. The use of concentrated iron the prereduction of As(V) occurred immediately. With
solutions caused a severe signal depression despite l-cysteine and KI–ascorbic acid the maximum sensi-
the presence of l-cysteine; using a 1500 mg l−1 iron tivity was achieved within 15 min. Fig. 3 shows also
were depressed and the sensitivity was lower. The in- Table 8
creased sensitivity was probably due to an oxidizing Linear dynamic ranges for As, Sb and Se in aqueous solutionsa
and complexing effect of Fe(III). It is known that el- Element Linear range Calibration equation R2 (n = 6)
emental chlorine can sometimes be produced in the (g l−1 )
sample solutions. According to the investigations car- Arsenic 0–10 y = 0.3516x + 0.0557 0.9981
ried out by Krivan et al. Se(IV) was slowly converted Antimony 0–30 y = 0.1173x − 0.0008 0.9997
Selenium 0–30 y = 0.1055x − 0.0307 0.9964
to non-reactive Se(VI) due to back-oxidation by ele-
mental chlorine [19,20]. If some iron is present in the a y: integrated absorbance, x: concentration in g l−1 .
sample solution, it will form complexes with chloride,
thus preventing the formation of elemental chlorine. 3.4. Precision
This may partly explain the better sensitivity obtained
for selenium in the samples-containing iron. The precision of the methods was tested using
The results also showed that when a lower prereduc- one-way variance analysis. The determinations were
tion temperature (50◦ C) was used, the selenium signal performed according to the arrangement in Fig. 4.
from the aqueous standard solution was greater to that The concentrations of As, Sb and Se in the samples
from the solution-containing iron. When the tempera- were between 0.5 and 0.8 g l−1 . In the determination
ture was raised to 70–90◦ C, the selenium signal from of As the samples prepared contained 800 mg Fe l−1 .
the iron solution was larger. Thus, there is some evi- In the determination of Sb and Se the iron content of
dence that selenium may be lost more easily from an the samples was 2500 mg l−1 .
aqueous solution (as a volatile chloride or hydride, for The total variance of the results was composed of
example), than from the solution having an oxidizing the residual variance and the influence of the day on
iron(III). Anyway, prereduction of selenium with HCl which the measurement was made (stot 2 = s 2 + s 2 ).
res day
is a common practice in HG [18]. A one-way F-test was used to test if the two variances
To minimize the matrix effects, the determination of differed significantly from each other [21]. According
selenium in PIX-110TM was carried out using the stan- to the F-tests, the variance arising from the measure-
dard addition method by adding 0.5–2.0 g l−1 Se(VI) 2 ) appeared to be significantly greater
ment day (sday
prior to prereduction. than the variance of the residual error for arsenic and
selenium (Table 9). Considering the low concentra-
3.3. Validation of the methods tions of the element determined it was concluded that
the precisions obtained (2–4% relative standard devi-
Detection limits (blank+3σ ) and quantitation limits ation, R.S.D.) were excellent.
(blank + 10σ ) for As, Sb and Se were determined
in aqueous solutions that contained no iron matrix. 3.5. Reproducibility
The detection and quantitation limits are presented in
Table 7. The linear dynamic ranges for As, Sb and The reproducibilities of the methods when car-
Se (Table 8) were monitored in aqueous solutions. ried out by more than one analyst were evaluated
Precision and reproducibility was determined using
the standard addition method.
Table 7
Detection limits (blank +3σ ) and quantitation limits (blank +10σ )
in aqueous solutions for As, Sb and Se
Element Limit of detection Limit of quantitation
(g l−1 ) (g l−1 )
Arsenic 0.037 0.089
Antimony 0.121 0.256
Selenium 0.131 0.291 Fig. 4. Experimental arrangement used in the determination method
precision.
236 T. Näykki et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 439 (2001) 229–238
Table 9
F-test values, the variance components and the precisions for As, Sb and Se using the experimental arrangement in Fig. 4
Element Mean (n = 25) Variance of residual Variance of Precision F-test (MSdays /Msres )
(g l−1 ) 2 )
errors (sres 2 )
days (sday
g l−1 R.S.D. (%) Fcalc Ftheor (4, 20)a
As 0.776 1.291 × 10−4 2.701 × 10−4 0.020 2.6 11.46 2.87
Sb 0.541 5.103 × 10−4 4.152 × 10−5 0.023 4.4 1.41 2.87
Se 0.491 1.334 × 10−4 7.487 × 10−5 0.014 2.9 3.81 2.87
a Degrees of freedom (numerator, denominator).
Table 10
F-test values for As, Sb and Se using the experimental arrangement
in Fig. 5
Element F-test (MSdays /MSres ) F-test (MSanalyst /MSdays )
Fig. 5. Experimental arrangement used in determination of repro- variance components and the reproducibilities for As,
ducibility. Sb and Se are presented in Table 11. The discrepancies
observed in the results were obviously due to the small
number of measurement days and analysts (two).
according to Fig. 5. The total variance of the results
is composed of the residual variance, the influence 3.6. Accuracy
of the day of measurement and the influence of the
2 = s 2 + s 2 + s 2 ). According to F-tests
analyst (stot res day ana The accuracies of the methods were tested using
(Table 10), the variance arising from the measure- the standard reference materials SRM 361 Low-alloy
ment day was significantly greater than the variance Steel and Buffalo Rivel Sediment SRM 2704. Three
of the residual error only for arsenic. The effect of the replicates were prepared for all determinations and 5–8
analyst was insignificant. For antimony and selenium, successive atomizations were performed from each
the only significant source of deviation was found to sample. The certified and measured concentrations are
be the residual errors. Thus, the total variance of the shown in Table 12. The results obtained are in good
determinations equaled that of the residual error. The agreement with the certified values.
Table 11
The variance components and the overall reproducibilities for As, Sb and Se using the experimental arrangement presented in Fig. 5
Element Mean value(n = 20) Variance of residual errors Variance of days Variance of analysts Reproducibility
2 )
(sres 2 )
(sday 2 )
(sana g l−1 R.S.D. (%)
Table 12
Analytical results of SRMs (mg kg−1 ). Mean ± 95% confidence limits
SRM Matrix Arsenic Antimony Selenium
2704 Sediment 23.4 ± 0.8 22.8 ± 0.7 3.79 ± 0.15 3.77 ± 0.32 1.12 ± 0.05 1.09 ± 0.06
361 LA Steel 170 ± 10 176 ± 5.8 42 ± 1 40.3 ± 1.4 40a 29.9 ± 2.4
a Value uncertified.
[10] B. Welz, M. Sucmanova, Analyst 118 (1993) 1425. [17] A.B. Umetri, P.O. Box 7960, S-90719 Umeå, Sweden.
[11] H. Chen, I.D. Brindle, S. Zheng, Analyst 117 (1992) 1603. [18] H. Uggerud, W. Lund, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 10 (1995) 405.
[12] B. Welz, M. Melcher, Analyst 109 (1984) 577. [19] V. Krivan, J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 7 (1992) 155.
[13] R. Bye, Anal. Chim. Acta 192 (1987) 115. [20] V. Krivan, K. Patrick, B. Welz, M. Melcher, Anal. Chem. 57
[14] D.D. Siemer, L. Hagemann, Anal. Lett. 8 (1975) 323. (1985) 1703.
[15] M. Yamamoto, M. Yasuda, Y. Yamamoto, Anal. Chem. 57 [21] D.L. Massart, B.G.M. Vandeginste, S.N. Deming, Y. Michotte,
(1985) 1382. L. Kaufman, Chemometrics: A Textbook, 1st Edition,
[16] European Committee for Standardization, Chemicals Used Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 59–74.
for Treatment of Water Intended for Human Consumption — [22] R. Nilsson, Vesitippa, Publication of Kemira Chemicals Oy
Iron(III) Chloride Sulfate, prEN 891, 1988, p. 8. Kemwater 12 (2) (1996).