Comparative Measurements and their Compliance with Standards of Total Mercury Analysis in Soil by Cold Vapour and Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation and Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Two methods to measure mercury concentration in soil are compared, and their compliance with international standards is determined: cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry and thermal decomposition, amalgamation and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The detection limit, quantification limit an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWater, air, and soil pollution Vol. 224; no. 2; pp. 1 - 13
Main Authors Leiva G., Manuel A., Morales, Sandra, Segura, Rodrigo
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.02.2013
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Two methods to measure mercury concentration in soil are compared, and their compliance with international standards is determined: cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry and thermal decomposition, amalgamation and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The detection limit, quantification limit and uncertainty of these two analytical methods were evaluated and compared. The results indicated that thermal decomposition, amalgamation and atomic absorption spectrophotometry had a lower quantification limit and uncertainty than cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry (quantification limit, 0.27 vs. 0.63 mg kg −1 ; expanded uncertainty, 9.30 % vs. 10.8 %, respectively). Thermal decomposition, amalgamation and atomic absorption spectrophotometry allowed the determination of the base values for the concentration of mercury in soil recommended by international standards, achieving a lower detection limit than cold vapour atomic absorption spectrometry under the study conditions. In addition, thermal decomposition, amalgamation and atomic absorption spectrophotometry represent a more environmentally friendly alternative for mercury determination because this method uses fewer reagents and therefore generates less waste.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0049-6979
1573-2932
DOI:10.1007/s11270-012-1390-3