Comparison of four USEPA digestion methods for trace metal analysis using certified and Florida soils

被引:154
作者
Chen, M
Ma, LQ [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Soil & Water Sci, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Commiss Integrated Survey Nat Resources, Beijing 100101, Peoples R China
关键词
D O I
10.2134/jeq1998.00472425002700060004x
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
It is critical to compare existing sample digestion methods for evaluating soil contamination and remediation. USEPA Methods 3050, 3051, 3051a, and 3052 were used to digest standard reference materials and representative Florida surface soils. Fifteen trace metals (Ag, As; Be, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, and Zn), and six macro elements (AI, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, and P) were analyzed. Precise analysis was achieved for all elements except for Cd, Mo, Se, and Sb in NIST SRMs 2704 and 2709 by USEPA Methods 3050 and 3051, and for all elements except for As, Mo, Sb, and Se in NIST SRM 2711 by USEPA Method 3052. No significant differences were observed for the three NIST SRMs between the microwave-assisted USEPA Methods 3051 and 3051a and the conventional USEPA Method 3050 except for Ng, Sb, and Sc. USEPA Method 3051a provided comparable values for NIST SRMs certified using USEPA Method 3050. However, fur method correlation coefficients and elemental recoveries in 40 Florida surface soils, USEPA Method 3051a was an overall better alternative for Method 3050 than was Method 3051. Among the four digestion methods, the microwave-assisted USEPA Method 3052 achieved satisfactory recoveries for all elements except As and Rig using NIST SRM 2711. This total-total digestion method provided greater recoveries for 12 elements Ag, Be, Cr, Fe, K, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Si,, Se, and Zn, but lower recoveries for Mg in Florida soils than did the total-recoverable digestion methods (3050, 3051, and 3051a).
引用
收藏
页码:1294 / 1300
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
AMMONS JT, 1995, COMMUN SOIL SCI PLAN, V25, P831
[2]  
[Anonymous], TEST METH EV SOL W A
[3]  
[Anonymous], EPAS SAMPLING ANAL M
[4]  
BINSTOCK DA, 1991, J ASSOC OFF ANA CHEM, V74, P360
[5]  
Binstock DA, 1990, WASTE TESTING QUALIT, V2, P259
[6]  
Brown R.B., 1990, Ecosystems of Florida, P35
[7]   COMPARISON OF FOUR METHODS FOR DIGESTION OF SEWAGE-SLUDGE SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS OF METALS BY ATOMIC-ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY [J].
CHRISTENSEN, TH ;
PEDERSEN, LR ;
TJELL, JC .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 1982, 12 (01) :41-50
[8]   Comparison of methods to evaluate heavy metals in organic wastes [J].
deAbreu, MF ;
Berton, RS ;
deAndrade, JC .
COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS, 1996, 27 (5-8) :1125-1135
[9]  
*FLOR DEP ENV PROT, 1996, 62302 FDEP
[10]  
HEWITT AD, 1990, ATOM SPECTROSC, V11, P187