Problem with atomic spectometry

  • Thread starter Thread starter nickatomic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atomic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on issues encountered while measuring chromium (Cr) using atomic absorption spectroscopy with a flame setup on an Aanalyst 200. The user reports lower absorbance readings for standards after calibration, raising concerns about Cr stability and potential instrument drift. Suggestions include checking the consistency of the atomizer, ensuring the background spectrum is taken before analysis, and considering the impact of flame characteristics on measurements. The user notes that similar issues do not occur with other metals like copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb), which may indicate a specific problem with the Cr measurement process. The conversation emphasizes the importance of maintaining proper calibration and sample preparation techniques to achieve accurate results.
nickatomic
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
i have a big problem while i m trying to measure Cr with flame with Aanalyst 200

i m following the guidelines of perkin elmer. i m using a rich yello flame 4.5/10.
i have made some standards 0.2, 1,2,4 with 0.2% nitric acid.
i m doing calibration and when i finish i have noticed that the same standards showing lower absorbances
why that is happening? is Cr unstable by time?
thank you
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
What concentrations are you measuring in your standards?
 
Last edited:
i was using 0.2 mg/lt to 4 mg/lt. i made a very good calibration but after i finished and measured again standards it was showing smaller absorbances and of course concentrations
 
Could it be an inconsistency in the atomizer? What exactly is your sample, and how did you prepare it? Are you using a matrix modifier? The more detail you provide, the more like someone will be able to debug the problem.
 
Last edited:
nickatomic said:
i was using 0.2 mg/lt to 4 mg/lt. i made a very good calibration but after i finished and measured again standards it was showing smaller absorbances and of course concentrations

Were the samples still in the linear range? That is, could you obtain a 'new' calibration curve and judge it 'very good' as you did with the earlier analysis? If so, it could be instrument drift. This can occur for a variety of reasons. Did you take a background spectrum (blank) just prior to analyzing in both cases?
I think it is unlikely that the chromium is not stable or is precipitating out of solution but it is a very easy thing for you to check. Are you storing your standard solutions in plastic or glass? Was the glass cleaned with 6M nitric acid and baked out as a last step in its cleaning?
 
thank you for your replies
about matrix modifier. . i don't think that it needs because i m using flame - absorbion. i think that it is used only to furnace.
about the standard. i have made it from a comercial one. i don't think it has to do with dilutions or cleaning. the comercial one is in plastic bottle and i m having mine in glass that it is well cleaned with nitric acid
i m near the characteristic for yello rich flame when i begin the measurings. something is happening with the standard i think tha i can't explain. .
 
i want to add that for cu and Ni and pb i don't see that difference
 
When you analyze for Pb, Ni and Cu are you using the yellow rich flame? Could the soot in the yellow flame be the source of the variability? One time the flame is a little less yellow than the next perhaps?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
16K
Back
Top