Comparison of DMA-80 and ICP-MS Combined with Closed-Vessel Microwave Digestion for the Determination of Mercury in Coal.

Siyu Zhang, Mingxuan Zhou
Author Information
  1. Siyu Zhang: State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing 100083, China. ORCID
  2. Mingxuan Zhou: State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing 100083, China.

Abstract

As one of the most widely used techniques for concentration determination of trace elements in coal, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has also been used in several studies for the determination of mercury concentration in coal. ICP-MS after closed-vessel microwave digestion and a Milestone DMA-80 are employed in this study to determine the mercury concentration in coal. Three NIST  standard references of coal samples were selected as references to verify the accuracy of the test results. The Au rinse solution (200 g/L, 5% HNO) can diminish mercury memory effects to a blank level within 80 seconds. The results showed that ICP-MS can accurately determine the mercury content in mercury standard solutions, but the mercury concentration in most NIST samples after microwave digestion is lower than the detection level of the ICP-MS. The inaccuracy may be due to volatilization of mercury during solid sample digestion process. By contrast, the determined concentrations in NIST samples by the Milestone DMA-80 are very close to the verified values. Therefore, ICP-MS is not recommended to analyze mercury in coal after digestion even in a closed-vessel digestion system, but the mercury direct analyzer (without digestion) is recommended to analyze mercury in coal.

References

  1. Talanta. 2010 Dec 15;83(2):364-9 [PMID: 21111147]
  2. Anal Chem. 1974 Aug;46(9):1294-7 [PMID: 4845843]
  3. Analyst. 1976 Feb;101(1199):91-5 [PMID: 1267182]
  4. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 2000 Jan;366(1):48-53 [PMID: 11225815]
  5. Talanta. 2005 Mar 31;66(1):58-64 [PMID: 18969962]
  6. Sci Total Environ. 2007 Oct 1;384(1-3):374-83 [PMID: 17599392]
  7. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2002 Sep;374(2):314-22 [PMID: 12324855]
  8. J Hazard Mater. 2008 Jun 15;154(1-3):325-30 [PMID: 18023528]
  9. Microchem J. 1996 Nov;54(4):348-54 [PMID: 8979948]
  10. Talanta. 2010 Mar 15;80(5):2106-12 [PMID: 20152459]
  11. Anal Chem. 2002 Apr 1;74(7):1477-83 [PMID: 12033233]
  12. Anal Chim Acta. 2010 May 14;667(1-2):43-8 [PMID: 20441864]
  13. Talanta. 2012 Nov 15;101:346-52 [PMID: 23158332]
  14. Anal Chim Acta. 2009 May 8;641(1-2):32-6 [PMID: 19393363]
  15. Anal Chem. 1975 Mar;47(3):592-5 [PMID: 1137140]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mercurycoalICP-MSdigestionconcentrationDMA-80NISTsamplesuseddeterminationclosed-vesselmicrowaveMilestonedeterminereferencesresultscanlevelrecommendedanalyzeonewidelytechniquestraceelementsinductivelycoupledplasmamassspectrometryalsoseveralstudiesemployedstudyThree standardselectedverifyaccuracytestAurinsesolution200 g/L5%HNOdiminishmemoryeffectsblankwithin80 secondsshowedaccuratelycontentstandardsolutionslowerdetectioninaccuracymayduevolatilizationsolidsampleprocesscontrastdeterminedconcentrationscloseverifiedvaluesThereforeevensystemdirectanalyzerwithoutComparisonCombinedClosed-VesselMicrowaveDigestionDeterminationMercuryCoal

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)