9.4: Atomic Absorption Techniques

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 366365

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $ $ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $$\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

Preparing the Sample

Flame and electrothermal atomization require that the analyte is in solution. Solid samples are brought into solution by dissolving in an appropriate solvent. If the sample is not soluble it is digested, either on a hot-plate or by microwave, using HNO₃, H₂SO₄, or HClO₄. Alternatively, we can extract the analyte using a Soxhlet extractor. Liquid samples are analyzed directly or the analytes extracted if the matrix is in- compatible with the method of atomization. A serum sample, for instance, is difficult to aspirate when using flame atomization and may produce an unacceptably high background absorbance when using electrothermal atomization. A liquid–liquid extraction using an organic solvent and a chelating agent frequently is used to concentrate analytes. Dilute solutions of Cd²⁺, Co²⁺, Cu²⁺, Fe³⁺, Pb²⁺, Ni²⁺, and Zn²⁺, for example, are concentrated by extracting with a solution of ammonium pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate in methyl isobutyl ketone.

Standardizing the Method

Because Beer’s law also applies to atomic absorption, we might expect atomic absorption calibration curves to be linear. In practice, however, most atomic absorption calibration curves are nonlinear or linear over a limited range of concentrations. Nonlinearity in atomic absorption is a consequence of instrumental limitations, including stray radiation from the hollow cathode lamp and the variation in molar absorptivity across the absorption line. Accurate quantitative work, therefore, requires a suitable means for computing the calibration curve from a set of standards.

When possible, a quantitative analysis is best conducted using external standards. Unfortunately, matrix interferences are a frequent problem, particularly when using electrothermal atomization. For this reason the method of standard additions often is used. One limitation to this method of standardization, however, is the requirement of a linear relationship between absorbance and concentration.

Most instruments include several different algorithms for computing the calibration curve. The instrument in my lab, for example, includes five algorithms. Three of the algorithms fit absorbance data using linear, quadratic, or cubic polynomial functions of the analyte’s concentration. It also includes two algorithms that fit the concentrations of the standards to quadratic functions of the absorbance.

Evaluation of Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

Scale of Operation

Atomic absorption spectroscopy is ideally suited for the analysis of trace and ultratrace analytes, particularly when using electrothermal atomization. For minor and major analytes, sample are diluted before the analysis. Most analyses use a macro or a meso sample. The small volume requirement for electrothermal atomization or for flame microsampling, however, makes practical the analysis of micro and ultramicro samples.

Accuracy

If spectral and chemical interferences are minimized, an accuracy of 0.5–5% is routinely attainable. When the calibration curve is nonlinear, accuracy is improved by using a pair of standards whose absorbances closely bracket the sample’s absorbance and assuming that the change in absorbance is linear over this limited concentration range. Determinate errors for electrothermal atomization often are greater than those obtained with flame atomization due to more serious matrix interferences.

Precision

For an absorbance greater than 0.1–0.2, the relative standard deviation for atomic absorption is 0.3–1% for flame atomization and 1–5% for electrothermal atomization. The principle limitation is the uncertainty in the concentration of free analyte atoms that result from variations in the rate of aspiration, nebulization, and atomization for a flame atomizer, and the consistency of injecting samples for electrothermal atomization.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of a flame atomic absorption analysis is influenced by the flame’s composition and by the position in the flame from which we monitor the absorbance. Normally the sensitivity of an analysis is optimized by aspirating a standard solution of analyte and adjusting the fuel-to-oxidant ratio, the nebulizer flow rate, and the height of the burner, to give the greatest absorbance. With electrothermal atomization, sensitivity is influenced by the drying and ashing stages that precede atomization. The temperature and time at each stage is optimized for each type of sample.

Sensitivity also is influenced by the sample’s matrix. We already noted, for example, that sensitivity is decreased by a chemical interference. An increase in sensitivity may be realized by adding a low molecular weight alcohol, ester, or ketone to the solution, or by using an organic solvent.

Selectivity

Due to the narrow width of absorption lines, atomic absorption provides excellent selectivity. Atomic absorption is used for the analysis of over 60 elements at concentrations at or below the level of μg/L.

Time, Cost, and Equipment

The analysis time when using flame atomization is short, with sample throughputs of 250–350 determinations per hour when using a fully automated system. Electrothermal atomization requires substantially more time per analysis, with maximum sample throughputs of 20–30 determinations per hour. The cost of a new instrument ranges from between $10,000– $50,000 for flame atomization, and from $18,000–$70,000 for electrothermal atomization. The more expensive instruments in each price range include double-beam optics, automatic samplers, and can be programmed for multielemental analysis by allowing the wavelength and hollow cathode lamp to be changed automatically.