| Literature DB >> 21747732 |
Sivanildo S Borges1, Boaventura F Reis.
Abstract
A photometric procedure for the determination of ClO(-) in tap water employing a miniaturized multicommuted flow analysis setup and an LED-based photometer is described. The analytical procedure was implemented using leucocrystal violet (LCV; 4,4',4''-methylidynetris (N,N-dimethylaniline), C(25)H(31)N(3)) as a chromogenic reagent. Solenoid micropumps employed for solutions propelling were assembled together with the photometer in order to compose a compact unit of small dimensions. After control variables optimization, the system was applied for the determination of ClO(-) in samples of tap water, and aiming accuracy assessment samples were also analyzed using an independent method. Applying the paired t-test between results obtained using both methods, no significant difference at the 95% confidence level was observed. Other useful features include low reagent consumption, 2.4 μg of LCV per determination, a linear response ranging from 0.02 up to 2.0 mg L(-1) ClO(-), a relative standard deviation of 1.0% (n = 11) for samples containing 0.2 mg L(-1) ClO(-), a detection limit of 6.0 μg L(-1) ClO(-), a sampling throughput of 84 determinations per hour, and a waste generation of 432 μL per determination.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21747732 PMCID: PMC3124835 DOI: 10.1155/2011/463286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Autom Methods Manag Chem ISSN: 1463-9246
Figure 1Diagram of the flow analysis module. S = sample or ClO− standard solution; R = 0.1 g L−1 LCV solution; Bf = acetate buffer, pH 4.0; Int = homemade power driver interface; Mic = microcomputer; Dm = digital multimeter; P1, P2, and P3 = solenoid minipumps; B1, B2, and B3 = flow lines, Tygon tubing 40, 15, and 25 cm long, respectively, and 0.56 mm inner diameter; bd = bubble removing device; Ap = acrylic plates, length, width and thickness of 40, 30, and 10 mm, respectively; h = holes, 2.0 mm diameter; Tm = Teflon membrane; fc = cutaway of the flow cell; W = waste; g = glass cylinders, 30 mm length and 1.0 mm diameter; LED = λmax of 590 nm, high bright (10,000 mcd); Te = transistor BC547; Det = photodetector OPT301; I1 and I2 = electromagnetic radiation beam from LED and to detector, respectively; S0 = signal output (mV).
Minipumps switching pattern.
| Step | Event | Cycles | Volume ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | Filling flow lines | On | Off | Off | 30 | 360 |
| (b) | Washing flow cell | Off | On | Off | 40 | 240 |
| (c) | Photometer calibration | Off | Off | Off | 0 | — |
| (d) | DPD and acetate buffer insertion | On | On | Off | 4 | 48 |
| (e) | Sample insertion signal reading | Off | On | On | 12 | 144 |
| (f) | Signal reading | Off | On | Off | 40 | 240 |
The number 1 and 0 indicated that respective mini-pump is switched ON or OFF, respectively. Cycles indicate the selected number of times that each valve was switched On/Off.
Figure 2Effect of chromogenic reagent volume on the analytical signal.
Figure 3Effect of sample volume on the analytical signal. Standard solution 1.0 mg L−1 ClO−; 24 μL of reagent and buffer solution.
System performance comparison.
| Parameter | Proposed procedure | Reference [ | Reference [ | Reference [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear equation | — | — | ||
| Working range (mg L−1) | 0.02–2.0 | 0.6–4.8 | 0.05–10.0 | 2–14 |
| Linear coefficient ( | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.999 | 0.998 |
| RSD (%), | 1.0 | <2.0 | 0.9 | 1.4 |
| LOD, 3 | 6.0 | 600 | 30 | 510 |
| Determination per hour | 84 | 15 | 110 | 45 |
| Reagent consumption* ( | 2.4 | 40 | 150 | 1300 |
| Effluent generation* ( | 432 | 3430 | 1360 | 2200 |
*Per determination.
Comparison of results obtained by proposed procedure and the reference method.
| Sample | Hypochlorite (mg L−1) | |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed | DPD [ | |
| A | 0.471 ± 0.008 | 0.462 ± 0.005 |
| B | 0.026 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.001 |
| C | 0.026 ± 0.00 | 0.027 ± 0.001 |
| D | 0.471 ± 0.004 | 0.428 ± 0.005 |
| E | 0.274 ± 0.006 | 0.270 ± 0.005 |
| F | 0.027 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.000 |
Results are average of the four consecutive sample analyses. No significant difference at 95% confidence level, ttabled = 2.447, tcalculated = 1.360.