BACKGROUND: Microwave is the most reliable sample digestion method. However, it requires expensive microwave digester automation and has relatively low productivity. In this study, three non-automated digestion methods, i.e. wet acid digestion using nitric acid (HNO3) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), wet acid digestion using HNO3, and dry washing, are compared in order to determine the best approach. METHODS: Certified reference material IAEA-086 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria) and hair and nail samples from 20 female students of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, aged 19 to 30 years, were collected and analysed using the three digestion methods. RESULTS: For hair samples, analysis of variance of repeated measures showed significant differences in the level of all elements (P < 0.001) between the three methods. For nail samples, only the copper (Cu) level showed no significant difference (P = 0.100) between methods. Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 showed the best within- and between-run relative standard deviation (RSD) values, with within-run RSD for all elements, except for selenium (Se), < 5%. The between-run precision ranges from 6.14% to 17.96% for hair and from 3.53% to 11.52% for nail samples. Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 showed both good accuracy and precision for manganese (Mn) and magnesium (Mg), with percentage recoveries of 110% and 96.9%, respectively. All elements show higher method detection limit (MDL) values than the previous study: 0.05 μg/g Mg for wet acid digestion using HNO3, 0.02 μg/g Se for wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2, and 0.2 μg/g Mg for dry ash method. CONCLUSION: Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 proved to be the best method in terms of precision, accuracy, recovery, and MDL. However, only Mn and Mg showed adequate precision, accuracy, and percentage of recovery.
BACKGROUND: Microwave is the most reliable sample digestion method. However, it requires expensive microwave digester automation and has relatively low productivity. In this study, three non-automated digestion methods, i.e. wet acid digestion using nitric acid (HNO3) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), wet acid digestion using HNO3, and dry washing, are compared in order to determine the best approach. METHODS: Certified reference material IAEA-086 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria) and hair and nail samples from 20 female students of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, aged 19 to 30 years, were collected and analysed using the three digestion methods. RESULTS: For hair samples, analysis of variance of repeated measures showed significant differences in the level of all elements (P < 0.001) between the three methods. For nail samples, only the copper (Cu) level showed no significant difference (P = 0.100) between methods. Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 showed the best within- and between-run relative standard deviation (RSD) values, with within-run RSD for all elements, except for selenium (Se), < 5%. The between-run precision ranges from 6.14% to 17.96% for hair and from 3.53% to 11.52% for nail samples. Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 showed both good accuracy and precision for manganese (Mn) and magnesium (Mg), with percentage recoveries of 110% and 96.9%, respectively. All elements show higher method detection limit (MDL) values than the previous study: 0.05 μg/g Mg for wet acid digestion using HNO3, 0.02 μg/g Se for wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2, and 0.2 μg/g Mg for dry ash method. CONCLUSION: Wet acid digestion using HNO3 and H2O2 proved to be the best method in terms of precision, accuracy, recovery, and MDL. However, only Mn and Mg showed adequate precision, accuracy, and percentage of recovery.
Entities:
Keywords:
digestion; hair; heavy metal; nails; trace element
Authors: R F Puchyr; D A Bass; R Gajewski; M Calvin; W Marquardt; K Urek; M E Druyan; D Quig Journal: Biol Trace Elem Res Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: José Bento Borba da Silva; Daniel Lázaro Gallindo Borges; Márcia Andréia Mesquita Silva da Veiga; Adilson José Curtius; Bernhard Welz Journal: Talanta Date: 2003-07-27 Impact factor: 6.057
Authors: Cristine Couto Almeida; Diego Dos Santos Baião; Paloma de Almeida Rodrigues; Tatiana Dillenburg Saint'Pierre; Rachel Ann Hauser-Davis; Katia Christina Leandro; Vania Margaret Flosi Paschoalin; Marion Pereira da Costa; Carlos Adam Conte-Junior Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-04-28
Authors: Keneth Iceland Kasozi; Yunusu Hamira; Gerald Zirintunda; Khalaf F Alsharif; Farag M A Altalbawy; Justine Ekou; Andrew Tamale; Kevin Matama; Fred Ssempijja; Robert Muyinda; Francis Kawooya; Theophilus Pius; Hellen Kisakye; Paul Bogere; Henry Matovu; Leonard Omadang; Patrick Etiang; Joseph Mbogua; Juma John Ochieng; Lawrence Obado Osuwat; Regan Mujinya; Gaber El-Saber Batiha; Ochan Otim Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-02-11
Authors: Fabrício  Gabriel; Rachel Ann Hauser-Davis; Lorena Soares; Ana Carolina A Mazzuco; Rafael Christian Chavez Rocha; Tatiana D Saint Pierre; Enrico Saggioro; Fabio Verissimo Correia; Tiago O Ferreira; Angelo F Bernardino Journal: PeerJ Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jonathan Credo; Amy Chandos; Camilla Checinski; Frank A von Hippel; Jani C Ingram Journal: Environ Monit Assess Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 2.513