| Literature DB >> 35448695 |
Marco Pinna1, Arianna Signorelli1, Gilberto Binda2, Carlo Dossi3, Laura Rampazzi4, Davide Spanu1, Sandro Recchia1.
Abstract
The complete dissolution of silicate-containing materials, often necessary for elemental determination, is generally performed by microwave-assisted digestion involving the forced use of hydrofluoric acid (HF). Although highly efficient in dissolving silicates, this acid exhibits many detrimental effects (e.g., formation of precipitates, corrosiveness to glassware) that make its removal after digestion essential. The displacement of HF is normally achieved by evaporation in open-vessel systems: atmospheric contamination or loss of analytes can occur when fuming-off HF owing to the non-ultraclean conditions necessarily adopted for safety reasons. This aspect strongly hinders determination at the ultra-trace level. To overcome this issue, we propose a clean and safe microwave-assisted procedure to induce the evaporative migration of HF inside a sealed "vessel-inside-vessel" system: up to 99.9% of HF can be removed by performing two additional microwave cycles after sample dissolution. HF migrates from the digestion solution to a scavenger (ultrapure H2O) via a simple physical mechanism, and then, it can be safely dismissed/recycled. The procedure was validated by a soil reference material (NIST 2710), and no external or cross-contamination was observed for the 27 trace elements studied. The results demonstrate the suitability of this protocol for ultra-trace analysis when the utilization of HF is mandatory.Entities:
Keywords: ICP-MS; evaporation; green analytical chemistry; hydrofluoric acid; microwave-assisted acid digestion; silicate dissolution; soil; ultra-trace elements; vessel-inside-vessel
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448695 PMCID: PMC9029609 DOI: 10.3390/mps5020030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Methods Protoc ISSN: 2409-9279
Figure 1Schematic representation of the vessel-inside-vessel system used in the present work.
Figure 2Microwave power programs used for (a) HF evaporation and (b) soil digestion.
Figure 3Comparison of HF removal efficiencies obtained using different experimental conditions outside the PFA vessel. (a–c) HF removal after each cycle using (a) no scavenger, (b) H2O and (c) H3BO3 as scavenging solutions. (d) A comparison of total HF removal and the entire MW protocol (three cycles).
Figure 4Recoveries obtained for 27 selected trace elements when analyzing the digestion solution after cross-contamination experiments: (a) Inside-to-Outside migration test and (b) Outside-to-Inside migration test.
Figure 5Comparison of certified (light blue bars) and experimental (green bars) trace elements concentrations found in NIST 2710 by applying three times the MW power program reported in Figure 2a.
Figure 6Comparison of certified (light blue bars) and experimental (green bars) trace elements concentrations found in NIST 2710 by applying the revised analytical protocol (pre-digestion moistening with H2O2 followed by the revised MW-assisted digestion, see Figure 2b).