Suppr超能文献

毛发中锌、铜、锰和铁分析中干灰化和湿灰化技术的比较

Dry- and wet-ashing techniques compared in analyses for zinc, copper, manganese, and iron in hair.

作者信息

Friel J K, Ngyuen C D

出版信息

Clin Chem. 1986 May;32(5):739-42.

PMID:3698264
Abstract

Preparation of hair specimens for trace-metal analyses is routinely done by wet- or dry-ashing. Wet-ashing is more time consuming than dry-ashing and can be dangerous. We wished to determine if dry-ashing was a suitable alternative to wet-ashing with HClO4:HNO3 or HNO3 alone in preparing hair for measurement of zinc, copper, iron, and manganese by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Concentrations of Zn, Cu, and Mn were not differently affected in hair that was dry- or wet-ashed. Analytical recovery of these elements added to hair samples ranged from 102 to 108%; day-to-day CVs were less than 5%. Fe was lost during dry-ashing of hair, and wet-ashing with HNO3 produced results for Fe comparable with those obtained with HClO4:HNO3. Therefore we recommend dry-ashing of hair to be analyzed for Zn, Cu, and Mn, but wet-ashing with HNO3 for assays of Fe.

摘要

用于痕量金属分析的毛发样本制备通常通过湿灰化或干灰化来完成。湿灰化比干灰化耗时更长且可能有危险。我们希望确定在通过原子吸收光谱法测量毛发中的锌、铜、铁和锰时,干灰化是否是用高氯酸:硝酸或单独用硝酸进行湿灰化的合适替代方法。干灰化或湿灰化的毛发中锌、铜和锰的浓度没有受到不同影响。添加到毛发样本中的这些元素的分析回收率在102%至108%之间;日常变异系数小于5%。毛发干灰化过程中铁会损失,用硝酸进行湿灰化得到的铁结果与用高氯酸:硝酸得到的结果相当。因此,我们建议对要分析锌、铜和锰的毛发进行干灰化,但对铁的分析采用硝酸湿灰化。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验