首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Marine Science >A Comparison between Four Analytical Methods for the Measurement of Fe(II) at Nanomolar Concentrations in Coastal Seawater
【24h】

A Comparison between Four Analytical Methods for the Measurement of Fe(II) at Nanomolar Concentrations in Coastal Seawater

机译:沿海海水中纳摩尔浓度下Fe(II)的四种分析方法的比较

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Dissolved Fe(II) in seawater is deemed an important micronutrient for microbial organisms, but its analysis is challenging due to its transient nature. We conducted a series of Fe(II) method comparison experiments, where spikes of 5 to 31 nM Fe(II) were added to manipulated seawaters with varying dissolved oxygen (37 to 156 μM) concentrations. The observed Fe(II) concentrations from four analytical methods were compared: spectrophotometry with ferrozine, stripping voltammetry, and flow injection analysis using luminol (with, and without, a pre-concentration column). Direct comparisons between the different methods were undertaken from the derived apparent Fe(II) oxidation rate constant (k1). Whilst the two luminol based methods produced the most similar concentrations throughout the experiments, k1 indicated that there was still a 20-30% discrepancy between them. Contributing factors may have included a different response to interferences from Co(II) and humic/fulvic organic material. The difference in measured Fe(II) concentrations between the luminol and ferrozine methods, from 10 min – 2 h after the Fe(II) spikes were added, was always relatively large in absolute terms (>4 nM) and relative to the spike added (>20% of the initial Fe(II) concentration). k1 derived from ferrozine observed Fe(II) concentrations was 3-80%, and 4-16%, of that derived from luminol observed Fe(II) with, and without, pre-concentration respectively. The poorest comparability of k1 was found after humic/fulvic material was added to raise dissolved organic carbon to 120 μM. A luminol method without pre-concentration then observed Fe(II) to fall below the detection limit (<0.49 nM) within 10 min of a 17 nM Fe(II) spike addition, yet other methods still observed Fe(II) concentrations of 2.7 to 3.7 nM 30 min later. k1 also diverged accordingly with the ferrozine derived value 4% of that derived from luminol without pre-concentration. These apparent inconsistencies in oxidation rates suggest that some inter-dataset differences in measured Fe(II) oxidation rates in natural waters may be attributable to differences in the analytical methods used rather than arising solely from substantial shifts in Fe(II) speciation.
机译:海水中溶解的Fe(II)被认为是微生物的重要微量营养素,但由于其瞬时性质,其分析具有挑战性。我们进行了一系列Fe(II)方法比较实验,其中将5到31 nM Fe(II)的峰添加到具有变化的溶解氧(37至156μM)浓度的经处理海水中。比较了从四种分析方法中观察到的Fe(II)浓度:用铁嗪进行分光光度法,溶出伏安法和使用鲁米诺(带有和不带有预浓缩柱)的流动注射分析。从得出的表观Fe(II)氧化速率常数(k1)进行了不同方法之间的直接比较。尽管两种基于鲁米诺的方法在整个实验中产生的浓度最相似,但k1表明它们之间仍然存在20-30%的差异。促成因素可能包括对Co(II)和腐殖质/腐殖质有机材料干扰的不同响应。在添加Fe(II)尖峰后的10分钟至2小时内,鲁米诺和ferrozine方法之间测得的Fe(II)浓度之差在绝对值(> 4 nM)上始终相对较大,并且相对于添加的尖峰(>初始Fe(II)浓度的20%)。来自铁锰锌观察到的Fe(II)浓度的k1分别是在有和没有预浓缩下从鲁米诺观察到的Fe(II)浓度的3-80%和4-16%。添加腐殖质/富里叶酸材料将溶解的有机碳提高至120μM后,发现k1的可比性最差。没有预浓缩的鲁米诺方法随后观察到在添加17 nM Fe(II)加标后10分钟内Fe(II)降至检测限以下(<0.49 nM),而其他方法仍观察到Fe(II)浓度为2.7 30分钟后降至3.7 nM。 k1也相应地偏离,而未经预浓缩的铁鲁米嗪衍生值是鲁米诺衍生值的4%。这些明显的氧化速率不一致现象表明,天然水中测得的Fe(II)氧化速率的某些数据集间差异可能归因于所用分析方法的差异,而不是仅由于Fe(II)形态的大幅变化而引起的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号