Chemische Charakterisierung und Spurenanalytik
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (7)
- Vortrag (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (8)
Schlagworte
- Absolute isotope ratio (3)
- Isotope ratios (2)
- Molar mass (2)
- Traceability (2)
- Avogadro constant (1)
- Biodiesel fuel (1)
- CCQM (1)
- Cconventional method (1)
- Cement (1)
- Comparability (1)
- Delta scale (1)
- Direct metal assay (1)
- Geological material (1)
- High-purity elements (1)
- Human serum (1)
- ICP-MS (1)
- Impurity assessment (1)
- Interlaboratory comparison (1)
- Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (1)
- Isotope mixtures (1)
- Kilogram (1)
- MC-ICP-MS (1)
- MC-TIMS (1)
- Measurement uncertainty (1)
- Metrology (1)
- Mole (1)
- Non-metal analysis (1)
- Purity assessment (1)
- Revision of the SI (1)
- SI (1)
- SI Traceability (1)
- SI-traceability (1)
- Scale anchor (1)
- Silicon (1)
- Sr isotope analysis (1)
- Sulfur (1)
- Tetramethylammonium hydroxide (1)
- Transferrin (1)
- Triple isotope fractionation (1)
- Uncertainty (1)
- XRCD method (1)
- lank characterization (1)
- silicon (1)
- tandard addition (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
An interlaboratory comparison (ILC)was organised to characterise 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in geological and industrial reference materials by applying the so-called conventional method for determining 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios. Four cements (VDZ 100a,VDZ 200a, VDZ 300a, IAG OPC-1), one limestone (IAG CGL ML-3) and one slate (IAG OU-6) reference materials were selected, covering a wide range of naturally occurring Sr isotopic signatures. Thirteen laboratories received aliquots of these six reference materials together with a detailed technical protocol. The consensus values for the six reference materials and their associated measurement uncertainties were obtained by applying a Gaussian, linear mixed effects model fitted to all the measurement results. By combining the consensus values and their uncertainties with an uncertainty contribution for potential heterogeneity, reference values ranging from 0.708134 mol mol-1 to 0.729778 mol mol-1 were obtained with relative expanded uncertainties of ≤ 0.007 %. This study represents an ILC on conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios, within which metrological principles were considered and the compatibility of measurement results obtained by MC-ICP-MS and by MC-TIMS is demonstrated. The materials characterised in this study can be used as reference materials for validation and quality control purposes and to estimate measurement uncertainties in conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio measurement.
Determination of absolute (SI‐traceable) isotope ratios: The use of Gravimetric Isotope Mixtures
(2023)
The presentation is brief overview on how to use gravimetric isotope mixtures to determine SI traceable isotope ratios. There is no mass spectrometer on earth that directly measures isotope ratios. Mass spectrometers will always measure signal intensity ratios instead. The actual problem is that the measured intensity ratios differ more or less from the isotope ratios. The difference can be up to more than 10 % in case of lithium while it‘s below 1 % in case of the heavier elements like lead or uranium. Consequently, the signal intensity ratios are expressed for example in V/V depending on the type of mass spectrometer you are using, while the isotope ratios are expressed in mol/mol. This phenomenon is called Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation (or short IIF) but the more common name is still mass bias (even though this name is not entirely correct). To convert the measured into the isotope ratio usually a simple multiplication with a so-called correction (or short K) factor is done. Therefore, the problem is to determine the K factor. In absence of isotope reference materials the golden route is via gravimetric isotope mixtures, which will be explained within the presentation.
A new method combining isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) and standard addition has been developed to determine the mass fractions w of different elements in complex matrices: (a) silicon in aqueous tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), (b) sulfur in biodiesel fuel, and (c) iron bound to transferrin in human serum. All measurements were carried out using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP–MS). The method requires the gravimetric preparation of several blends (bi)—each consisting of roughly the same masses (mx,i) of the sample solution (x) and my,i of a spike solution (y) plus different masses (mz,i) of a reference solution (z).
Only these masses and the isotope ratios (Rb,i) in the blends and reference and spike solutions have to be measured. The derivation of the underlying equations based on linear regression is presented and compared to a related concept reported by Pagliano and Meija. The uncertainties achievable, e.g., in the case of the Si blank in extremely pure TMAH of urel (w(Si)) = 90% (linear regression method, this work) and urel (w(Si)) = 150% (the method reported by Pagliano and Meija) seem to suggest better applicability of the new method in practical use due to the higher robustness of regression analysis.
The Uncertainty Paradox: Molar Mass of Enriched Versus Natural Silicon Used in the XRCD Method
(2020)
The X-ray crystal density method uses silicon spheres highly enriched in 28Si as a primary method for the dissemination of the SI base unit kilogram yielding smallest possible uncertainties associated with the mass m within a few parts in 10-8. This study compares different available and newly developed analytical methods and their results for the determination of the molar mass M of silicon highly enriched in 28Si (Me) and of silicon (Mx) with an almost natural isotopic distribution. While for Me relative uncertainties urel(Me) in the lower 10-9 range are obtained routinely, it was not possible to fall below a value of urel(Mx) < 4 x 10-6 in the case of natural silicon, which is approximately three orders of magnitude larger. The application of the state-of the-art isotope ratio mass spectrometry accompanied with sophisticated thoroughly investigated methods suggests an intrinsic cause for the large uncertainty associated with the molar mass of natural silicon compared to the enriched material.
An international comparison study on the accurate determination of the molar mass M(Si) of silicon artificially enriched in 28Si (x(28Si) > 0.9999 mol mol−1) has been completed. The measurements were part of the high level CCQM-P160 pilot study assessing the ability of National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) to make such measurements at the lowest possible levels of measurement uncertainty and to identify possible difficulties when measuring this kind of sample. This study supports the molar mass measurements critical to disseminating the silicon route to realizing the new definitions for the kilogram and the mole. Measurements were also made by one external research institute and an external company. The different institutes were free to choose their experimental (mass spectrometric) set-ups and equipment, thereby enabling also the comparison of different techniques. The investigated material was a chemically pure, polycrystalline silicon material. The subsequent modified single crystalline secondary product of this material was intended for the production of silicon which was used for two additional spheres in the context of the redetermination of the Avogadro constant NA, required for the revision of the International System of Units (SI) via fundamental constants which came into force from May 2019. The CCQM pilot study was organized by Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). Aqueous silicon solutions were shipped to all participating institutions. The data analysis as well as the uncertainty modelling and calculation of the results was predefined. The participants were provided with an uncertainty budget as a GUM Workbench® file as well as a free software license for the duration of the comparison. The agreement of the values of the molar mass (M(Si) = 27.976 942 577 g mol−1) was excellent with ten out of 11 results reported within the range of relative uncertainty of 1 × 10−8 required
for the revision of the SI.
The continuous improvement of analytical procedures using multi-collector technologies in ICP-mass spectrometry has led to an increased demand for isotope standards with improved homogeneity and reduced measurement uncertainty. For magnesium, this has led to a variety of available standards with different quality levels ranging from artefact standards to isotope reference materials certified for absolute isotope ratios. This required an intercalibration of all standards and reference materials, which we present in this interlaboratory comparison study. The materials Cambridge1, DSM3, ERMAE143, ERM-AE144, ERM-AE145, IRMM-009 and NIST SRM 980 were cross-calibrated with expanded measurement uncertainties (95% confidence level) of less than 0.030‰ for the δ25/24Mg values and less than 0.037‰ for the δ26/24Mg values. Thus, comparability of all magnesium isotope delta (δ) measurements based on these standards and reference materials is established. Further, ERM-AE143 anchors all magnesium δ-scales to absolute isotope ratios and therefore establishes SI traceability, here traceability to the SI base unit mole. This applies especially to the DSM3 scale, which is proposed to be maintained. With ERM-AE144 and ERM-AE145, which are product and educt of a sublimation-condensation process, for the first time a set of isotope reference materials is available with a published value for the apparent triple isotope fractionation exponent θapp, the fractionation relationship ln α(25/24Mg)/ln α(26/24Mg).
Within the Working Group on Inorganic Analysis (IAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance: Metrology in Chemistry and Biology (CCQM) international key comparisons and pilot studies related to inorganic analysis are carried to ensure consistency in this field at the highest level. Some of these comparisons deal directly with the preparation and characterization of monoelemental solutions or with topics, closely related. The importance of monoelemental solutions lies in the fact that almost every measurement in inorganic analysis relies on the comparison with either a reference material, or references in form of solutions, usually (mono)elemental solutions. All quantitative measurement approaches, e.g. isotope dilution or standard addition, need an accurate reference solution made from a well characterized reference material, prepared under full gravimetric control. These primary (monoelemental) solutions do not only serve as arbitrary references/calibration solutions, but they also link up measurement results to the International System of units (SI), this way establishing the so-called metrological traceability to a measurement unit of the SI. Without such solutions on the highest possible level of accuracy and with the smallest possible associated uncertainties (for e.g. element content and/or impurities), an analysis itself can never be as good as it could be with appropriate reference solutions. This article highlights select key comparisons and pilot studies dealing with monoelemental solution related topics within the IAWG from the foundation of CCQM – 25 years ago – up to latest achievements in the field of inorganic analysis.
For the first time, an international comparison was conducted on the determination of the purity of a high purity element. Participants were free to choose any analytical approach appropriate for their institute’s applications and services. The material tested was a high purity zinc, which had earlier been assessed for homogeneity and previously used in CCQM-K72 for the determination of six defined metallic impurities. Either a direct metal assay of the Zn mass fraction was undertaken by EDTA titrimetry, or an indirect approach was used wherein all impurities, or at least the major ones, were determined and their sum subtracted from ideal purity of 100 %, or 1 kg/kg. Impurity assessment techniques included glow discharge mass spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and carrier gas hot extraction/combustion analysis. Up to 91 elemental impurities covering metals, non-metals and semi-metals/metalloids were quantified. Due to the lack of internal experience or experimental capabilities, some participants contracted external laboratories for specific analytical tasks, mainly for the analysis of non-metals. The reported purity, expressed as zinc mass fraction in the high purity zinc material, showed excellent agreement for all participants, with a relative standard deviation of 0.011 %. The calculated reference value, w(Zn) = 0.999 873 kg/kg, was assigned an asymmetric combined uncertainty of + 0.000025 kg/kg and – 0.000028 kg/kg. Comparability amongst participating metrology institutes is thus demonstrated for the purity determination of high purity metals which have no particular difficulties with their decomposition / dissolution process when solution-based analytical methods are used, or which do not have specific difficulties when direct analysis approaches are used. Nevertheless, further development is required in terms of uncertainty assessment, quantification of non-metals and the determination of purity of less pure elements and/or for those elements suffering difficulties with the decomposition process.