An experimental and theoretical evaluation of the nitrous oxide-acetylene flame as an atomization cell for flame spectroscopy

Direct determination of trace amounts of silicon in iron oxide by graphite furnace and flame atomic absorption spectrometry using halocarbon vapour for fluoride evolution

“…7(a), the net signal of silicon increases considerably with the flow-rate of the fuel for both of the silicon lines used. At the highest acetylene flow-rate plotted, the fuel to oxidant ratio is 0.582, which is close to the value (0.602) used by Rasmuson et al 25 for attaining the highest available sensitivity for silicon. The atomised fraction of silicon calculated was 0.12 under the highly reducing flame conditions applied by these workers (observation height of 6 mm).…”

Determination of optimum compromise flame conditions in simultaneous multielement flame spectrometry

“…0.20 ± 0.01 1.1 ± 0.2 13 ± 3 39 ± 6 °All uncertainties are represented as the standard deviation of the mean of replicate measurements at the 95% confidence level. 6 All detection limits are in parts per million. °All uncertainties are represented as the standard deviation of the mean at the 95% confidence level.…”

Chemical interferences in atomization due to slow vaporization and dissociation

“…However, in those methods the generated arsenic hydride was directed through a flame, or electrically heated, quartz tube atomizer. In 1973, Knudson and Christian (7) described a method in which electrothermal atomic absorption spectrophotometry was used. In that method, the generated arsine was collected in a liquid nitrogen cold trap and then volatilized and introduced with an inert gas into a Perkin-Elmer (Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT) Model 403 atomic absorption spectrophotometer with a HGA-2000 graphite furnace at a temperature of 1750 °C.…”

“…However, flames and ICPs are systems hardly in chemical or thermodynamical equilibria. As expected, discrepancies between experimentation and theoretical expectation are not uncommon (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). These discrepancies and many conflicting results reported by different groups (8)(9)(10)(11)(12) have led to the conclusion that chemical interferences must involve a more complicated mechanism than a simple analyte vaporization and equilibrium dissociation.…”