Calibration strategies to correct for matrix effects in direct analysis of urine by ICP OES: internal standardization and multi-energy calibration

Abstract

Internal standardization and MEC can be used successfully to correct for matrix effects in direct analysis of urine by ICP OES.

Analysis of urine by MIP-OES: challenges and strategies to correct matrix effects

“…The results presented here were compared with those previously shown by Barros et al 9 for urine analysis using ICP-OES, considering the peculiarities of each instrumental method, as shown in Table 4. The operational conditions, for instance, were adjusted to provide the best results for the analytes in each method.…”

“…Thus, despite the slopes being usually used as an indication of the occurrence of matrix effects, 9 the need to use internal standardization calibration as a correction strategy was evaluated based on the recovery results.…”

“…40,41 However, IS selection is not trivial for multi-element analysis and the best ISs are not always those with properties close to the analytes. 9,39…”

“…Also, Ga, Ge, Pd, Rh, Sc and Y and four molecular species present in nitrogen plasma (CN, N 2 , N 2 + and OH) were investigated as potential ISs, along with three different tested dilutions (2-, 20- and 200-fold) to correct the matrix effects from urine by MIP-OES. The acquired results were compared with those obtained by Barros et al 9 in ICP-OES, aiming to evaluate the potential of both methods.…”

Is MIP-OES a suitable alternative to ICP-OES for trace element analysis?

“…High concentrations of EIEs and total dissolved solids can also cause severe matrix effects in elemental determination, impairing the reliability of the analysis. 50 Serrano et al 51 studied the effects of EIEs on MIP-OES signals and observed, for example, that Ca effects depend on the emission line evaluated. In general, signal enhancement was observed for atomic lines with a total energy ( E sum ) lower than 3.26 eV, while signal depression prevailed among atomic lines with E sum higher than 3.82 eV, as well as for all ionic lines evaluated.…”