Evaluation of Manganese(II) and Manganese(VII) Speciation in Water Samples by Ion Pair High-performance Liquid Chromatography-inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry

Considerations for new manganese analytical techniques for drinking water quality management

“…This method allows more accurate measurement of each Mn species and selective preconcentration. The speciation of Mn(II) and Mn(IV) can also be evaluated by combining ion pair high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and ICP‐MS (Grygo‐Szymanko et al, 2017). Grygo‐Szymanko et al (2017) achieved the separation of Mn(II) and Mn(IV) by complexing Mn(II) with ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA).…”

“…The Mn(II) complex forms the same charge as Mn(IV), which can be separated by ion pair HPLC. The two species reach ICP‐MS at different elution time to be determined sequentially (Grygo‐Szymanko et al, 2017).…”

Atomic Spectrometry Update – a review of advances in environmental analysis

“…Manganese in the +2 and +7 oxidation states was successfully separated 71 on a column of C 8 -bonded silica using a pH 7.5 aqueous mobile phase containing 1mM tetrabutylammonium hydroxide as an ion pairing agent and 0.36 mM EDTA as a complexing agent for Mn II .…”

“…Gallium was determined 87 in natural water by ICP-MS/MS in both collision and reaction modes so that IDA could be used to quantify Ga accurately. Although the 71 Ga signal acquired in H 2 collision mode had no appreciable interference from MnO + , the 69 Ga peak was significantly interfered by Ba 2+ so NH 3 had to be used as a reaction gas to mass shift the analyte to m/z 86. Using a high efficiency nebuliser, the best LOD obtained was 0.02 ng L -1 for m/z 71 with H 2 as the collision gas.…”

A portable smartphone platform based on fluorescent carbon quantum dots derived from biowaste for on-site detection of permanganate

“…À has become increasingly significant, prompting the utilization of various analytical techniques for this objective, [9][10][11][12] while conventional detection methods have several drawbacks, such as the typical requirement for costly equipment and extensive sample preprocessing, leading to prolonged detection times and increased costs. These limitations in their application also render conventional detection methods unsuitable for meeting the demand for on-site rapid detection.…”