2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.091
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In situ determination of trace elements in Fucus spp. by field-portable-XRF

Abstract: Fresh and freeze-dried sample sections of the coastal macroalgae, Fucus serratus and F. vesiculosus, and the brackish water macroalga, F. ceranoides, have been analysed for trace elements by field-portable-X-ray fluorescence (FP-XRF) spectrometry using a Niton XL3t in a low density mode with thickness correction. When analysed fresh in a laboratory accessory stand for a period of 200 seconds, As, Br, Fe and Zn were registered in the apex, mid-frond and lower stipe of all species, with detection limits of a few… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
19
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Although they require costly instrumentation, their non-destructive analytical characteristics enable repetition in measurement (Yatkin et al, 2016;Turner et al, 2017) and allow for analysis by multiple techniques. We were able to use the filter samples (47 mm diameter) we collected with three different techniques -PIXE (n=64), SEM-EDS (n=45), and µ-SXRF (n=32) -since each technique required a minute sample size only (Huang et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although they require costly instrumentation, their non-destructive analytical characteristics enable repetition in measurement (Yatkin et al, 2016;Turner et al, 2017) and allow for analysis by multiple techniques. We were able to use the filter samples (47 mm diameter) we collected with three different techniques -PIXE (n=64), SEM-EDS (n=45), and µ-SXRF (n=32) -since each technique required a minute sample size only (Huang et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With thicknesses that were statistically indistinguishable between the dry and fresh states and the propensity of water to absorb low energy x-rays, this observation is, perhaps, counterintuitive. However, based on similar observations made during the XRF analysis of fresh and dried macroalgae (Turner et al, 2017), we attribute the discrepancy to a greater flexibility of biological material when fresh, allowing blades to be positioned closer to the detector window of the instrument. This effect also resulted in precisions, derived from repeat measurements of the same leaf area, that were better when samples were analysed in the fresh state (between 10 and 20%) than when analysed after freeze-drying (between 15 and 25%).…”
Section: Xrf Detection Limits In Leavesmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…without milling or packing) using an XRF algorithm that is calibrated for low density matter. This approach was recently tested and validated both in the laboratory and in the field on coastal and marine macroalgae (Bull et al, 2017;Turner et al, 2017) and is trialled in the present study on deciduous leaves.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LODs in the fresh state may be related to the ability to place a wet paste or slurry closer to and flatter against the detector window than a dried, particulate material (Turner et al, 2017), but once concentrations in fresh samples had been normalised to a dry weight basis ([Me-dw*], g g -1 dw*) by correcting for the fraction of water present, fw:…”
Section: Measures Of Lod Precision and Heterogeneity For Sediment Inmentioning
confidence: 99%