2018
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23082076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using XRF and ICP-OES in Biosorption Studies

Abstract: In this work, a method of recalculation of results of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) technique to Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) method was elaborated for biosorption studies. Equations that calibrate XRF to ICP-OES were determined, as a biosorbent strawberry, blackcurrant and raspberry seeds after supercritical CO2 extraction were used. ICP-OES showed a better precision and lower detection limits than XRF. The latter technique is cheaper, requires minimal sample preparation and g… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the differences in TiO 2 content between samples taken for the XRF and ICP-OES analyses, both methods were able to confirm that TiO 2 NPs can penetrate through seed coats and interact with seeds. Discrepancies between XRF and ICP-OES values have also been reported by other researchers [54,55]. The content of TiO 2 NPs_CE determined by XRF was higher than the values determined by ICP-OES; this is perhaps due to the fact that XRF is a non-destructive method that allows the direct measurement and avoids the loss associated with sample pre-treatment, thus avoiding leakages.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Despite the differences in TiO 2 content between samples taken for the XRF and ICP-OES analyses, both methods were able to confirm that TiO 2 NPs can penetrate through seed coats and interact with seeds. Discrepancies between XRF and ICP-OES values have also been reported by other researchers [54,55]. The content of TiO 2 NPs_CE determined by XRF was higher than the values determined by ICP-OES; this is perhaps due to the fact that XRF is a non-destructive method that allows the direct measurement and avoids the loss associated with sample pre-treatment, thus avoiding leakages.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…The comparison in Figure 7 reveals that the ICP-OES may be more sensitive and can detect more elements at low concentrations, while the element concentrations from the XRF are mostly greater than those from the ICP-OES for elements present in higher concentrations. Lower LoDs for ICP-OES compared to XRF have been reported elsewhere (McComb et al, 2014;Chojnacka et al, 2018). The differences may come from the principles of the analytical methods.…”
Section: Comparison Of Xrf and Icp-oes Datamentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The samples were examined in the range 650–4000 cm −1 6 , 35 , 48 . Moreover, X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) (PW 1480, Philips, Netherlands) was used to determine the chemical composition of the biosorbents before and after the Pb adsorption 28 , 50 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%