Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Chapter 35
Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Chapter 35
Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Chapter 35
PART V I I
of Chemical Analysis
Chapter 35
The Analysis of Real Samples
Chapter 36
Preparing Samples for Analysis
Chapter 37
Decomposing and Dissolving the Sample
Chapter 38
Selected Methods of Analysis
The Analysis of Real
CHAPTER 35 Samples
The analysis of real samples, such as the soil and rock samples brought back to the earth from
the moon by the Apollo astronauts, is usually quite complex compared to the analysis of materials
studied in laboratory courses. As discussed in this chapter, the choice of analytical method for
real materials is not simple, often requiring consultation with the literature, modification of exist-
ing methods, and extensive testing to determine method validity.
Shown in the photograph is one of the Apollo astronauts taking a core sample of the lunar soil.
Such samples were valuable in determining the geological history of the moon and its relationship
to the history of the earth.
V ery early in this text (Section 1C), we pointed out that a quantitative analysis consists
of a sequence of steps: (1) selecting a method, (2) sampling, (3) preparing a laboratory
sample, (4) defining replicate samples by mass or volume measurements, (5) preparing solu-
© Corbis
tions of the samples, (6) eliminating interferences, (7) completing the analysis by performing
measurements that are related in a known way to analyte concentration, and (8) computing
the results and estimating their reliability. In Chapters 1 through 34, we have focused largely
on steps 6, 7, and 8 and to a lesser extent on steps 2 and 4. We have chosen this emphasis
not because the earlier steps are unimportant or easy. In fact, the preliminary steps may be
more difficult and time consuming than the two final steps of an analysis and may be greater
sources of error.
The reasons for postponing a discussion of the preliminary steps to this point are ped-
agogical. Experience has shown that it is easier to introduce students to analytical tech-
niques by having them first perform measurements on simple materials for which no method
selection is required and for which problems with sampling, sample preparation, and sample
dissolution are either nonexistent or easily solved. Thus, we have been largely concerned so
far with measuring the concentration of analytes in simple aqueous solutions that have few
interfering species.
modified to take into account compositional differences between the current sample
and samples in the original publication. Alternatively, an entirely new analytical
method might need to be developed. In either case, the number of variables that
must be taken into account usually increases exponentially with the number of spe-
cies contained in the sample.
As an example, contrast the problems associated with the inductively coupled
plasma atomic emission analysis of calcium carbonate with those for a real calcium-
containing sample. In the calcium carbonate case, the number of components is
small, and only a few variables are likely to affect the results. The most important
variables are the physical loss of analyte when carbon dioxide evolves as the sample is
dissolved in acid, the effect of the anion of the acid and of the radio-frequency power
on the intensity of the calcium emission line, the position of the plasma with respect
to the spectrometer entrance slit, and the quality of the standard calcium solutions
used for calibration.
Determining calcium in a real sample, such as a bone or a silicate rock, is far
more complex since the sample is insoluble in ordinary solvents and contains a
dozen or more components. The silicate rock sample, for example, can be dis-
solved by fusing it at a high temperature with a large excess of a reagent such as
sodium carbonate. Physical loss of the analyte is possible during this treatment
unless suitable precautions are taken. Furthermore, we must be concerned that
c alcium could be introduced from the excess sodium carbonate or the fusion
vessel. Following fusion, the sample and reagent are dissolved in acid. With this
step, all the variables affecting the calcium carbonate sample are operating, but
in addition, many new variables are introduced because of the dozens of com-
ponents in the sample matrix. Now, we must take care to minimize instrumental
and chemical interferences brought about by the presence of various anions and
cations in the solution being introduced into the plasma. Thus, the analysis of a
real substance is often a challenging problem and developing a procedure for such
materials is a demanding task.
The concentration range of the analyte may well limit the number of feasible
methods. For example, if we wish to determine an element present at the parts-per-
billion or parts-per-million level, gravimetric or volumetric methods can be ruled
out, and spectrometric, potentiometric, and other more sensitive methods become
likely candidates. For components in the parts-per-billion and parts-per-million
range, even small losses resulting from coprecipitation or volatility and contamina-
tion from reagents and apparatus are major concerns. In contrast, if the analyte is a
major component of the sample, these considerations are less important, and a classic
analytical method may well be adequate for the task.
The accuracy required is vitally important in choosing a method and in the way it
is performed because the time required to complete an analysis increases dramatically
with demands for higher accuracy. Therefore, to improve the reliability of analytical
results from, say, 2 to 0.2% relative may require an increase in the analysis time by a
factor of 100 or more. Consequently, we should always carefully consider the degree
❮ The time required to carry out
an analysis increases, often in
an exponential manner, with the
of accuracy that is required before undertaking an analysis. desired level of accuracy.
The demands for accuracy frequently dictate the procedure chosen for an analy-
sis. For example, if the allowable error in the determination of aluminum is only a
few parts per thousand, a gravimetric procedure is probably required. On the other
hand, if an error of, say, 50 ppt can be tolerated, a spectroscopic or electroanalytical
approach may be preferable.
The way in which an analysis is done is also affected by accuracy requirements.
If precipitation with ammonia is chosen for the analysis of a sample containing
20% aluminum, the presence of 0.2% iron is of serious concern if accuracy in the
parts-per-thousand range is demanded and if a preliminary separation of the two
elements is necessary. If an error of 50 ppt is tolerable, however, the separation of
iron is not necessary. This tolerance can also govern other aspects of the method.
For example, 1-g samples can be weighed to perhaps 10 mg and certainly no closer
than 1 mg. In addition, less care is needed in transferring and washing the precipi-
tate and in other time-consuming operations of the gravimetric method. The wise
use of shortcuts is not a sign of carelessness but a recognition of the importance of
efficiency. The question of accuracy, then, must be clearly resolved before begin-
❮ Often, you can save considerable
time by the use of permissible
shortcuts in an analytical
ning an analysis. procedure.
To choose a method for the determination of one or more species in a sample,
you frequently need to know what other elements or compounds are present. If such
information is lacking, a qualitative analysis must be undertaken in order to iden-
tify components that are likely to interfere in the various methods under consider-
ation. As we have noted frequently, most analytical methods are based on reactions
and physical properties that are shared by more than a single element or compound.
Thus, measuring the concentration of a given element by a method that is simple and
straightforward in the presence of one group of elements or compounds may require
many tedious and time-consuming separations in the presence of others. A solvent
suitable for one combination of compounds may be totally unsatisfactory when used
for another. It is very important to know the approximate chemical composition of
the sample before selecting a method for the quantitative determination of one or
❮ Itidentify
is frequently necessary to
the components of a
sample before undertaking a
more of its components. quantitative analysis.
We must also consider the physical state of the sample in order to determine
whether it must be homogenized, whether volatility losses are likely, and whether
its composition may change under laboratory conditions due to the absorption or
the loss of water. We must also determine how to decompose or dissolve the sample
without loss of analyte. Preliminary tests of one sort or another may be needed to
provide this type of information.
964 CHAPTER 35 The Analysis of Real Samples
1
See U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST Standard Reference Materials Catalog, 2011 ed., NIST
Special Publication 260, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011. The catalog
can be downloaded from the NIST web site at http://www.nist.gov.
35C Accuracy in the Analysis of Complex Materials 967
reliability of the reference method. The second method should be based on chemical
or instrumental principles that differ as much as possible from the method being
considered. Because it is unlikely that the same errors influence both methods, if we
obtain results comparable to the reference method, we can usually conclude that our
new method is satisfactory. Such a conclusion does not apply to those aspects of the
two methods that are similar.
Table 35-1
Determination of Iron in Various Materials*
Number of Average Average Relative
Materials Iron, % Analysts Absolute Error Error, %
Soda-lime glass 0.064 (Fe2O3) 13 0.01 15.6
Cast bronze 0.12 14 0.02 16.7
Chromel 0.45 6 0.03 6.7
Refractory 0.90 (Fe2O3) 7 0.07 7.8
Manganese bronze 1.13 12 0.02 1.8
Refractory 2.38 (Fe2O3) 7 0.07 2.9
Bauxite 5.66 5 0.06 1.1
Chromel 22.8 5 0.17 0.75
Iron, ore 68.57 19 0.05 0.07
W. F. Hellebrand and G.E.F. Lundell, Applied Inorganic Analysis, (New York: Wiley, 1929), p. 878. Reprinted by
permission of the Lundell Estate.
2
W. F. Hillebrand and G. E. F. Lundell, Applied Inorganic Analysis, New York: Wiley, 1929,
pp. 874–87.
Table 35-2
Determination of Manganese in Various Materials*
Number of Average Average Relative
Material Manganese, % Analysts Absolute Error Error, %
Ferro-chromium 0.225 4 0.013 5.8
Cast iron 0.478 8 0.006 1.3
0.897 10 0.005 0.56
Manganese bronze 1.59 12 0.02 1.3
Ferro-vanadium 3.57 12 0.06 1.7
Spiegeleisen 19.93 11 0.06 0.30
Manganese ore 58.35 3 0.06 0.10
Ferro-manganese 80.67 11 0.11 0.14
W. F. Hellebrand and G.E.F. Lundell, Applied Inorganic Analysis, (New York: Wiley, 1929), p. 880. Reprinted by
permission of the Lundell Estate.
Table 35-3
Determination of Phosphorus in Various Materials*
Number of Average Average Relative
Material Phosphorus, % Analysts Absolute Error Error, %
Ferro-tungsten 0.015 9 0.003 20
Iron ore 0.014 31 0.001 2.5
Refractory 0.069 (P2O5) 5 0.011 16
Ferro-vanadium 0.243 11 0.013 5.4
Refractory 0.45 4 0.10 22
Cast iron 0.88 7 0.01 1.1
Phosphate rock 43.77 (P2O5) 11 0.5 1.1
Synthetic mixtures 52.18 (P2O5) 11 0.14 0.27
Phosphate rock 77.56 (Ca3(PO4)2) 30 0.85 1.1
W. F. Hellebrand and G.E.F. Lundell, Applied Inorganic Analysis, (New York: Wiley, 1929), p. 882. Reprinted by
permission of the Lundell Estate.
Table 35-4
Determination of Potassium in Various Materials*
Potassium Number of Average Average Relative
Material Oxide, % Analysts Absolute Error Error, %
Soda-lime glass 0.04 8 0.02 50
Limestone 1.15 15 0.11 9.6
Refractory 1.37 6 0.09 6.6
2.11 6 0.04 1.9
2.83 6 0.10 3.5
Lead-barium glass 8.38 6 0.16 1.9
W. F. Hellebrand and G.E.F. Lundell, Applied Inorganic Analysis, (New York: Wiley, 1929), p. 883. Reprinted by
permission of the Lundell Estate.
precautions were taken, and the results are consequently better than can be expected
from the average routine analysis.
The numbers in the second column of Tables 35-1 through 35-4 are best values,
obtained by the most painstaking determination of the measured quantity. Each is
considered to be the true value for calculating the absolute and relative errors shown
in the fourth and fifth columns. The fourth column was computed by discarding
extremely divergent results, determining the deviation of the remaining individual
data from the best value (second column), and averaging these deviations. The fifth
column was obtained by dividing the data in the fourth column by the best value
(second column) and multiplying by 100%.
The results shown in these tables are typical of the data for 26 elements reported
in the original publication. We conclude that analyses reliable to a few tenths of a
percent relative are the exception rather than the rule in the analysis of complex mix-
tures by ordinary methods and that, unless we are willing to invest a huge amount of
time in the analysis, errors on the order of 1 or 2% must be accepted. If the sample
contains less than 1% of the analyte, we must expect even larger relative errors.
These data show that the accuracy obtainable in the determination of an element
depends strongly on the nature and complexity of the substrate. Thus, the relative
error in the determination of phosphorus in two phosphate rocks was 1.1%. In a
synthetic mixture, the error was only 0.27%. The relative error in an iron determina-
tion in a refractory was 7.8%. In a manganese bronze having about the same iron
content, the relative error was only 1.8%. In this example, the limiting factor in the
accuracy is not in the completion step but rather in the dissolution of the samples
and the elimination of interferences.
The data in these four tables are more than 80 years old, and it is tempting to
think that analyses carried out with more modern tools and additional experience
❮ Fundamental sources of
systematic and random error
that plagued us 80 years ago
are likely to have significantly better accuracy and precision. A study by S. Abbey still haunt us today.
suggests that is simply not the case however.3 For example, the data, which were
taken from Abbey’s paper, reveal no significant improvement in silicate analyses of
standard reference glass and rock samples in the 43-year period from 1931 to 1974.
Indeed, the standard deviation among participating laboratories appears to be larger
in later years.
The data in Tables 35-1 through 35-5 show that we must be skeptical of the
a ccuracy of analytical results on real samples, even if we perform the analysis
ourselves.
Table 35-5
Standard Deviation of Silica Results*
Standard Deviation
Year Reported Sample Type Number of Results (% absolute)
1931 Glass 5 0.28†
1951 Granite 34 0.37
1963 Tonalite 14 0.26
1970 Feldspar 9 0.10
1972 Granite 30 0.18
1972 Syenite 36 1.06
1974 Granodiorite 35 0.46
Reprinted (adapted) with permission from S. Abbey, Anal. Chem., 1981, 53, 529A. Copyright 1981
American Chemical Society.
3
S. Abbey, Anal. Chem., 1981, 53, 529A, DOI: 10.1021/ac00227a718.