Issue

Vol. 27 No. 3 (2015): Vol 27 Issue 3

Copyright (c) 2015 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Detection of Mercury Residue in Aquatic Products Using Direct Sampling

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2015.18264
Hai Tu
School of Bio-Chem Engineering, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, P.R. China; Hangzhou Institute of Calibration and Testing for Quality and Technical Supervision, Hangzhou 310019, P.R. China
Tiebing Liu
School of Bio-Chem Engineering, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, P.R. China; Hangzhou Institute of Calibration and Testing for Quality and Technical Supervision, Hangzhou 310019, P.R. China
Mei Chun
Hangzhou Institute of Calibration and Testing for Quality and Technical Supervision, Hangzhou 310019, P.R. China
Yinbang Zhu
School of Bio-Chem Engineering, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, P.R. China
Jiasheng Wang
School of Bio-Chem Engineering, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, P.R. China; Hangzhou Institute of Calibration and Testing for Quality and Technical Supervision, Hangzhou 310019, P.R. China

Corresponding Author(s) : Tiebing Liu

tiebingliu@163.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 27 No. 3 (2015): Vol 27 Issue 3

Abstract

The method was developed for rapid detection of mercury residue in aquatic products using direct sampling. Chemical pretreatment like digestion was not necessary in this method, but only simple pretreatment by physical way is needed. The results showed that the limit of detection was 6.3 μg kg-1, rate of recovery was 95-105 %, linearly dependent coefficient is 0.9995 and the relative standard deviation of detected precision was 5.01-6.77 %, while the relative deviation compared with standard value of precision is 0.397 %. With the advantages of safety, convenience, environment-protection, accuracy, high precision and low limit of detection, the method is obviously advantage compared with microwave digestion- atomic fluorescence spectrometry and micro digestion-inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry.

Keywords

Mercury residue Rapid detection Aquatic products Direct sampling Solid automatic analyzer of mercury
Tu, H., Liu, T., Chun, M., Zhu, Y., & Wang, J. (2015). Detection of Mercury Residue in Aquatic Products Using Direct Sampling. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 27(3), 1079–1081. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2015.18264
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, R.B. Finkelman, H.R. Friedli, J. Leaner, R. Mason, A.B. Mukherjee, G. B. Stracher, D. G. Streets and K. Telmer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951 (2010); doi:10.5194/acp-10-5951-2010.
  2. K. Srogi, Rev. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol., 189, 107 (2007).
  3. R.B. Voegborlo, A.A. Adimado and J.H. Ephraim, Environ. Monit. Assess., 132, 503 (2007); doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9552-7.
  4. J.R. Garbarino, E. Snyder-Conn, T.J. Leiker and G.L. Hoffman, Water Air Soil Pollut., 139, 183 (2002); doi:10.1023/A:1015808008298.
  5. L. Carrasco, J.M. Bayona and S. Díez, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, pp. 239-258 (2011).
  6. S. Díaz, R. Villares, M.D. Vázquez and A. Carballeira, Water Air Soil Pollut., 224, 1659 (2013); doi:10.1007/s11270-013-1659-1.
  7. R. Zeisler, N. Vajda, G. Kennedy, G. Lamaze and G. L. Molnár, Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, pp. 1553-1617 (2011).
  8. F.X. Han, W.D. Patterson, Y. Xia, B.B.M. Sridhar and Y. Su, Water Air Soil Pollut., 170, 161 (2006); doi:10.1007/s11270-006-3003-5.
  9. P. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, S. Bouchet, M. Monperrus, E. Tessier and D. Amouroux, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 20, 1269 (2013); doi:10.1007/s11356-012-1019-5.
  10. S.S. Bozkurt, K. Ocakoglu and M. Merdivan, Mikrochim. Acta, 177, 47 (2012); doi:10.1007/s00604-011-0751-8.
  11. H. Mohammadi, A. Amine, A. Ouarzane and M. El Rhazi, Mikrochim. Acta, 149, 251 (2005); doi:10.1007/s00604-004-0308-1.
  12. Y. He, X. Hou, C. Zheng and R.E. Sturgeon, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 388, 769 (2007); doi:10.1007/s00216-006-1044-7.
  13. R. Brayner, A. Couté, J. Livage, C. Perrette and C. Sicard, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 401, 581 (2011); doi:10.1007/s00216-011-5107-z.
  14. P. Divis, R. Szkandera and H. Dočekalová, Cent. Eur. J. Chem., 8, 1105 (2010); doi:10.2478/s11532-010-0090-3.
  15. S. Haynes, R.D. Gragg, E. Johnson, L. Robinson and C.E. Orazio, Water Air Soil Pollut., 172, 359 (2006); doi:10.1007/s11270-006-9101-6.
  16. S.V. Temerev, J. Anal. Chem., 63, 292 (2008); doi:10.1134/S1061934808030180.
  17. M. Horvat, Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales, p. 153 (2005).
  18. S. Taravati, A.A. Sary and M.J. Baboli, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 89, 78 (2012); doi:10.1007/s00128-012-0604-0.
  19. A. Detcheva and K.-H. Grobecker, Environ. Chem. Lett., 6, 183 (2008); doi:10.1007/s10311-007-0124-z.
  20. S.A. Rahman, A.K. Wood, S. Sarmani and A.A. Majid, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 217, 53 (1997); doi:10.1007/BF02055348.
  21. D.C. Mortimer, Environ. Monit. Assess., 5, 311 (1985); doi:10.1007/BF00394071.
  22. J.G. Kelly, F.X. Han, Y. Su, Y. Xia, V. Philips, Z. Shi, D.L. Monts, S.T. Pichardo and K. Xia, Water Air Soil Pollut., 223, 2361 (2012); doi:10.1007/s11270-011-1030-3.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0