![]() Then you can test the sample of interest and measure the absorbance. From the slope of the linear plot you will get the e value. I would recommend you to stay stick to the absorbance range 0.1 to 0.9 for the best results. ![]() Make sure you obtain a linear regression during this process. From the slope of the plot, you can calculate the molar absorptivity coefficient (e). You can use the Beer-Lambert law (A=eCl) to generate a plot of absorbance of the dye as a function of the concentration. Using multiple injections from one autosampler draw or drawing each injections one by one and sparging yields the same results and issues.įew steps for the process. I have also manually externally sparged samples with and without acid, without any internal sparging and all results were the same. Results with no acid and no sparging had the largest area counts, followed by no acid with sparging (about 10% lower), and acid with sparging yielded about 20% lower area counts for TDN. ![]() I have compared samples with internal addition of acid and sparging, internal addition of acid and no sparging, and no acid addition and sparging. For example, the first three NPOC/TDN injections are very precise and similar and the second three injections are very precise, similar, and higher. When sample is analyzed only for TDN the area for injections is higher than when TDN is analyzer for both NPOC/TDN when internally sparging is on. I typically analyze samples for NPOC and TDN with more injections for the TDN portion, i.e. The samples are all filtered and the instrument has an internal sparging unit. My Shimadzu TOC/TN analyzer is yielding inconsistent total dissolved nitrogen results for samples, but not standards and is likely due to sparging.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |