高钛地质样品中精确测定磷的分析技术比较与优化

IF 7.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Tumelo M. Mogashane , Ramasehle Moswane , Odwa Mapazi , Moshalagae A. Motlatle , Kedibone Mashale , Lebohang Mokoena , Dimakatso Mokgosi , Tebatso Mashilane , James Tshilongo
{"title":"高钛地质样品中精确测定磷的分析技术比较与优化","authors":"Tumelo M. Mogashane ,&nbsp;Ramasehle Moswane ,&nbsp;Odwa Mapazi ,&nbsp;Moshalagae A. Motlatle ,&nbsp;Kedibone Mashale ,&nbsp;Lebohang Mokoena ,&nbsp;Dimakatso Mokgosi ,&nbsp;Tebatso Mashilane ,&nbsp;James Tshilongo","doi":"10.1016/j.eti.2025.104384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The precise assessment of phosphorus in geological samples with high titanium levels poses analytical difficulties because of interferences from titanium-rich compositions in the matrix. To precisely quantify phosphorus, this study assesses and optimises several analytical techniques, such as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) after sample preparation by acid digestion (AD), peroxide fusion (PF), pressed pellet (PP), fused bead (FB) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE). The samples were certified reference materials (CRMs) containing titanium. When combined with a proper sample preparation method such as MAE, ICP-OES showed greater accuracy, whereas XRF scan offered quick, non-destructive analysis but had sensitivity limits. From the 6 methods that were tested, the best recoveries (83.1–100 %) of certified values were consistently obtained by MAE/ICP-OES followed by AD/ICP-OES analysis among the studied procedures and FB/XRF (98.3–105 %), demonstrating its efficacy in breaking down resistant mineral phases and overcoming matrix interferences. The relative standard deviation (RSD) ranged between 0.25 % and 2.1 % for MAE/ICP-OES and 0.30–5.3 % for FB/XRF, indicating good precision. Based on the ANOVA results, the phosphorus concentrations obtained from the different analytical methods showed statistically significant differences across all the CRMs analysed (P &lt; 0.05). However, MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF proved to not be contributing to the significant difference when assessed using an Honesty Significant Difference (HSD) test. These findings demonstrate that MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF methods provide more accurate, precise and repeatable phosphorus quantification in samples rich in titanium. In addition to phosphorus, the samples were also analyzed for associated metal oxides and rare earth elements, which commonly co-occur in high-titanium geological matrices. These determinations were essential to assess matrix interferences and improve the reliability and accuracy of phosphorus quantification methods.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11725,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Technology & Innovation","volume":"40 ","pages":"Article 104384"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison and optimization of analytical techniques for accurate phosphorus determination in high-titanium geological samples\",\"authors\":\"Tumelo M. Mogashane ,&nbsp;Ramasehle Moswane ,&nbsp;Odwa Mapazi ,&nbsp;Moshalagae A. Motlatle ,&nbsp;Kedibone Mashale ,&nbsp;Lebohang Mokoena ,&nbsp;Dimakatso Mokgosi ,&nbsp;Tebatso Mashilane ,&nbsp;James Tshilongo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eti.2025.104384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The precise assessment of phosphorus in geological samples with high titanium levels poses analytical difficulties because of interferences from titanium-rich compositions in the matrix. To precisely quantify phosphorus, this study assesses and optimises several analytical techniques, such as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) after sample preparation by acid digestion (AD), peroxide fusion (PF), pressed pellet (PP), fused bead (FB) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE). The samples were certified reference materials (CRMs) containing titanium. When combined with a proper sample preparation method such as MAE, ICP-OES showed greater accuracy, whereas XRF scan offered quick, non-destructive analysis but had sensitivity limits. From the 6 methods that were tested, the best recoveries (83.1–100 %) of certified values were consistently obtained by MAE/ICP-OES followed by AD/ICP-OES analysis among the studied procedures and FB/XRF (98.3–105 %), demonstrating its efficacy in breaking down resistant mineral phases and overcoming matrix interferences. The relative standard deviation (RSD) ranged between 0.25 % and 2.1 % for MAE/ICP-OES and 0.30–5.3 % for FB/XRF, indicating good precision. Based on the ANOVA results, the phosphorus concentrations obtained from the different analytical methods showed statistically significant differences across all the CRMs analysed (P &lt; 0.05). However, MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF proved to not be contributing to the significant difference when assessed using an Honesty Significant Difference (HSD) test. These findings demonstrate that MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF methods provide more accurate, precise and repeatable phosphorus quantification in samples rich in titanium. In addition to phosphorus, the samples were also analyzed for associated metal oxides and rare earth elements, which commonly co-occur in high-titanium geological matrices. These determinations were essential to assess matrix interferences and improve the reliability and accuracy of phosphorus quantification methods.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Technology & Innovation\",\"volume\":\"40 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104384\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Technology & Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352186425003700\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Technology & Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352186425003700","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于基质中富钛成分的干扰,对高钛含量地质样品中磷的精确评估带来了分析困难。为了精确地定量磷,本研究评估和优化了几种分析技术,如x射线荧光(XRF)和电感耦合等离子体光学发射光谱(ICP-OES),分别通过酸消化(AD)、过氧化物融合(PF)、压球(PP)、熔头(FB)和微波辅助提取(MAE)进行样品制备。样品为含钛的标准物质(CRMs)。当与适当的样品制备方法(如MAE)相结合时,ICP-OES显示出更高的准确性,而XRF扫描提供快速,非破坏性分析,但有灵敏度限制。6种方法中,MAE/ICP-OES、AD/ICP-OES和FB/XRF的回收率均最高(83.1 ~ 100 %),表明其在分解抗性矿相和克服基质干扰方面具有良好的效果。MAE/ICP-OES的相对标准偏差(RSD)为0.25 % ~ 2.1 %,FB/XRF的相对标准偏差为0.30 ~ 5.3 %,具有较好的精密度。方差分析结果显示,不同分析方法获得的磷浓度在所有分析的crm之间存在统计学显著差异(P <; 0.05)。然而,当使用诚实显著性差异(HSD)测试评估时,MAE/ICP-OES和FB/XRF被证明对显著性差异没有贡献。这些结果表明,MAE/ICP-OES和FB/XRF方法在富钛样品中提供了更准确、精确和可重复的磷定量。除磷外,样品还分析了伴生金属氧化物和稀土元素,这些元素通常共存于高钛地质基质中。这些测定对于评估基质干扰和提高磷定量方法的可靠性和准确性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison and optimization of analytical techniques for accurate phosphorus determination in high-titanium geological samples
The precise assessment of phosphorus in geological samples with high titanium levels poses analytical difficulties because of interferences from titanium-rich compositions in the matrix. To precisely quantify phosphorus, this study assesses and optimises several analytical techniques, such as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) after sample preparation by acid digestion (AD), peroxide fusion (PF), pressed pellet (PP), fused bead (FB) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE). The samples were certified reference materials (CRMs) containing titanium. When combined with a proper sample preparation method such as MAE, ICP-OES showed greater accuracy, whereas XRF scan offered quick, non-destructive analysis but had sensitivity limits. From the 6 methods that were tested, the best recoveries (83.1–100 %) of certified values were consistently obtained by MAE/ICP-OES followed by AD/ICP-OES analysis among the studied procedures and FB/XRF (98.3–105 %), demonstrating its efficacy in breaking down resistant mineral phases and overcoming matrix interferences. The relative standard deviation (RSD) ranged between 0.25 % and 2.1 % for MAE/ICP-OES and 0.30–5.3 % for FB/XRF, indicating good precision. Based on the ANOVA results, the phosphorus concentrations obtained from the different analytical methods showed statistically significant differences across all the CRMs analysed (P < 0.05). However, MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF proved to not be contributing to the significant difference when assessed using an Honesty Significant Difference (HSD) test. These findings demonstrate that MAE/ICP-OES and FB/XRF methods provide more accurate, precise and repeatable phosphorus quantification in samples rich in titanium. In addition to phosphorus, the samples were also analyzed for associated metal oxides and rare earth elements, which commonly co-occur in high-titanium geological matrices. These determinations were essential to assess matrix interferences and improve the reliability and accuracy of phosphorus quantification methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Technology & Innovation
Environmental Technology & Innovation Environmental Science-General Environmental Science
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
435
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Technology & Innovation adopts a challenge-oriented approach to solutions by integrating natural sciences to promote a sustainable future. The journal aims to foster the creation and development of innovative products, technologies, and ideas that enhance the environment, with impacts across soil, air, water, and food in rural and urban areas. As a platform for disseminating scientific evidence for environmental protection and sustainable development, the journal emphasizes fundamental science, methodologies, tools, techniques, and policy considerations. It emphasizes the importance of science and technology in environmental benefits, including smarter, cleaner technologies for environmental protection, more efficient resource processing methods, and the evidence supporting their effectiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信