SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2015 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3

A new and simple procedure for the trace determination of mercury using differential pulse polarography and application to a salt lake sample

GÜLER SOMER
A. CENGİZ ÇALIŞKAN
OLCAY ŞENDİL
Pages
639–647
Publication Date
2015-08-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that sulfite concentration had to be 3 times larger than mercury at pH 6, in order to have a quantitative reaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A new and simple differential pulse polarographic procedure was established for the trace determination of mercury(II).
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to their standard potentials, the reaction between SO$_{3}^{2-}$ and Hg(II) was suitable.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that sulfite concentration had to be 3 times larger than mercury at pH 6, in order to have a quantitative reaction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:The procedure is simple: to a known amount of sulfite in the polarographic cell (HAc · pH 6 or 7) is added an unknown Hg(II) sample. The Hg(II) concentration is calculated simply from the decrease in the sulfite peak after reaction with Hg(II). The limit · The procedure is simple: to a known amount of sulfite in the polarographic cell (HAc

Abstract

A new and simple differential pulse polarographic procedure was established for the trace determination of mercury(II). An indirect method had to be used since no polarographic peak can be observed for its direct determination. According to their standard potentials, the reaction between SO$_{3}^{2-}$ and Hg(II) was suitable. The peak height of sulfite at about -0.70 V (pH 6, 7) was sharp, high, and very reproducible, enabling the accurate determination of low concentrations of Hg(II). It was found that sulfite concentration had to be 3 times larger than mercury at pH 6, in order to have a quantitative reaction.

Özet

A new and simple differential pulse polarographic procedure was established for the trace determination of mercury(II). An indirect method had to be used since no polarographic peak can be observed for its direct determination. According to their standard potentials, the reaction between SO$_{3}^{2-}$ and Hg(II) was suitable. The peak height of sulfite at about -0.70 V (pH 6, 7) was sharp, high, and very reproducible, enabling the accurate determination of low concentrations of Hg(II). It was found that sulfite concentration had to be 3 times larger than mercury at pH 6, in order to have a quantitative reaction.

🔖

Cite This Article

SOMER, G., ÇALIŞKAN, A. C., ŞENDİL, O. (2015). A new and simple procedure for the trace determination of mercury using differential pulse polarography and application to a salt lake sample. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3, 639–647. https://ajindex.com/articles/184947

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. calomel electrode (SCE), separated by a liquid junction, was used in the three-electrode configuration. The counter electrode was platinum wire. The polarograms were recorded with a Linseis (LY 1600) X–Y recorder under the conditions of a drop life of 1 s, a scan rate of 2–5 mV s −1, and pulse amplitude of 50 mV. Reagents Biester, H.; Muller, G.; Scholer, H. F. Sci. Total. Environ. 2002, 284, 177–189.
  2. Clarkson, T. W. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 11–23.
  3. Boening, D. W. Chemosphere 2000, 40, 1335–1351.
  4. Downs, S. G.; Macleod, C. L.; Lester, J. N. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1998, 108, 149–187.
  5. Boszke, L.; Siepak, J.; Falandysz, J. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2003, 12, 275–278.
  6. Mokhtar, M. B.; Awaluddin, A. B.; Wood, A. K.; Sim, C. P. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2002, 11, 1053–1058.
  7. Long, S. E.; Kelly, W. R. Anal. Chem. 2002, 74, 1477–1483.
  8. Mahar, M.; Tyson, J. F.; Neubauer, K.; Grosser, Z. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2008, 23, 1204–1213.
  9. Dos Santos, E. J.; Herrmann, A. B.; Vieira, F.; Sato, C. S.; Correa, Q. B. Microchem. J. 2010, 96, 27–31.
  10. Duan, T.; Song, X.; Xu, J.; Guo, P.; Chen, H.; Li, H. Spectrochim. Acta Part B 2006, 61, 1069–1073.
  11. Zapata, I. J.; Pohl, P.; Bings, N. H.; Broekaert, J. A. C. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 388, 1615–1623.
  12. Shafawi, A.; Ebdon, L.; Foulkes, M.; Stockwell, P.; Corns, W. Analyst 1999, 124, 185–189.
  13. Costley, C. T.; Mossop, K. F.; Dean, J. R.; Garden, L. M.; Marshall, J.; Carroll, J. Anal. Chim. Acta 2000, 405, 179–183.
  14. Singh, L. P.; Bhatnagar, J. M. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2004, 34, 391–396.
  15. Brainina, K. Z.; Stozhko, N. Yu.; Shalygina, Z. V. J. Anal. Chem. 2002, 57, 945–949.
  16. Marcolino-Junior, L. H.; Janegitz, B. C.; Lourencao, B. C.; Fatibello-Filho, O. Anal. Lett. 2007, 40, 3119–3128.
  17. Locatelli, C. L.; Melucci, D. Cent. Eur. J. Chem. 2013, 11, 790–800.
  18. Mandil, A.; Idrissi, L.; Amine, A. Microchim. Acta 2010, 170, 299–305.
  19. Bernalte, E.; Sanchez, C. M.; Gil, E. P. Anal. Chim. Acta 2011, 689, 60–64.
  20. Somer, G. Anal. Chem. 1981, 53, 2143–2145.
  21. Somer, G.; Kalaycı, S¸.; Ekmekci, G. Sens. Actuators B 2001, 81, 122–127. Ok¸cu, F.; Erta¸s, H.; Erta¸s, F. N. Talanta 2008, 75, 442–446.
  22. Somer, G.; C¸ alı¸skan, A. C.; S¸endil, O. J. Anal. Chem. 2014, 69, 1083–1088.