| 离子色谱法和毛细管电泳法测定土壤中氯离子、 硫酸根及其差异性 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 蒋 倩,韩 勇,孙晓丽,龚 华,钱 薇,陆国兴.离子色谱法和毛细管电泳法测定土壤中氯离子、 硫酸根及其差异性[J].土壤,2016,48(2):343-348. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 蒋 倩 韩 勇 孙晓丽 龚 华 钱 薇 陆国兴 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 土壤与农业可持续发展国家重点实验室 中国科学院南京土壤研究所，南京 210008; 中国科学院大学，北京 100049;2. 土壤与农业可持续发展国家重点实验室 中国科学院南京土壤研究所,南京,210008 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 中国科学院知识创新工程领域前沿项目（12201415143200000）资助 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 分别采用离子色谱法(IC)、毛细管电泳法(CE)两种仪器方法对不同pH土壤中Cl~–、SO_4~(2–)含量进行测定,并对其结果进行差异性分析。结果显示:参照标准物质的参考值(滴定法),IC与CE测定值的准确度、回收率均满足实验分析要求,但精密度差异较大,IC(RSD,3.61%)的稳定性优于CE(RSD,8.97%)。据差异性(F与t检验)分析,两种仪器方法测定酸性土壤中Cl~–、SO_4~(2–)含量存在显著性差异,而碱性、中性土壤的测定结果保持一致。对比4个被测样品基本性质发现,酸性土壤的pH与离子强度均低于其他样品,从而影响了石英毛细管的电渗流,最终改变了CE分离过程,这可能是Cl~–结果偏离的主要因素。同时,对于IC,酸性土壤较中性、碱性土壤更易由于离子交换效应产生次级保留(拖尾)。此外,采用碱性分离体系分离酸性样品易形成结晶,从而导致SO_4~(2–)含量的偏离。可见,两种方法各有优缺点。但是,IC较经典,而CE是一种新兴的仪器方法。测定像土壤这样基体较复杂的样品(特别是酸性土壤)中阴离子的仪器条件还需要进行更多摸索与优化,以促进这两种方法在土壤领域的推广与应用。
|
| 关 键 词： | 离子色谱 毛细管电泳 土壤 氯离子 硫酸根 |
| 收稿时间： | 2015/5/27 0:00:00 |
| 修稿时间： | 2015/10/20 0:00:00 |
Study on the Determination and Its Difference Analysis of Chloride and Sulfate in Different Soils by Ion Chromatography and Capillary Electrophoresis |
| |
| JIANG Qian,HAN Yong,SUN Xiao-Li,GONG Hu,QIAN Wei and LU Guo-xing.Study on the Determination and Its Difference Analysis of Chloride and Sulfate in Different Soils by Ion Chromatography and Capillary Electrophoresis[J].Soils,2016,48(2):343-348. |
| |
| Authors: | JIANG Qian HAN Yong SUN Xiao-Li GONG Hu QIAN Wei and LU Guo-xing |
| |
| Institution: | Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of science,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of science,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of science,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of sciences,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of science,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of science,Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of sciences |
| |
| Abstract: | Chloride and Sulfate in different soil samples of pH are determined by Ion Chromatography (IC) and Capillary Electrophoresis (CE), respectively in this study. The result showed that these two methods both work well as the measured values were consistent with the standard value by using titration method, but the Relative Standard Deviation in measurements is bigger with CE (8.97 %) in comparison with that with IC (3.61 %). The statistical F-test and t-test showed that there was no significant difference on the measurements between the two methods on four of our tested soil samples except for acid soils (ASA-5a). That may because the lower pH and ionic strength in ASA-5a affect the electroosmotic flow (EOF) of fused silica capillary and lead to change the separation process of anion in CE, thus finally cause the deviation of measured Chloride from others i.e. IC and titration methods. Meanwhile, acid soil samples could bring secondary retention because of ions exchange than others by IC. Moreover, it is also easier to form crystallization in the process of separating acid soil samples with IC under the system of alkali eluent than others. And lastly cause the deviation of measured Sulfate from others i.e. CE and titration methods. The CE and IC methods have its own merits and demerits. As a new innovation of CE compared to IC for soil anion analysis, there is an urgent need for its verification with lower pH of soil samples and experimental conditions in the future. |
| |
| Keywords: | Ion Chromatography Capillary Electrophoresis Soil analysis Chloride Sulfate |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《土壤》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《土壤》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
