![]() ![]() Actually, many materials have been tested for this purpose including fly ash, zeolite and active carbons (Polat et al. Therefore, there exists the need to remove this element from the aqueous environment. ![]() As a result, boron is a commonly known contaminant of drinking water that affects the reproductive ability of living organisms. 2005 Tomaszewska 2009), power plant (Tomaszewska 2009) or chemical landfill leachates (Malina 2004 Turek et al. Hence, the borate contents of surface and groundwater can be increased as a result of wastewater discharges (WHO 2011), especially from municipal (Motyka et al. These compounds are often encountered in natural and waste waters where their concentration may reach tens and hundreds of milligrams per 1 dm 3 (Öner et al. glass production, fibreglass, borosilicate glass, agricultural fertilisers and herbicides, laundry bleach, soaps and detergents, flame retardants and many other processes (Dill 2010). Boron is detected in surface water and groundwater in various locations around the world, including sea and river waters, where it mainly occurs in the form of boric acid.īoron compounds are also used during manufacturing processes, e.g. Naturally occurring boron is found in groundwater, primarily as a result of leaching from rocks and soils that contain borates and borosilicates. When iron concentrations are high, we can observe the emission spectrum as a double joined and overlapping peak.īorates are widely found in nature, and they are present in oceans, sedimentary rocks, soil, coal and shale. Higher concentrations of iron (from 1 to 20 mg/L) than chromium (0.02–1 mg/L) in the samples analysed can influence boron determination. The differences in the boron concentrations obtained using these two methods can be caused by several high-level concentrations in selected whole-water digestates and some matrix effects. Finally, both the ICP-MS and ICP-OES methods can be used for determination of the boron concentration in water. The results show that there are statistically significant differences between the concentrations obtained using the ICP-MS and ICP-OES techniques regardless of the methods of sampling preparation (sample filtration and preservation). ![]() The results obtained were compared and correlated, and the differences between them were studied. All samples were analysed using two analytical methods: inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). From each point, samples were prepared in four different ways: the first was filtered (through a membrane filter of 0.45 μm) and acidified (using 1 mL ultrapure nitric acid for each 100 mL of samples) (FA), the second was unfiltered and not acidified (UFNA), the third was filtered but not acidified (FNA), and finally, the fourth was unfiltered but acidified (UFA). Samples were collected during different desalination processes, ultrafiltration and the double reverse osmosis system, connected in series. The aim of the study was to compare the two reference methods for the determination of boron in water samples and further assess the impact of the method of preparation of samples for analysis on the results obtained. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |