Premium
Simplified stripping potentiometry methodology: Application to the determination of lead in wine
Author(s) -
Jagner Daniel,
Renman Lars,
Wang Yudong
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
electroanalysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1521-4109
pISSN - 1040-0397
DOI - 10.1002/elan.1140050404
Subject(s) - wine , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemistry , stripping (fiber) , detection limit , calibration curve , calibration , standard addition , chromatography , standard solution , inductively coupled plasma , inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry , mass spectrometry , materials science , plasma , statistics , food science , mathematics , physics , quantum mechanics , composite material
Wine samples (120 μL) were pipetted into a 480 μL matrix modifying solution in a disposable Eppendorff tube. The modifying solution was comprised of hydrochloric acid, Hg(II), Ca(II), Al(III), Mn(II), 10% v/v Triton X‐100, 25% v/v EtOH, and Bi(III) as an internal standard. The mixture was transferred to a novel sample rotation assembly, used in combination with a cylindrical combined glassy carbon working electrode and Ag/AgCl reference and counter electrodes, and analyzed for 3 minutes by means of stripping potentiometry (SP). The analytical procedure, including control of all instrumental parameters and evaluation of the results, was performed fully automated using a commercial stripping analyzer and accompanying software. Calibration was performed using two aqueous standards, and due to the use of the internal standard, the same calibration curve could be used indefinitely. The relative precision was estimated to 5% and the detection limit to 3 μ/L. Good agreement was obtained between the results obtained by the proposed method and those obtained by isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma‐mass spectrometry (ICP‐MS) in the analysis of four red and four white wine samples, ranging in lead concentration from 18 to 151 μg/L, with the maximum relative difference between the two techniques being 11.5%.