Determination chromium

De Goeij JJM, VorKERS KJ, Tjioe PS, and Kroon JJ (1978) NBS SRM 1569 Brewer s yeast Is it an adequate standard reference material for testing chromium determination in biological materials. Radiochem Radioanal Letters 35 139-146. 

Carey, J.M., Vela, N.P. and Caruso, J.A. (1994) Chromium determination by supercritical fluid chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometric detection. J. Chromatogr., 642, 329-340. 

Girard, L. and Hubert, J. (1996) Speciation of chromium (VI) and total chromium determination in welding dust samples by flow injection analysis coupled to atomic absorption spectrometry. Talanta, 43,1965-1974. 

Sirinawin, W. and S. Westerlund. 1997. Analysis and storage of samples for chromium determination in seawater. Anal. Chim. Acta 356 35 40. 

Gomez V. and M.P. Callao. 2006. Chromium determination and speciation since 2000. Trends Anal. Chem. 25 1006-1015. 

Gylseth B, Gundersen N, Langard S. 1977. Evaluation of chromium exposure based on a simplified method for urinary chromium determination. Scand J Work Environ Health 3 28-31. 

Saryan LA, Reedy M. 1988. Chromium determinations in a case of chromic acid ingestion. J Anal Toxicol 12 162-164. 

M. H. Canuto, H. G. Luna Siebald, G. Magela de Lima, J. B. Borda Silva, Antimony and chromium determination in Brazilian sugar cane spirit, cachaca, by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry using matrix matching calibration and ruthenium as permanent modifier, J. Anal. Atom Spectrom., 18 (2003), 1404-1406. 

Chromium Determine as directed in Chromium under Colors, Appendix IIIC. 

Another chemical interference encountered in AAS is that with chromium determinations where the chromium absorption in an air—acetylene flame is suppressed by iron, cobalt and nickel. In this instance, the iron interference can be minimised by the addition of 2% (m/v) ammonium chloride solution to the sample and standard solutions. This compound helps volatilise the chromium as chromyl chloride (Cr02Cl). 

A systematic difference was observed between high chromium values obtained by NAA techniques and ICP-MS and ICP-AES data. It was suspected that in some cases the digestion method used was not sufficiently strong to decompose the matrix the addition of HF after HNO3 decomposition is a prerequisite. The main problem was, however, related to strong interferences occurring at mass 52 with argon. As already mentioned for arsenic, ICP-MS and ICP-AES were not considered to be suitable for certification and the different sets were consequently withdrawn ETAAS is clearly more reliable for chromium determination in comparison to ICP-MS. 

Chirila E., Draghici C. and Carazeanu I., 2003a The chromium determination in seaside lake and mineral ecosystems, Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry, 14,43—46. 

The application of AAS to the assessment of Cr in biological specimens has been extensively reviewed by Tsalev (1984) covering the literature from 1955 tiil 1981, and the state of the art on chromium determinations in environmental and biological samples by Rubio et al. (1992). 

A A Chromium determination with the graphite tube technique (Furnace method)... 

For chromium determination, reagents other than the classical 1,5-diphenylcarbazide, such as xylene cyanol FF (615 nm), p-amino-N,N-diethylaniline (550 nm), benzooxazol (538 nm), benzothiazol (546 nm), dime-thylindocarboxyanine (560 nm) and dimethylindodi-carboxyanine (640 nm), have been used. 

Complex samples are involved in chromium determination, such as industrial wastewater, natural water, pharmaceuticals, and soil, irrespective of the strategy adopted. 

Urine chromium determined by ETAAS with Zeeman background correction and standard addition procedure outlined in this section has a reported detection limit of 0.1 p.g/liter. This is an outline of the method of Fleischer [46]. The reference provides detailed directions for this analysis. 

A further check on the occurrence of systematic errors in a method is to compare the results with those obtained from a different method, if two unrelated methods are used to perform one analysis, and if they consistently yield results showing only random differences, it is a reasonable presumption that no significant systematic errors are present. For this approach to be valid, each step of the two experiments has to be independent. Thus in the case of serum chromium determinations, it would not be sufficient to replace the atomic-absorption spectrometry step by a colorimetric method or by plasma spectrometry. The systematic errors would only be revealed by altering the sampling methods also, e.g. by minimizing or eliminating the use of stainless-steel equipment. A further important point is that comparisons must be made over the whole of the concentration range for which an analytical procedure is... 

---