REPORT FOR ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS
.Ε Ξ
Ε g
σ ο
Table VII. AAS methods being considered for ASTM use
£ ε
ΐ; £
Element Determined
Solution Concentra tion, ppm
ASTM Committee
Cast Iron
Mg (0.002 to 0.10%)
0.1 to 0.6
E-3
Cadmium Metal
Zn Cu Pb Ag
(0.005 to 0.05%) (0.002 to 0.02%) (0.01 to 0.10%) (0.002 to 0.02%)
0.5 to 5 2 to 20 5 to 50 ltolO
E-3
Cu (0.005 to 0.08%) Mn (0.05 to 0.50%) Zn (0.5 to 5.0%)
0.5 to 8 5 to 50 lto 10
E-2
Magnesium Alloys
Li (13 to 15%)
3.0 to 4.3
E-3
Aluminum Metal
Cd (0.002 to 2.0%)
0.2 to 6.0
E-3
Aluminum Alloys
Cu (0.01 to 8.0%) Mg (0.01 to 8.0%) Zn (0.01 to 8.0%)
0.5 to 25 0.05 to 5 0.5 to 25
E-2
Silver-Platinum Alloys
Pt (0.5 to 2.0%)
500 to 2000
E-2
Glasses and Ceramics
Mg (0.1 to 15%)
0.5 to 1.2
E-2
Zn (0.1 to 15%)
2.4 to 4.0
Cu (0.1 to 20 mg/l) Zn (0.02 to 3 mg/l)
0.1 to 20 0.02 to 3
Material
Magnesium Alloys
Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water
water and as sophisticated as laser crystals. The elements determined in various materials are summarized in Table VI; the list is limited mostly to materials that are ana lyzed frequently although some ma terials of special interest are in cluded. Reports from different sources have been combined where possible in this tabulation. For example, 10 elements may be listed as being determined in an alloy, but perhaps not more than 6 of the 10 elements listed are being determined in one laboratory. In nearly all of the materials analyzed, the AAS methods were replacing chemical methods for routine analyses. One reply summarizes the pre vailing opinion quite well: "The people in my lab often wonder how we ever got along before we had atomic absorption instrumentation. We have found it to be one of the most convenient methods of analy sis we have ever used for both rou tine and nonroutine problems. We anticipate a continuing usage for routine high-volume analysis as
S? φ ^ ιΗ
Ο ••Ι
Ο ΙΟ
5 "- Ο! Ο D "Ε >· D Ο
.
σ>
Φ
Φ
Ο
(Λ
3 Ω Ζ
CHEMICA ι-Η
-c ω -
-g £ ο
m
Ο. Ο
t
ο. ^
-
< c -ë
s s. &
«" i m — c |_
C
> CO
>- sr
^J
