694
ANALYTTCAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 50, NO.
6. M A Y
1978
+0.22i, correlates with the ninleciilar relaxation energies for t h e chlornrnethanes.
(12) W. B Perry and W. L. Jolly, Chem. Fhys Lett., 23, 529 (1973). (13) W E. Moddeman, T. A. Carlson, M. 0 . Krause, €3. P. Pullen. W. E. Bull. and G K Sweitzer, b / , Chem Phys , 55. 2317 (19711 (1-11 h! rhompsm. P A H w i t t . and 0 S W3okcroff. IJnplhlished work 115! rC, Slgbahn, f..Nordlirg, G Johansscn. J Hedman, P. F . tied&?,K Hamrin. U. Gelius, T. Bergmark, L . 0 . Werme, P.. Manne, and Y . Baer, "ESCA Applied to Free Molecules", North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969. (161 D W. Turner, C. Baker, A R Baker. and C R, Brundle, "MOleCUlar Dhotoelectron Spectrcscowy". Wiley-Interscience, London. 1970 !17i A W. Fotts, H. J. Lernpke D. G Streets and W.C. Price, Phil. Trans. R . SOC. London, S e r . P , 268, 59 (1970). (18) F Hcptgarten and P. Mame, J . Electron Spectrosc Pela:. Pbenom , 2. 13 (1973). (19) T. D.Thomas, J . A m . Chem. SOC., 9 2 , 4184 (1970). (20) W B Perry and W.L Jcily, Inorg. Cheni., 13, 1211 (1974) (21) I. B. Ortenburger and P. S,Bagus, Phys. Rev. A , 11. 1501 (1975). (22) U. Geiius, Phys. Scr., 9 , 133 (1974). (23) D. A. Shirley, Cbem. Phys. Lett., 17, 312 (1974), (74; fi T Sat:derson, "Chenical Periodicity", Reinhold. Ne-# Y n 4 N.Y 1960.
ACKNOWLEDGRIENT Helpful discussion with G. Theodorakopoulos and I. G. Csizmadia of t h e LJniT-ersity of Toronto concerning t h e t,heoreticai aspectc: of AES is gratefu!ly acknnmledged.
LTTERATURE CITED (1) M, Thornpsor. P. A, Hewit! and D. S. Woollscicfl, Anal. Cnem., 48, 1336 (1976). (2) M Thompsori 7a12flta. 24, 399 (1977). (3) M T. Okland, K. Faeg:i. Jr., and R. Manne, Chem. Phys. /..sit., 40, 185 (1976). (4) R. H. A. Eade, M. A. Robb, I. G. Csizmadia, and G. Theodorakopoulos, Chern. Phys. Lett., 5 2 . 526 (1977) (5) A . Fahlrnan, K . Harnrin, ,I, Hedman, R. Norlhara, r: Nn-dlipg, ntid V, Siegbahn, Plafure (landon), 210, 4 (1966). ( 6 ) G. W. Stupian, J. Appl. Phys.. 45, 5278 (1974). ( 7 ) F L! FzalCowski and G. A . Scmerjai. J . Chem ,rh)? . 61. 2064 (1974). (8) C. D Wagner, Anal. Chem , 44, 967 (1972). (9) C D Wagner, Anal. Chem , 4 1 , 1203 (1075). (10) W. E. Moddernan Ph.E. Thesis. LJr>iversityof Tennessee. 1970. (1 1) R . Spohr, 1 . Bergmark, N. Maynussori, 1.. 0. Wetrne, C Noidliiig, end K Siegbah:?, Phvs. So.,, 2. 3 1 (1970j.
Determination of Main Components and Impurities in Lithium-Boron Alloys L. E. DeVries" and Elmer Gubner Naval Surface LVeapons Cenfer, Electrechemistry B/anch, Marenals Dwis/e?. Wh'e Oak l&oratory
A procedure has been developed for dissolving lithium-boron alloys and analyzing the solutions for the main components and major impurities. Water, a known amount of excess perchloric acid, and hydrogen peroxide were used to dissolve a sample. The amount of acid remaining after dissolution was determined by titration and used to calculate the amount of lithium in the sample. After adding D-mannitol, the boric acid formed from the boron in the alloy was determined by titration. The major impurities were chromium, iron, manganese, and nickel determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. When necessary, nitrogen was determined using an ammonia cornbination electrode and unoxidized boron by direct weighing
(11,a need de\elopetl for a g o d a n d icd procedure Lithiem. h(von, and major impurities neFdri1 tri he determined 111 iindischarged a l l q s 1,ithium serves rlc the N T I W element in t h e alloy, and lithium ions are formed during diicharge 7'0 calculate t h e amount of lithium lost t" parasitic processes, the amount of unoxid17ed lithium in t h e rle-trode at the end of discharge must he determined It is rompnied with the amount of lithium oxidiwd hy discharge a n d the amount initially present. For these reasons, there mas a need to determine the amount of unoxidized lithium rather than total lithium. We suspected that LizB remained after discharge in t h e alloy ( 1 ) . However, t h e composition might be Li9R4. For t h e lithium-aluminum system, I,igA14 has been reported (2). T h e diffprence hetween the two possible lithium boron ccimpounds I S less thnn 3 weight percent (a'01. An aCcuratP procedure was needed for deteimining t h e composition of any cornpoiiwis formed in the alloys. T h e procedure developed This paper not subject to U S . Copyright.
S A er Sprmg, Llaijland c"09 10
irivol;es dissolving the alloy and determining the lithium and tioron hy titration. 'l'he major impurities are nietalq determined hy atomic abwrption spectroph"tc,inetr..
EXPERIMENTAL I n s t r u m e n t a l P a r a m e t e r s . A Metrohni hlodel I? 336 1 ) ~ tentioyraph equipped with a Metrohm Model EA 3 4 - 1 0 buret (sv.pplied bs Brinkmann Instruments, Inc.. Cantiague Road, Westbury, N.Y. 11599) w a j used for all acid--basetitrations. 'The electrode uscd was a hletrolim Model EA I20 pH combination glass electrode. Metal impurities and silicon were determined with a 'Techtron Atrimic Absorption Spectrophotonieter 'I'ype A.4-5 (L'arian Techtron, 611 Hanson Way, Palo Alto, Calif. 91303). m~iltielementhollow cathode lamp (neon filler gas) was operated 31 a current nf 8.5 n i A for chromium. iron, mangaiiese, and nickel. "i slit width of .X pni !%as used with the 248.3 nni line for iron, nith the 279.5 nni line for marigan~se.with the 232.0 rim line for nickel. and with the 7.9 nm line Cor chromium. For silicon. a hnll-xv cathide lamp (neon filler gas) &-as operated a t 15 RIA. A slit width of 30 p,m was u ~ e dwith the 251.6 nm line for silicon. For siiic.c;n. tt rlitro~usoxide-acetylene flame was used with a T'echtrnn Tj-pe ARiO Iiurner. For t h e other elements. an air-acetylene flame W R P used with a Techtron Type AB51 burner. Ammonia was demmined with an Orion Model 95-19-00ammonia romhinatiw electrode used with an Orion Model 407A Cpecific inn meter ((:)ricin Research I:?( nrporated, 11 Hlackstone Streer, Cambridge, >lass. 021391. Reagents and Standards. Reagent grade chemicals wpplied by Fisher (Fisher Scientific C'onipany, 71 1 F o r b e s Avenue, Pittsburgh. Pa. 15219) were used except where stated. Atomic absorption standards were prepared from 1000-ppm solutions supplied by F & .J Scientific (79 Far Horizon Dr., Monrne, Conn. 06268). Boron of 99.9% purity was supplied by Atomergic ('hemetals Corporatinn 1100 Fairchild Avenue. Plainview, N.C. 11803). Pot msium hydrogen 1.2-hen7,ene-dicailio~ylate (Fisher, Acidimetric Standard) was used after drying at 393 I i for 2 h. iAldrich. [:IThe P-amino-2-!h\drcisvmethvl~-l,~-prnpane~inl A\
Published 1978 by the American Chemical Society
A N A L Y T I C A L CHEMISTRY, VOL. 50, NO.
1 5 MM GLASS BEADS
1
L--i”l
Figure 1. Details of apparatus used for dissolving alloy samples
trapure from Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc., 940 W.Saint Paul Avenue, Milwaukee, Wis. 53233) was recrystallized ( 3 ) . “Baker Analyzed“ boric acid was recrystallized while ULTREX boric acid was used as received (both from J. T. Baker Chemical Co., 222 Red School Lane, Philipsburg, N.J. 08865). “Matrix“ soluticns of lithium chloride were prepared from ultrapure grade lithium chloride supplied by Alpha Products (152 Andover Street, Danvers, Mass. 01923). Nessler’s Reagent Solution (Fisher, A.P.H.A.) was used for the qualitative tests for ammonia. The sodium hydroxide solution was prepared from a concentrated solution from which the solid sodium carbonate had been removed. Distilled water was used throughout the work. The perchloric acid, sodium hydroxide, and boric acid solutions were prepared with carbon dioxide-free water (boiled under partial vacuum 20 min.). Apparatus. Part of the apparatus is shown in Figure 1. The dissolution of the lithium-boron alloys was carried out in a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask. The flask was fitted with a plain distillation column. The plain distillation column was fitted with a gas scrubber consisting of a column with indentations to hold glass beads. The column was packed with glass beads (3-mm diameter) to a depth of 55 mm. For refluxing the solution, the columns were replaced with a West condenser (100-mm jacket). The column, gas scrubber, and condenser had drip tips, and all pieces had 24/40 standard taper joints. The flask with the columns was mounted on a hot plate with a magnetic stirrer. Procedures. S a m p l e Manipulation. The samples were cut from ingots in a helium-filled glove box. The helium was continuously circulated through purification trains to remove nitrogen, oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide. The ingots as received were dark on the sides and bottom with what appeared to be a thin layer from the Type 316 stainless steel crucible in which they were made. In addition, the top of the ingot had a layer of oxides and nitrides which may have come from impurities originally in the lithium and boron. As a result, the outer skin of the soft ingot was cut away with a knife and discarded before any analysis of the ingot composition was made. Dissolution. Much of the apparatus discussed in the dissolution procedure is in Figure 1. Both empty and sample filled bottles were weighed filled with helium. Fifty milliliters of water were placed in the Erlenmeyer flask. A sample of about 1 g was added to the flask through the plain distillation column. The gas scrubber (wet with water) was immediately put in place, and the stirrer turned on. The solution was stirred until foaming nearly stopped. The gas scrubber was rinsed and removed. The solution was heated until it had boiled 10 min or until no ammonia was present in the vapor phase. The heating was stopped, and the
6, M A Y 1978
695
solution was cooled in an ice bath. The plain distillation column was rinsed, with the rinsings going into the flask. After rinsing, the plain distillation column was replaced with a West condenser. R i t h rapid stirring, about 35 g of standardized perchloric acid were added from a weight buret. The acid was added slowly to minimize foaming especially near the point where the lithium hydroxide already formed would be neutralized. Eleven milliliters of 30% hydrogen peroxide were added. The ice bath was removed, and the hot plate turned on. The solution was refluxed 70 min. After the heat was turned off, the solution was cooled in an ice bath. From this point on, all rinsings were done with carbon dioxide-free water. The condenser was rinsed and removed from the flask. The solution was transferred to a previously weighed bottle and weighed. Titration. The procedure described is for mixtures of perchloric acid and boric acid. Using a weight buret, about 35 g of solution were delivered to a 150-mL graduated heaker. The sample was diluted to 100 mL with carbon dioxide-free water. With the potentiograph in the pH mode, standardized sodium hydroxide was delivered from a weight buret until the pH of the solution reached between 3.0 and 3.4. The potentiograph was put in the derivative mode. The titration through the end point was recorded using a 1/20 to 1/100 (weightjvolume)dilution of the standardized base in the automatic buret. Twenty grams of D-mannitOl were added to the solution. With the potentiograph in the pH mode, standardized sodium hydroxide was added from a weight buret until the pH reached 5.6 t o 6.0. With the potentiograph in the derivative mode. the titration was finished with the automatic buret as mentioned above. ,Vitrogen Analysis. A 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask was mounted in an ice bath over a hot plate with a magnetic stirrer. One hundred milliliters of about 1.25 N perchloric acid were cooled in the flask. This amount of acid was sufficient t o ensure that the solution was acid after the lithium had been dissolved from the alloy. About 1 g of alloy was placed in the flask. A gas scrubber (of the type described above) was placed on the flask and the stirrer turned on. After the foaming had stopped, the gas scrubber was rinsed, with the rinsings going into the flask. The ice bath was removed and the solution heated to boiling to ensure that all of the lithium had been dissolved from the alloy. The ammonia trapped in the acid was measured using the combination ammonia electrode by taking a direct reading with the specific ion meter.
RESULTS A N D D I S C U S S I O N Dissolution Procedures. T h e initial idea was to dissolve the lithium in the alloy with water and filter the solution. T h e boron would be determined by weighing the remaining solid, and the lithium would be determined by titrating the filtrate with acid. It was found t h a t the alloy had t o be boiled in an acid solution t o rapidly remove the lithium. For this reason, it was decided t o use a known excess amount of standardized perchloric acid t o dissolve the lithium in the alloy. T h e sample had t o be boiled in water first t o oxidize as much lithium as possible. If a sample is added directly t o the acid solution, the reaction is vigorous enough t o cause some loss of solution. T h e hydrogen evolved from the water carried a fine mist of lithium hydroxide out of the plain distillation column. By using a gas scrubber a n d not starting stirring until after t h e scrubber was in place! no solution was lost. It was noted when trying to remove t h e lithium from t h e alloy with water t h a t part of the boron was dissolving. 2B
+ 20H- f
2H,O
-
2BO;-
3H,
(1)
A portion of the boron was in colloidal form. Amorphous or colloidal boron reacts with many materials including water ( 4 ) and hydrogen peroxide ( 5 ) . It was decided t o oxidize t,he boron completely with hydrogen peroxide. 2B
+ 3H202-2H,BO,
(2)
Experiments indicated t h a t it was best t o a d d the hydrogen peroxide t o a solution containing the alloy after the perchloric acid had been added. For complete oxidation of t h e boron,
696
A N A L Y T I C A L CHEMISTRY, VOL. 50, NO. 6, M A Y 1978
Table I. Standardization of Solutions and Determination of Boric Acid
Solution
Milliequivig b y titration
Re1 stand dev x 10'
Std dev x lo4
Table 11. Weight Percent of Constituents in the Alloys Ingot- Titrated Titrated Li from Metal Total B" Li,SiO, impurit,iesC percentd Samplea Lib No. of samples
Potassium hydrogen 1,2-benzenedi~arboxylate~ NaOH-1 NaOH-2
0.9890 1.0072
3
3
1
1
6 6
2-Amino-2-(hydroxymethy1)-1,3-propanedioP
HC10,-1 HC10,-2
4.5124 4.4703
6 5
1 1
5 6
2
5
1
6
Sodium hydroxide-la HC10,-1
4.5124
8
Sodium hydroxide-2a HC10,-2
4.4703
4
Boric acid (0.7097 mequiv/g)b %BO,
0.7099
2
3
6
Perchloric acid (0.5364 mequiv/ ) t boric acid (0.2464 mequivig)
E
H3BO3 I-IClO
0.2463 0.5364
1
2
4 2
5 5
a The standard. Made u p to the concentration indicated in parentheses. The solutions were 0.2 N with respect t o lithium chloride and were titrated with sodium hydroxide, Each solution when titrated for boric acid contained 20 g mannitol.
t h e acid solution of peroxide must be boiled under refluxing conditions. If the solution is not refluxed. some boric acid will distill out of t h e solution (6). A relatively large excess of hydrogen peroxide is needed so that it will oxidize all of t h e boron before it is decomposed in t h e acid solution ( 5 ) . Small particles speed up the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide to oxygen and water (7, 8). T h e exceSs hydrogen peroxide was found to decompose after 55 min of refluxing. Seventy minutes of refluxing were done on the solutions. No tests for peroxide were then considered necessary. We were concerned by t h e fact that we were using borosilicate glass flasks for dissolving the alloy samples. We could obtain high results by introducing detectable amounts of boron into our system. We found that none of our glass containers which had been previously boiled several times with concentrated sodium hydroxide and with lithium hydroxide gave detectable amounts of boron to either acidic or basic solutions boiled in them. T i t r a t i o n . T h e weights of all materials were reduced to vacuo. Excellent results were obtained for t h e standardizations of t h e acids and bases, Table I. This is in part the result of titrating on a weight basis and of depending on the automatic buret to contribute only 1 7 ~or less to t h e total weight of titrant. Boric acid is weak enough, pK = 9.234 (9), so t h a t perchloric acid can be titrated in its presence. On addition of polyalcohols or sugars, the pK is decreased so that boric acid can easily be titrated with sodium hydroxide ( I O . 11). A recommended alcohol, D-mannitol, has been found to work best in nearly saturated solutions or where the ratio of moles of mannitol to moles of boric acid was a t or above 16/1 (12,13). Twenty grams of mannitol for each solution titrated maintained the above conditions over the entire range of alloy compositions studied. T h e pK is also lowered by high concentrations of various ions including lithium (13, 14). As a result, we titrated boric acid solutions containing the maximum amount of lithium (0.2 mequiv/g) expected in our
A-1 2 3 4 B-1 2 3 4 C-1 2 3 4
80.14 19.26 79.99 19.44 79.42 19.94 79.81 19.58 70.09 27.46 71.34 28.19 70.64 28.90 71.08 28.44 69.10 29.98 69.59 29.47 70.13 28.96 70.30 28.93 Average total percent
0.57 0.08 100.05 0.51 0.08 100.02 0.08 99.93 0.49 0.08 99.95 0.48 0.35 0.07 99.97 0.37 0.07 99.96 100.01 0.40 0.07 0.38 0.07 99.97 0.73 0.11 99.92 0.77 0.11 99.94 0.11 100.04 0.84 0.64 0.11 99.98 is 99.98, and 0 is 0.04
Ingot- Titrated Titrated Weighed Metal Total Samplea Lib Bb B impuritiesC percentd D-1 57.65 56.02 2 3 56.95 4 55.58 5 56.72 Average total
41.48 0.66 0.14 99.98 0.68 0.14 99.99 43.10 100.05 0.68 0.14 42.23 100.01 0.66 0.14 43.58 100.03 0.67 0.14 42.45 percent is 100.01, and a is 0.03
E-le
95.10
3.27
1.43
0.18
99.98
a Ingots A , B, and E were dissolved in Pyrex glass flasks; ingot C was dissolved in an alkali resistant glass flask; ingot D was dissolved in a TeflQn flask. There were four or five titrations for each sample with a relative standard deTable I11 lists a value for each viation of (1-3)/10 000. Ingots A, B, C, and E contained metal f o r each ingot. less than 0.01% nitrogen. Ingot D contained 0.05% nitrogen which is included in the total percentage. '' Ingot E had the lithium extracted before the analysis given in the table.
solutions. T h e results are given in Table I. There were no adverse effects from adding lithium ions to the perchloric acid-boric acid solution. Our main problem trying to use boric acid as a standard was weighing the crystals which are easily given a static charge. We noted no difference between t h e types of boric acid used. I t might be assumed that reaction 1 would cause a problem in determining the amount of lithium in the alloy. T h e lithium is determined from the difference between the amount of perchloric acid added to aid in dissolving the lithium and the amount of perchloric acid left after t h e lithium is dissolved. However, t h e third reaction BO;
+ H' +
H,O
4
H,BO,
(3)
shows that for the amount of hydroxide ions lost in reaction 1, a n equal amount of hydrogen ions is lost. No errors are caused by reaction 1. Many alloys are inhomogeneous. By comparing the results of analysis for t h e lithium in different samples of the same ingot, the d a t a in Table I1 indicate that this is also true for the lithium--boron alloy. T h e largest variation in lithium (57.6,5--,55.58\vi/()) was found in the ingot with the lowest lithium content. Atomic Absorption, I m p u r i t i e s . Table I1 indicates that there were a series of problems dealt with to obtain good results. Qualitative test,s revealed metallic impurities in t h e alloys for which the quantitative measurements are given in Table 11. T h e metals would be in the unoxidized state in the lithium alloy and would react with the perchloric acid. T h e value of the lithium found by titration takes this into account. A comparison was made using single element standards and multielement standards containing all four metals (chromium, iron, manganese, and nickel) with and without a lithiumchloride matrix. T h e multielement standards gave thp same
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 50, NO. 6, M A Y 1978
Table 111. Weight Percent Trace Metal Impurities Ingot
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
A
0.00 0.00 0.01
0.05 0.04 0.06
0.02 0.01
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.12
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
B C D E
0.02 0.01
0.02
results as the single element standards. There was no effect caused by t h e lithium ion on the standards. T h e amount of each metal impurity in a sample was small and was rounded off to the nearest 0.01 9%. As a result the amount of each metal impurity was constant in all samples from the same ingot, Table 111. L i t h i u m Metasilicate. Table I1 indicates that part of the lithiimi was in the form of lithium metasilicate for three ingots. Lye knew that silicon dioxide in glass would act like a n acid and he dissolved by hydroxide ions ( 1 5 ) . T h e simplified reaction is given by 4. SiO,
+
20H-
+
SiO;*- + H;O
(4)
The form of the silicate ion probably is meta in basic solutions and ortho in acidic solutions (16. 17) as implied by reactions 4 and 5.
+
2H
+
-
HZO
Si(OH),
(5)
If sodium hydroxide were t h e source of hydroxide ions, reaction 4 would cause no problems in the titration of perchloric acid because of reaction 5 (18. 19). For every hydroxide ion lost to the formation of a silicate ion. a hydrogen ion is lost to the formation of a molecule of orthosilicic acid. Orthosilicic acid is too weak! p K about 10. (17. 2 0 ) . to interfere in the titration of perchloric acid. I t does not react with mannitol to form a stronger acid (21). On the preliminary analyses, the results were low on the total percent of constituents. The acid solutions of the alloy were found to contain small white spheres containing lithium and silicate ions. A search of the literature revealed that when lithium and silicate ions in solution are heated to or above 353 K , lithium metasilicate precipitates as small white spheres (22. 23). Because the silicate ions are not available for reaction 5 . t h e larger amount of perchloric acid found hy titration causes the calculated lithium value to be low. T h e bulk of the particles of lithium metasilicate tended to remain suspended in the solution and passed through 0.2 pm pores. As a result, we used atomic absorption to determine the amount of silicate suspended in the solution. Standard solutions were made up with and without a matrix ot' lithium. chromium, iron, manganese, and nickel. T h e concentration of the transition metal ions in the alloy solutions being analyzed was low enough to cause no change in the absorption of silicon. There was some enhancement caused by t h e lithium ion. !ye decided to try alkali resistant glass to remove the problem caused by lithium metasilicate formation. Flasks (from Corning Glass Works, Corning. N.Y. 14830) made of alkali resistant Corning No. 7280 glass were substituted for flasks made of Corning No. 7740 glass (Pyrex). T h e results were discouraging as indicated in Table 11. For ingot C (70 w , o lithium). more lithium metasilicale was formed ( 1 . 4 7 ~ of'the total lithium) using t h e alkali resistant glass than for ingot A 180 w,io lithium) using Pyrex glass where 0.6% of the total lithium formed t h e metasilicate. In another attempt to avoid dissolving glass. Teflon flasks supplied by Berghof America, Inc. (64550 Research Road. Bend. Ore. 97701)were substituted for glass flasks. T h e results are given in Table I1 for ingot D. Ingot D was the ingot with the highest amount of boron (13wlo). Table I1 indicates t h a t 1.6% of the boron did not dissolve. Increasing the
697
amount of hydrogen peroxide in the acid solution before boiling it did not help. T h e solutions were filtered and the undissolved boron was weighed. Under a microscope, t h e relatively large particles of boron looked like crystalline boron. Xormally the boron from ot,her ingots was amorphous. I t dissolved in acid solution when hydrogen peroxide was added, and the solution was heated to boiling. In ingot D, we suspect that the boron, which did not dissolve in t h e perchloric acid-hydrogen peroxide solution, had not formed an alloy. N i t r o g e n Analysis, T h e lithium-boron alloys react more rapidly with air than pure lithium does. We expected to have some lithium nitride formed when a sample was manipulated in air after weighing. .4mmonia is formed when lithium nitride reacts with water. Li,N t 3H,O
-
3Li'
A
30H-
+
NH,
(6)
Our analysis, based on ammonia, indicated that less than 0.01 w/o nitrogen was in the samples. However, samples from one ingot had 10 times more nitrogen. T h e analysis for other components was not completed. A check was made, and we were told that the ingot had been made after the purification train for nitrogen removal had broken down. When it malfunctioned again, t h e amount of nitrogen picked up by the ingot was determined to be 0.05 w j o , Table 11. Different pieces of ingot were used for nitrogen analysis than were used for determining the other components. T h e samples for nitrogen analysis were dissolved in acid with the loss of about 0.5 volume percent (v/o) of the solution because of vigorous hydrogen evolution. B o r o n R i c h Phase. One sample was supplied to us for analysis from which the hulk of the lithium had been extract,ed (with methanol). T h e results are included, Table 11, to show t h a t a boron-rich sample can be analyzed even though t h e procedure was developed for lithium-rich samples. For this analysis, the perchloric acid solution was decreased to 20 g and the 30% hydrogen peroxide was increased to 15 mL. T h e sample was 0.7 g. The acid and sample were mixed in the flask with enough water to equal 125 mL total volume. There was no initial treatment of the sample by boiling in water. T h e solution was cooled in a n ice bath before t h e hydrogen peroxide was added. Then it was refluxed 70 min. T h e rest of the procedure was identical to that used for the lithium-rich samples. A Pyrex glass flask was used since there was no chance for lithium hydroxide to attack the glass. Thirty grams of mannitol were used for each sample titrated. W e i g h i n g in P l a s t i c B o t t l e s . Polyethylene bottles manufactured by Nalge Company (76 Panorama Creek Dr., Rochester, K.Y. 14602) were used for weighing alloy samples because of problems associated with the screw caps of many types of glass bottles ( 2 3 ) . These bottles were individually selected after their helium leakage rates were found to be a t or below 1 X lo4 cm3/s. Stored in a helium atmosphere, the bottles either gained or lost from tenths of a milligram to a few milligrams over a period of several hours. A large number of bottles would change weight nearly the same amount each day over a period of weeks. As a result. the average change in weight of a few empty bottles weighed a t the same time sample-filled bottles were weighed was used as a correction factor ( 2 4 ) .
C 0NCLU SI 0.NS Excellent analytical results are ob1ained for lithium-boron alloys using either glass or Teflon containers. For glass, t h e average value of the original sample accounted for was 99.98% with a standard deviation of 0.04. For Teflon, the average value of the original sample accounted for was 100.01% with a standard deviation of 0.03. The estimated error is f 0 . 0 5 7 ~ . T o obtain these results, a t least three things are necessary. Both a non-oxidizing atmosphere for manipulating the samples
698
A N A L Y T I C A L CHEMISTRY, VOL. 50, NO. 6, M A Y 1 9 7 8
and the use of blanks when weighing samples in plastic bottles are needed. Titrations must be made on a weight basis. If one is not overly concerned with the total amount of lithium in the alloy, Pyrex glass flasks can be used and the small loss of lithium (0.6%) ignored. For high lithium alloys and if one is especially interested in the total lithium content as well as dissolved boron (such as from lithium-boron compounds), Teflon flasks are suitable for dissolving t h e alloy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank Leonard A. Kowalchik for the ingots that were analyzed and Raymond J. Zehnacker for making the helium leakage rate measurements. They thank Steven Dallek a n d Donald W. E r n s t for the material from which the lithium-rich phase had been extracted. LITERATURE CITED (1) S. D. James and L. E. DeVries, J . Nectrocbem. SOC..123, 322 (1976) (2) K. M. Myles. F. C. Mrazek. J. A. Smaga, and J. L. Settle. "Proceedings of Symposium and Workshop on Advanced Battery Research and Design, March, 1976", U.S. ERDA Report No. ANL-76-8, p 8-50, (3) J. H. Fossurn, P. C. Markunas. and J. A. Riddick, Anal. Cbem., 23, 491 (1951). (4) G. Calcagni, Gazz. Cbim. Ifal., 65, 558 (1935). ( 5 ) F. Ageno and E. Barzetti, Atfiaccad. Lincei. 19, I , 381 (1910). (6) N. Tschischewski, Ind. Eng. Cbem., 18, 607 (1926). (7) J. 6.Firth and F. S. Watson, Trans. Faraday Soc., 18, 601 (1918).
W. C. Schumb, C. N. Satterfeld,and R. L. Weniworth, "Hydrogen Peroxde". Am. Chem. Soc. Monogr., 128, Reinhold Pub. Corp.. New York, N.Y.. 1955, Chap. 8 . G. G. Manov, N.J. Delollis, and S. F. Acree. J . Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., 33, 287 (1944). M. G. Meilon and V. N. Morris, Ind. Eng. Cbem., 16, 123 (1924). L. S. Weatherby and H. H. Chesny, Ind. f n g . Cbem.. 18, 820 (1926). M. Hollander and W. Rieman 111, Ind. Eng. Cbem., Anal. Ed., 17, 602 (1945) D. M. Colman and L. P. Rigdon, USAEC Report No. UCRL-7756, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1964. H. Schafer and A. Sieverts, Z. Anorg. Allgem. Cbem., 246, 149 (1941), or Z . Anal. Chem., 121, 170 (1941). A. F. Joseph and H. B. Oakley, J . Cbem. Soc., 127, 2813 (1928). J. H. Wills, J . Pbys. Cbem., 54, 304 (1950). S . A. Greenberg and E. W. Price, J . Pbys. Cbem., 61, 1539 (1957). W. D. Treadwell and W. Wieland, Helv. Cbim. Acta, 13, 842 (1930). R. W. Harman, J . Pbys. Cbem., 31, 616 (1927). E. P. Flint and L. S. Well, J . Res. Nafl. Bur. Stand., 12, 751 (1934). F. L. Hahn and R. Kockmann, 2. Phys. Cbem., 146, 373 (1930). K. A. Vesterberg, Z . Anorg. Cbem., 110, 48 (1920). I . V. Guseva, N. E. Prinkhid'ko, and 1 . S. Lileev, Russ. J . Inorg. Cbem. (Engl. Transi.), 6, 525 (1961). L . E. DeVries, E. Gubner, and L. D. Jackson, this issue.
RECEIVED for review November 18, 1977. Accepted January 19. 1978. This work was supported by t h e Independent Research Program, the Molten Salt Battery, and LithiumChlorine Battery Programs of the Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak, Md.
Problem of Artifacts in the Analysis of A/-Nitroso Compounds I. S. Krull." T. Y. Fan, and D. H. Fine Cancer Research Division, Thermo Electron Corporation, 45 First A venue, Walfham, Massachusetts 02 154
Methods are presented to ensure the accuracy and precision of analytical results obtained in the analysis for N-nitroso compounds. Such procedures are designed to prevent both positive and negative artifact formation during an analysis, and to improve the reliability of N-nitroso analyses as currently performed. Specific examples of the various types of causes for artifact formation are presented.
I t has become apparent in the recent years that N-nitroso compounds represent a potentially large source of exposure for m a n to chemical carcinogens ( I , 2). A partial listing of t h e different materials which have been found t o contain varying levels of N-nitroso materials would include: air, water, soil, cheese, meats, fish, eggs, cutting fluids, cigarette smoke, pesticides, cosmetics, shampoos, and drugs. It may be expected that additional routes for man's exposure to N-nitroso compounds will be found in the future. Various advances in methods and instrumentation for the detection of both volatile and nonvolatile 1l'-nitroso compounds have led to t h e determination of new routes of significant exposure. As a result of the development of a thermal energy analyzer (TEA), it has been possible to rapidly analyze for most volatile and nonvolatile
