Follow NEMC
Comparison of US EPA 245.7 to ISO 17852 and ISO 12846 Using CVAAS and CVAFS
Poster Presentation
Prepared by D. Clarke, J. Forsberg, B. Cook
CETAC Technologies, 14306 Industrial Road, Omaha, Nebraska, 68144
Contact Information: dclarke@cetac.com; 402-738-5409
ABSTRACT
The methods governing the quantification of Hg in drinking, surface, ground, and waste water are promulgated by the US EPA and based on cold vapor sample introduction. Similar methods can be found in the EU; however, these methods are published by the International Standards Organization. In this study two separate comparisons are made between US EPA and similar ISO methods. The first comparison is made between US EPA 245.7 and ISO 17852 using cold vapor atomic fluorescence. The second comparison is made between US EPA 245.7 and ISO 12846 using cold vapor atomic absorption. The objective of this study is to highlight advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods to both atomic absorption and atomic fluorescence mercury analyzers. Several sample preparation differences are highlighted and optimized. A groundwater standard reference material (ERM-CA615) was used as a matrix standard.
(Related Session: Topics in Drinking Water)
Poster Presentation
Prepared by D. Clarke, J. Forsberg, B. Cook
CETAC Technologies, 14306 Industrial Road, Omaha, Nebraska, 68144
Contact Information: dclarke@cetac.com; 402-738-5409
ABSTRACT
The methods governing the quantification of Hg in drinking, surface, ground, and waste water are promulgated by the US EPA and based on cold vapor sample introduction. Similar methods can be found in the EU; however, these methods are published by the International Standards Organization. In this study two separate comparisons are made between US EPA and similar ISO methods. The first comparison is made between US EPA 245.7 and ISO 17852 using cold vapor atomic fluorescence. The second comparison is made between US EPA 245.7 and ISO 12846 using cold vapor atomic absorption. The objective of this study is to highlight advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods to both atomic absorption and atomic fluorescence mercury analyzers. Several sample preparation differences are highlighted and optimized. A groundwater standard reference material (ERM-CA615) was used as a matrix standard.
(Related Session: Topics in Drinking Water)