Dealing with Matrix Interferences in the Determination of the Priority Pollutant Metals by Furnace AA

Importance of Topic

Atomic absorption with a graphite furnace is essential for quantifying trace levels of priority pollutant metals in diverse environmental and industrial samples. Its high sensitivity supports compliance with increasingly stringent regulatory limits.

Objectives and Study Overview

This application note examines the sources of matrix interferences in furnace AA, contrasts them with flame AA interferences, and presents practical approaches—temperature program optimization, matrix modifiers, graphite platforms, and calibration techniques—to achieve accurate determinations of EPA priority pollutant metals.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Analyses employ a graphite tube atomizer capable of pulsed or constant temperature modes, automated background correction, and computer graphics for real-time atomization profiles. Samples and standards are treated identically, with volume-matched injections and appropriate acidity. Key techniques include:

• Optimized temperature programs separating ash and atomization phases to decompose matrix residues before analyte vaporization.
• Matrix modification using reagents (e.g., ammonium nitrate, nickel, sulfates) that alter volatility or chemical environment to remove interferences.
• Pyrolytic graphite platforms that delay vapor release until the furnace reaches steady-state, reducing vapor-phase reactions.
• Standard additions calibration—manually or via automated systems—to correct residual matrix effects when direct calibration is insufficient.

Main Findings and Discussion

Background absorption from molecular fragments and light scattering by salts is significantly higher in furnace AA; accurate background correction and optimized ash temperatures mitigate false signals. Chemical interferences appear as peak shifts or multiple maxima when analytes and matrix constituents volatilize concurrently; computer graphics of atomization curves facilitate diagnosis and method refinement. Matrix modifiers convert major salts into volatile byproducts (e.g., NH4Cl) or stabilize analytes (e.g., nickel arsenide) to improve signal quality. Graphite platforms ensure vapor release at uniform temperatures, minimizing early losses of volatile species.

Benefits and Practical Applications

The combined strategies enable development of robust, direct-calibration furnace AA methods, reducing reliance on labor-intensive standard additions. These protocols support high-throughput automated workflows in environmental monitoring, industrial quality control, and research laboratories.

Future Trends and Opportunities

• Enhanced furnace designs with faster temperature cycling and improved thermal uniformity for sharper separation of background and analyte signals.
• New matrix modifiers and surface coatings to extend method resilience across complex or extreme matrices.
• Advanced automation integrating sample preparation, modifier delivery, and multi-element routines for greater throughput and consistency.
• Application of chemometric and machine-learning tools to predict and correct interferences in real time.

Conclusion

A strategic combination of furnace temperature optimization, targeted matrix modification, platform use, and calibration techniques enables accurate, reproducible trace metal analysis by graphite furnace AA, meeting rigorous regulatory and industrial requirements.

References

1. Analytical Methods for Graphite Tube Atomizers, Varian Techtron, 1982.
2. Brodie KG, Practical Operation with the GTA-95 Graphite Tube Atomizer, Varian Instruments at Work No. AA-28, 1983.
3. Matousek JP, Interferences in Electrothermal AA Spectrometry: Elimination and Control, Prog. Anal. At. Spectrosc. 4:247, 1981.
4. Krasowski JA, Copeland TR, Matrix Interferences in Furnace AA Spectrometry, Anal. Chem. 51(11):1843, 1979.
5. Czobik EJ, Matousek JP, Interference Effects in Furnace AA Spectrometry, Anal. Chem. 51(1):3, 1978.
6. Hageman LR, Nichols JA, Viswanadham P, Woodriff R, Comparative Interference Study for AA Lead Determinations, Anal. Chem. 51(9):1406, 1979.
7. Brodie KG, Matousek JP, Non-Flame AA Determination of Cadmium in Air, Anal. Chim. Acta 200:69, 1974.
8. Ediger R, AA Analysis with Matrix Modification, At. Absorp. Newsl. 14:127, 1975.
9. Czobik EJ, Matousek JP, Effect of Anions on Atomization Temperatures, Talanta 24:573, 1977.
10. McKenzie TN, Doidge PS, Routh MW, Shrader DE, Reduction of Chemical Interferences in High Salt Matrices, Varian Techtron, 1982.
11. Hinderberger EJ, Kaiser ML, Koirtyohann SR, Furnace AA Analysis of Biological Samples with L’vov Platform and Matrix Modification, At. Spectrosc. 2:1, 1981.
12. McKenzie TN, Routh MW, Mechanistic Approach to Matrix Modification in Electrothermal AA, Varian Techtron, 1981.
13. Fuller CW, Effect of Acids on Thallium AA Spectrometry, Anal. Chim. Acta 81:199, 1976.
14. McKenzie TN, Doidge PS, Routh MW, Shrader DE, Chemical Modification in Graphite Furnace AA, Varian Techtron, 1982.
15. Doidge PS, Pyrolytic Graphite Platforms, Varian Instruments at Work No. AA-25, 1982.
16. L’vov BV, Electrothermal Atomization and Absolute AA Analysis, Spectrochim. Acta B 33:153, 1978.
17. Doidge PS, McKenzie TN, Graphite Platform Application to Reduce Interferences, Varian Techtron, 1983.
18. US EPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, 1979.