A Simple Method for Precise Determination of 23 Trace Elements in Granitic Rocks by ICP-MS after Lithium Tetraborate Fusion

Awaji, S.; Nakamura, Kozo; Nozaki, Tatsuo; Kato, Yasuhiro

doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00299.x

Cited by 27 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Otherwise, our AFAD data for the four reference materials were in agreement with the previous results. Note that positive Ho spikes observed in all figures and negative Nb spikes in JB-2 originated from the low and high recommended (compiled) values of Imai et al (1995), respectively, as has been noted by previous studies (Shimizu et al, 2011;Awaji et al, 2006) (see also Fig. 3).…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

“…The short fusion may have retained the volatile elements in the flux-free fused samples. Some middle to HREEs in JG-1a and JG-2 reported by Awaji et al (2006) were higher than our AFAD results but are in good agreement for the JG-3 and JB-2 standards. Possible explanation for the difference is heterogeneity in JG-1a and JG-2 powders.…”

contrasting

confidence: 29%

“…The detection limits for AFAD were about 10 times those for AD because of high blank levels from the alkali flux. Effects of the blanks from the Pt crucible were limited for the elements affected by interference from AFAD (this study) Shimizu et al, 2011Awaji et al, 2006Imai et al, 1995 AD (this study) AFAD (this study) Shimizu et al, 2011Awaji et al, 2006Imai et al, 1995 AD (this study) AFAD (this study) Shimizu et al, 2011Awaji et al, 2006Imai et al, 1995 Imai et al, 1995) …”

Section: Procedural Blanks and Detection Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Possible explanation for the difference is heterogeneity in JG-1a and JG-2 powders. Alternatively, the use of different matrix in standards may have led to fractionation of HREEs in the ICP (e.g., Tanner, 1992;Kimura and Chang, 2012) as Awaji et al (2006) used solutions of various GSJ reference materials with reference values as standards, whereas we used alkali flux matrixmatched chemical standards. We have not yet determined the source of the difference.…”

Section: Comparisons To Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These reference samples have been rigorously analyzed by AF methods (Shimizu et al, 2011;Awaji et al, 2006) and recommended values were reported (Imai et al, 1995). AD method was also used for comparison.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a rapid, effective sample digestion method for trace element analysis of granitoid samples containing acid-resistant minerals: Alkali fusion after acid digestion

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alkali fusion after acid digestion method (AFAD) was used for determination by ICP-MS of twenty-five trace elements (Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Cs, Ba, Hf, Pb, Th, U, and rare earth elements) in four silicate reference materials (JG-1a, JG-2, and JG-3 granitoids and JB-2 basalt) from the Geological Survey of Japan (GSJ). Results were compared with those obtained by acid digestion (AD) method. Our results are in excellent agreement with previously reported data obtained by fusion methods. The reproducibility of replicate analyses is better than 5% (1σ) for all the elements, except Rb, Cs, and Pb in JG-2.Keywords: silicate digestion method, trace element abundance, silicate reference material, alkali fusion INTRODUCTIONAcid-resistant minerals, such as zircon, fluorides and chromite make rocks difficult to dissolve completely, leading to poor bulk rock trace element analysis. Although minor components, these minerals strongly affect bulk rock chemical composition because of the high abundance of Zr, Hf, and heavy rare earth elements (HREEs). The most widely accepted method for dissolving bulk rock powders is acid digestion (AD) with HF, HNO 3 , and HClO 4 (e.g., Yokoyama et al., 1999). However, acidresistant minerals are insoluble even with the use of Teflon bombs in microwave digestion technique (e.g., Jarvis and Jarvis, 1992;Yu et al., 2001) and fusion of rock powders with alkali flux up to 900°C is often used (e.g., Jarvis and Jarvis, 1992;Yu et al., 2001). Fusion methods are subject to matrix-induced instability during analyses owing to increased matrix elements from the flux (e.g., Li, B, C and Na). Pt or zirconium crucibles used for hightemperature fusion are another source of contamination. All these factors must be accounted for a correct application of fusion methods. Roser et al. (2000) proposed a method, referred to as Alkali Fusion after Acid Digestion (AFAD). This method consists of AD with HF-HClO 4 in a Pt-crucible, followed 100 R. Senda et al.ing at progressively increasing temperature up to 160°C (Fig. 1). The total time required to prepare 12 samples by AFAD was ~6 h, including preparations for ICP-QMS analyses. ICP-QMS analysisICP-QMS analysis was performed on an Agilent 7500ce at IFREE/JAMSTEC (Supplementary Table S2) following Nakamura and Chang (2007). Calibration solutions (1, 10, 100, and 1000 pg/g) were prepared by gravimetric serial dilution (Table S1). For AD, the sample solutions were diluted 5,000-30,000 fold with a mixed solution of 2% HNO 3 and 0.1% HF by weight containing 1 ng/mL internal standard 115 In and 209 Bi. To reduce the effects of high C and Na concentrations in the matrix, we used >20,000 fold dilution for AFAD. Calibration solutions for AFAD were prepared by addition of standard solutions to the procedural blank solution prepared with the samples to match the matrix.Although the instrumental conditions were adjusted to maintain the best balance between high sensitivity and low oxide formation, we had to correct for overlaps between the spectra of oxides and hydroxides for some ...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 55%

contrasting

confidence: 29%