1998
DOI: 10.1080/00103629809369987
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of surface contamination on results of plant analysis

Abstract: Chemical analysis of plants is often done without paying attention to the ubiquitous natural presence of exogenous material on the plant surface. The analytical result will then be higher than the endogenous plant concentration. It is shown that this error can be related to three parameters: (i) the surface loading L, (ii) the enrichment factor (EF) of the exogenous material with respect to the soil, and (iii) the plant-to-soil concentration ratio (CR). These factors are considered for 19 essential and trace e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
14
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It was not considered necessary to wash the foliage samples. Although the possibility of exogenous contamination of foliar samples for micronutrient analysis exists, especially regarding older age classes of needles of coniferous species (Wyttenbach and Tobler 1998), in our study any dust deposition would have been similar for all species at the same site. In addition, different solvents remove different amounts of nutrients from foliar samples, and no commonly accepted procedure for foliar sample washing exists (Leśniewicz et al 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It was not considered necessary to wash the foliage samples. Although the possibility of exogenous contamination of foliar samples for micronutrient analysis exists, especially regarding older age classes of needles of coniferous species (Wyttenbach and Tobler 1998), in our study any dust deposition would have been similar for all species at the same site. In addition, different solvents remove different amounts of nutrients from foliar samples, and no commonly accepted procedure for foliar sample washing exists (Leśniewicz et al 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The micronutrient requirements of Betula pendula Roth. seedlings have been extensively studied in a controlled environment (Göransson and McDonald 1993;Göransson 1993Göransson , 1994Göransson , 1998Göransson , 1999, but in general coniferous species, and Norway spruce in particular, have received much more attention than deciduous forest species (Madgwick et al 1990;Van Dijk and Bienfait 1993;Linder 1995;Braekke 1994;Nihlgård et al 1997;Wyttenbach and Tobler 1998;Thelin et al 1999;Schleppi et al 2000;Aphalo et al 2002). Bergmann (1992) gives the same optimum ranges of micronutrients for all deciduous forest trees, making no differentiation between species.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…All subsequent work was done with samples that contained one age class from a single tree. The fresh samples were washed with toluene/tetrahydrofuran (1:1), thereby removing the epicuticular wax and any aerosol adhering to the needle surface (Wyttenbach and Tobler 1998). The material removed from the needle surface was recovered by evaporation from the washing solution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In most cases it is quite enough to carefully rinse plants after sampling. However, sometimes analysts may go too far in this respect and use very strong reagents to wash the plant samples (Wyttenbach et al 1994;Wyttenbach and Tobler 1998). As a result, cell walls of the plant may be destroyed and there will be no longer an ordinary plant, but the plant sample will represent something artificial.…”
Section: Element Analysismentioning
confidence: 96%