Spectrophotometric catalytic determination of an ultratrace amount of iron(III) in water based on the oxidation of N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine by hydrogen peroxide

Hirayama, Kazuo; Unohara, Nobuyuki

doi:10.1021/ac00174a009

Cited by 45 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the DPD method, Measures et al (1995) reported that Cu was the only trace metal likely to interfere with the determination of Fe in seawater, giving a positive signal at Cu concentrations >160 nM (Hirayama and Unohara 1988). However, Cu is present at concentrations of ∼1 nM in Southern Ocean surface waters and, for the DPD method as used in this study, Cu interference is masked by triethylenetetramine in the sample buffer (Measures et al 1995).…”

Section: Bowie Et Al Analytical Intercomparison: Iron In Seawater 46mentioning

confidence: 70%

Analytical intercomparison between flow injection‐chemiluminescence and flow injection‐spectrophotometry for the determination of picomolar concentrations of iron in seawater

Bowie

Sedwick

Worsfold

2004

Limnology & Ocean Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lab-and ship-based analytical intercomparison of two flow injection methods for the determination of iron in seawater was conducted, using three different sets of seawater samples collected from the Southern Ocean and South Atlantic. In one exercise, iron was determined in three different size-fractions (<0.03 µm, <0.4 µm, and unfiltered) in an effort to better characterize the operational nature of each analytical technique with respect to filter size. Measured Fe concentrations were in the range 0.19 to 1.19 nM using flow injection with luminol chemiluminescence detection (FI-CL), and 0.07 to 1.54 nM using flow injection with catalytic spectrophotometric detection with N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride (FI-DPD). The arithmetic mean for the FI-CL method was higher (by 0.09 nM) than the FI-DPD method for dissolved (<0.4 µm) Fe, a difference that is comparable to the analytical blanks, which were as high as 0.13 nM (CL) and 0.09 nM (DPD). There was generally good agreement between the FI-CL determinations for the <0.03 µm size fraction and the FI-DPD determinations for the <0.4 µm size fraction in freshly collected samples. Differences in total-dissolvable (unfiltered) Fe concentrations determined by the two FI methods were more variable, reflecting the added complexity associated with the analysis of partially digested particulate material in these samples. Overall, however, the FI-CL determinations were significantly (P = 0.05) lower than the FI-DPD determinations for the unfiltered samples. Our results suggest that the observed, systematic inter-method differences reflect measurement of different physicochemical fractions of Fe present in seawater, such that colloidal and/or organic iron species are better determined by the FI-CL method than the FI-DPD method. This idea is supported by our observation that inter-method differences were largest for freshly collected acidified seawater, which suggests extended storage (>6 months) of acidified samples as a possible protocol for the determination of dissolved iron in seawater.

show abstract

Section: Bowie Et Al Analytical Intercomparison: Iron In Seawater 46mentioning

confidence: 70%

Analytical intercomparison between flow injection‐chemiluminescence and flow injection‐spectrophotometry for the determination of picomolar concentrations of iron in seawater

Bowie

Sedwick

Worsfold

2004

Limnology & Ocean Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The absorption method to detect total soluble iron relies on the catalytic reaction of Fe(III) on the oxidation of N,N-dimethyl-pphenylenediamine by hydrogen peroxide in weakly acidic media to a semiquinonic form (Hirayama and Unohara, 1988). Absorption was monitored at 514 nm.…”

Section: Matrix Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fe2+ in ice cores as a new potential proxy to detect past volcanic eruptions

Burgay

Erhardt

Lunga

et al. 2019

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interference of iron(III) was only 20% at 1 mg l -1 without any masking agent. The interference from iron(III) can be effectively avoided by the dilution of samples, since the content of iron ion in fresh water is usually lower than 1 mg l -1 : 20,21,26,27 it was reported that most ground water collected in the Yonezawa district, Japan, contained <0.1 mg l -1 total iron. 28 The iodate and iodide ions interfere with nitrite determination at 0.1 mg l -1 order by showing a catalytic effect for the reaction.…”

Section: Effect Of Foreign Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Kinetic Method for the Determination of Nitrite by Its Catalytic Effect on the Oxidation of Chlorpromazine with Nitric Acid

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spectrophotometric catalytic determination of an ultratrace amount of iron(III) in water based on the oxidation of N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine by hydrogen peroxide

Cited by 45 publications

References 30 publications

Analytical intercomparison between flow injection‐chemiluminescence and flow injection‐spectrophotometry for the determination of picomolar concentrations of iron in seawater

Analytical intercomparison between flow injection‐chemiluminescence and flow injection‐spectrophotometry for the determination of picomolar concentrations of iron in seawater

Fe2+ in ice cores as a new potential proxy to detect past volcanic eruptions

A Kinetic Method for the Determination of Nitrite by Its Catalytic Effect on the Oxidation of Chlorpromazine with Nitric Acid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About