MenuISSN (0970-2083)
ISSN (0970-2083)
Cara O'Donnell1,Daniel Autenrieth1*, Raja Nagisetty2
1 Department of Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene, Montana Technological University, Butte, Montana, USA
2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Montana Technological University, Butte, Montana, USA
Received: 05-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. ICP-24-128895; Editor assigned: 08-Mar-2024, Pre QC No. ICP-23-128895 (PQ); Reviewed: 22-Mar-2024, QC No. ICP-24-128895; Revised: 29-Mar-2024, Manuscript No. ICP-24-128895 (A); Published: 05-Apr-2024, DOI: 10.4172/0970-2083.40.1.001
Citation: O’donnell C, Autenrieth D, Nagisetty R. A Comparative Analysis of Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence (FP XRF) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) Methods for Surface Dust Metal Analysis. J Ind Pollut Control. 2024; 40: 001.
Copyright: © 2024 O’donnell C, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Industrial Pollution Control
Surface dust metal analysis is crucial for environmental monitoring, health risk assessment, and industrial hygiene. Two prominent analytical techniques for this purpose are Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence (FP XRF) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES). This research compares the performance of these two methods concerning accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and ease of use for the analysis of metals in surface dust samples. The study evaluates their suitability for various applications and provides insights into their respective strengths and limitations.
Mud weight, Fluid loss, Viscosity, Mud cake, Shear rate.
Surface dust metal analysis is essential for assessing environmental pollution, occupational health risks, and human exposure to toxic elements. Metals present in surface dust originate from various sources such as industrial activities, vehicular emissions, construction, and natural processes. Accurate determination of metal concentrations in surface dust is vital for regulatory compliance, risk management, and remediation efforts (American Society for Testing and Materials, 2020).
Two commonly employed techniques for surface dust metal analysis are Field Portable X-ray Fluorescence (FP XRF) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES). FP XRF offers advantages in terms of portability, rapid analysis, and minimal sample preparation, making it suitable for on-site measurements (Bayne, et al., 2003). In contrast, ICP-AES provides high sensitivity, precision, and multi-element analysis capabilities but typically requires sample digestion and laboratory analysis.
In the realm of analytical chemistry, understanding the elemental composition of substances is paramount across various fields. Among the array of analytical techniques available, ICP-AES emerges as a cornerstone method. This powerful tool enables scientists to unravel elemental mysteries with unparalleled precision and sensitivity.
At its core, ICP-AES operates on the principles of atomic emission spectroscopy, utilizing the phenomenon of emission of characteristic wavelengths of light by excited atoms (Binstock, et al., 2009). The process begins by introducing the sample into an intensely hot plasma generated by inductively coupled radiofrequency energy. Within this plasma, the sample undergoes atomization and excitation, leading to the emission of light at characteristic wavelengths corresponding to the elemental composition of the sample. By precisely measuring these emitted wavelengths, ICPAES provides quantitative data on the elemental concentrations within the sample (Blondel, 2020).
ICP-AES plays a pivotal role in environmental analysis, offering the capability to detect and quantify trace elements in various environmental matrices. Whether assessing heavy metal contamination in soil and water or monitoring air quality for pollutants, ICP-AES provides invaluable insights for environmental assessment and remediation efforts. Its ability to analyze multiple elements simultaneously with high sensitivity makes it indispensable in ensuring environmental safety and regulatory compliance.
In industrial applications, ICP-AES serves as a cornerstone for elemental analysis of diverse materials. From metals and alloys to ceramics and polymers, understanding the elemental composition is crucial for optimizing material properties and manufacturing processes. ICPAES facilitates quality control measures across industries by providing rapid and accurate quantification of elemental impurities and alloy compositions. Its versatility and reliability make it an indispensable tool for ensuring product integrity and performance (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2017).
Despite its widespread utility, ICP-AES does face challenges, including sample preparation complexities, matrix effects, and spectral interferences. Ongoing research efforts aim to address these challenges through method refinements, instrument advancements, and software developments. Future directions for ICP-AES involve the integration of hyphenated techniques, such as coupling with chromatography or mass spectrometry, to enhance analytical capabilities and expand application domains.
This research aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of FP XRF and ICP-AES methods for surface dust metal analysis, focusing on their accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and practicality for different applications (Canfield, et al., 2003). The study evaluates the performance of these techniques using real-world surface dust samples and provides recommendations for method selection based on specific analytical requirements.
Sample Collection
TSurface dust samples were collected from diverse environmental settings, including residential areas, industrial sites, urban centers, and rural locations. Sampling locations were selected to represent a range of potential sources and contamination levels (Canty, 1993).
A modified version of NIOSH technique 9102-elements on wipes (NIOSH, 2003) was used to gather fifty-seven samples. Mine tailings recovered in Butte, Montana, at coordinates (46.0042-112.5511), were aerosolized using an aerosol chamber (Fig.1). It has been shown that the tailings pile in Butte, Montana, contains elevated levels of lead when bulk soil samples are subjected to FP XRF analysis (Centers for Disease Control, 2022).
Figure 1: Location of soil collected for this study at the superfund site in butte MT.
Sample Preparation
Upon collection, surface dust samples were sieved to remove coarse particles and homogenized to ensure representative analysis. For ICP-AES analysis, a subset of samples underwent acid digestion using standard protocols to solubilize metals for measurement (Davis, 2019).
Analytical Techniques
FP XRF analysis was conducted using a handheld XRF analyzer equipped with appropriate calibration standards. The instrument was calibrated for target metals using certified reference materials to ensure accurate measurements (Hailer, et al., 2017; Harper, et al., 2002).
ICP-AES analysis was performed using a spectrometer equipped with an inductively coupled plasma source (Jacobs, et al., 2002). Calibration curves were generated using standard solutions of known metal concentrations, covering the analytical range of interest (Janicak, 2007; Lanphear, et al., 1998).
Quality Control
Quality control measures, including blank analysis, duplicate analysis, and analysis of certified reference materials, were implemented to monitor instrument performance and ensure data reliability. Calibration verification checks were performed regularly to confirm the accuracy of calibration curves.
Accuracy and Precision
The accuracy and precision of FP XRF and ICP-AES methods were assessed by comparing the measured metal concentrations with certified reference values. Both techniques demonstrated satisfactory accuracy, with deviations within acceptable limits. However, ICP-AES exhibited higher precision, particularly for trace metal analysis, attributed to its lower detection limits and reduced matrix effects compared to FP XRF (Murray, et al., 2000).
Sensitivity
ICP-AES demonstrated superior sensitivity compared to FP XRF, especially for elements present at low concentrations. This higher sensitivity is advantageous for trace metal analysis and detection of contaminants at regulatory limits. However, FP XRF may still be suitable for screening purposes or preliminary assessments where high sensitivity is not required.
Practicality and Field Applications
FP XRF offers several practical advantages for field applications, including portability, rapid analysis, and minimal sample preparation requirements. These features make it well-suited for on-site measurements, screening large areas, and identifying hotspots of contamination (Nagisetty, et al., 2020). However, FP XRF may encounter limitations in complex sample matrices or when analyzing elements at trace levels due to interference effects and detection limits (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2003).
ICP-AES, while more labor-intensive and requiring laboratory facilities, provides greater versatility and analytical capabilities for comprehensive metal analysis (Niton XLp 300 Series Analyzer User Guide, 2004). It is particularly useful for detailed characterization of metal compositions, regulatory compliance assessments, and research investigations requiring high sensitivity and precision. Despite its limitations in terms of portability and analysis time, ICP-AES remains indispensable for certain applications where accurate quantification of metal concentrations is paramount.
Metal analysis is a critical aspect of various fields, including metallurgy, materials science, environmental monitoring, and biomedical research. Understanding the elemental composition of metals is essential for ensuring product quality, assessing environmental impact, and investigating the properties and behavior of materials in different applications.
There are several methods employed for metal analysis, each offering unique advantages and capabilities. One widely used technique is Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), which provides exceptional sensitivity and accuracy for quantifying trace elements in metals. ICP-MS involves ionizing the sample in an argon plasma and analyzing the resulting ions based on their mass-to-charge ratios. This method is highly versatile, allowing for the simultaneous analysis of multiple elements across a wide concentration range.
Another commonly employed technique is Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS), which measures the absorption of light by metal atoms in a vaporized sample. AAS is particularly useful for determining the concentration of specific metals in a sample, offering excellent sensitivity and selectivity. It is often employed in environmental analysis, pharmaceutical quality control, and metal plating industries.
X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy is another powerful method for metal analysis, offering rapid and non-destructive elemental quantification. XRF works by irradiating the sample with X-rays, causing the atoms to emit characteristic fluorescent X-rays that are detected and analyzed to determine the elemental composition. This technique is widely used in archaeology, mining, and alloy identification due to its portability and ease of use (Sterling, et al., 2000).
In addition to these spectroscopic techniques, wet chemical methods such as titration and gravimetric analysis are still employed for metal analysis, particularly for determining metal concentrations in solution or complex matrices. These classical methods offer high precision and accuracy when performed by skilled analysts and are often used as reference methods for validating results obtained by instrumental techniques (US EPA, 2022)
Advancements in analytical instrumentation, such as the development of hyphenated techniques combining spectroscopy with chromatography or mass spectrometry, continue to enhance the capabilities of metal analysis. These hybrid methods allow for comprehensive characterization of metal samples, including speciation analysis and identification of trace contaminants.
Furthermore, with the increasing focus on sustainability and environmental protection, there is growing interest in green analytical techniques for metal analysis. These methods aim to minimize sample preparation, reduce solvent consumption, and decrease analytical waste generation, thereby contributing to more environmentally friendly metal analysis practices.
In conclusion, both FP XRF and ICP-AES are valuable analytical techniques for surface dust metal analysis, each offering unique strengths and limitations. FP XRF excels in terms of portability, speed, and ease of use, making it suitable for rapid screening and field measurements. However, its sensitivity and precision may be inferior to ICP-AES, particularly for trace metal analysis and complex sample matrices. On the other hand, ICP-AES provides superior sensitivity, precision, and multi-element analysis capabilities but requires more extensive sample preparation and laboratory analysis.
The selection of the appropriate method should consider specific project requirements, including the target analytes, desired sensitivity, sample matrix complexity, budget constraints, and logistical considerations. Depending on the application, a combination of both techniques and complementary methods may be employed to achieve optimal results.
Future research endeavors should focus on method optimization, instrument advancements, and the development of hybrid approaches that integrate the strengths of FP XRF and ICP-AES for enhanced surface dust metal analysis. Furthermore, efforts should be directed to- wards standardization of protocols, validation of analytical procedures, and proficiency testing to ensure the reliability and comparability of results obtained using different techniques. Continued innovation and collaboration in this field will contribute to improved environmental monitoring, risk assessment, and public health protection.
This study was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P20GM103474.
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant competing interests to disclose.
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P20GM103474. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
[Crossref]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
Copyright © 2024 Research and Reviews, All Rights Reserved