Hauptseite > Publikationsdatenbank > Field flow fractionation online with ICP-MS as novel approach for the quantification of fine particulate carbon in stream water samples and soil extracts > print

001     820873
005     20210129224631.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1039/C6JA00027D
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 0267-9477
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1364-5544
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a WOS:000382071200011
|2 WOS
024 7 _ |a altmetric:7129480
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2016-06137
082 _ _ |a 540
100 1 _ |a Nischwitz, Volker
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)157638
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
245 _ _ |a Field flow fractionation online with ICP-MS as novel approach for the quantification of fine particulate carbon in stream water samples and soil extracts
260 _ _ |a Cambridge
|c 2016
|b ChemSoc
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1479118976_4499
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Reliable and efficient analytical techniques are required for quantitative size-resolved carbon determination of nanoparticles and colloids in complex sample matrices due to the key role of carbon in biological and environmental processes. Field flow fractionation (FFF) online with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) is a powerful technique for identification and quantification of particle bound metals, but has not been applied for quantitative determination of particulate carbon, yet, due to several challenges. Therefore, our study explores the potential of online particulate carbon detection by ICP-MS to overcome limitations of previously used UV detection or offline total organic carbon measurements. A novel organic carbon detector (OCD) was used as independent sensitive carbon detector to validate the ICP-MS results. Basic validation of organic carbon detection by offline quadrupole and sector-field ICP-MS was performed for fresh water samples using OCD as reference achieving recoveries of 107 ± 16% with Q-ICP-MS and 122 ± 22% with SF-ICP-MS. Limits of detection were 0.6 mg L−1 for Q-ICP-MS, 0.3 mg L−1 for SF-ICP-MS and 0.04 mg L−1 for OCD. The main focus was on comparison of FFF-ICP-MS and FFF-OCD for quantification of particulate carbon in fresh water samples, soil extracts as well as in bovine serum albumin (BSA) as candidate reference standard. Recoveries obtained by FFF-Q-ICP-MS with a flow-injection calibration approach were in a range from 90 to 113% for replicate analyses of fresh water samples compared to FFF-OCD and from 87 to 107% with an alternative post-channel calibration strategy.
536 _ _ |a 255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|c POF3-255
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef
700 1 _ |a Gottselig, Nina
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)156558
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Missong, Anna
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)159255
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Meyn, Thomas
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Klumpp, Erwin
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129484
|b 4
773 _ _ |a 10.1039/C6JA00027D
|g Vol. 31, no. 9, p. 1858 - 1868
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1484654-8
|n 9
|p 1858 - 1868
|t Journal of analytical atomic spectrometry
|v 31
|y 2016
|x 1364-5544
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.pdf
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.gif?subformat=icon
|x icon
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.jpg?subformat=icon-1440
|x icon-1440
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.jpg?subformat=icon-180
|x icon-180
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.jpg?subformat=icon-640
|x icon-640
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/820873/files/c6ja00027d.pdf?subformat=pdfa
|x pdfa
|y Restricted
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:820873
|p VDB
|p VDB:Earth_Environment
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)157638
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)156558
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)159255
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)129484
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Erde und Umwelt
914 1 _ |y 2016
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
915 _ _ |a No Authors Fulltext
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0550
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b J ANAL ATOM SPECTROM : 2015
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Allianz-Lizenz / DFG
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0400
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1150
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
|k IBG-3
|l Agrosphäre
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21