Benefits of NexION 350 ICP-MS Technology for the Analysis of Power Plant Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewaters

APPLICATION NOTE
ICP - Mass Spectrometry
Authors
Stan Smith
Ewa Pruszkowski, Ph.D.
PerkinElmer, Inc.
Shelton, CT USA
Benefits of NexION 300/350
ICP-MS Technology for
the Analysis of Power Plant
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wastewaters
Introduction
One of the most widely used technologies
for removing pollutants, such as sulfur
dioxide, from flue gas emissions produced
by coal-fired power plants, is the
limestone-forced oxidation scrubbing
system. More commonly known as flue
gas desulfurization (FGD), this process
employs gas scrubbers to spray limestone
slurry over the flue gas to convert gaseous sulfur dioxide to calcium sulfate.1
Unfortunately, many of the contaminants from the coal, limestone and make-up
water are concentrated in the circulating water of the scrubbing system. So in
order to maintain appropriate plant operating conditions, a constant purge stream
of water containing these contaminants has to be discharged from the scrubbers
while fresh limestone slurry is fed in. This purge stream is extremely acidic and
saturated with high concentrations of gypsum, heavy metals, alkali earth metals,
chlorides and dissolved organic compounds. A schematic of a typical FGD process
is shown in Figure 1.
slurry sprayers
flue gas exhaust
various treatment procedures
wastewater
gypsum cake
flue gas inlet
limestone
slurry inlet
slurry
purge
dewatering
vacuum belt
air injection
Figure 1. The flue gas desulfurization (FGD) process.
treated effluent
to discharge
State and Federal laws regulate the concentration of
pollutants in FGD wastewater prior to discharge into the
waterways. In some cases, the wastewater may be suitable
for discharge after minor treatment such as filtering out
suspended solids and/or adjusting the pH. However, in many
cases, the wastewater requires treatment for the reduction
of the major pollutants. The scrubber purge stream is most
often treated in a dedicated wastewater facility because the
existing treatment system may not have adequate capacity;
or the design might be unsuitable for receiving high chloride
streams. In some cases, it just might not be appropriate
for the very strict wastewater discharge limits likely to be
enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for FGD wastewater.
The composition of flue gas desulfurization wastewaters
(FGDW) can vary significantly from plant to plant, depending
on the capacity of the boiler, chloride concentration of the
scrubber, rate of fly ash removal, efficiency of the gypsum
dewatering system, type of FGD process used, and the
composition of coal, limestone and make-up water. The U.S.
EPA wrote wastewater effluent limit guidelines for discharge
permits granted to coal-fired power plants back in 1982.2
The rule, known as 40 CFR Part 423, has not kept pace
with changes in the industry over the past several decades,
even though industry air pollution controls are much more
efficient today. For that reason, the U.S. EPA has recently
taken on the task of revising the rule with new proposed
revisions expected in November 2012 and the final rule
expected by April 2014.
New Draft U.S. EPA ICP-MS Standard Operating Procedure
To support the modification to this rule, the U.S. EPA is
developing a new ICP-MS method specifically for FGD
wastewaters.3 Unfortunately, this type of sample poses
significant problems for the technique, because not only
does it contain extremely high concentrations of dissolved
solids, which can be very challenging, but also because no
two FGDW samples are exactly the same. This means the
matrix components, such as chlorides, sulfates and organic
material, are continually changing, which makes the realworld analysis of FGDW samples very challenging.4
The new draft method, entitled “Standard Operating
Procedure: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
for Trace Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wastewaters” proposed by the U.S. EPA Office of Water
Engineering & Analysis Division, describes a procedure to
measure elements in FGD wastewaters by ICP-MS using
2
collision/reaction cell technology. This procedure is based
on Method 200.8 – the analysis of ground waters, surface
waters, drinking waters, and wastewaters by ICP-MS;5 and
Method 1638 – the determination of trace metals in ambient
waters by ICP-MS.6 Both these methods were designed to
support water quality programs under the Clean Water Act,
which requires the U.S. EPA to publish water quality criteria
that reflects the latest scientific knowledge concerning the
effect of pollutants on ecological and human health.
This procedure is applicable to the determination of thirteen
elements (Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, Ag, Tl, V and
Zn) in acid-digested FGD wastewater, utilizing a collision
and/or reaction cell to remove molecular interferences and
internal standardization to compensate for suppression and
enhancement effects caused by sample matrices.
Optimized Analytical Method
The objective of this particular study was to investigate
the capability of the NexION® 300 ICP-MS technology
(PerkinElmer, Shelton, CT) using the new draft U.S. EPA
procedure for FGDW. The NexION has been described in the
open literature,7 but it is worth outlining the benefits of the
technology for carrying out this extremely difficult analysis.
The instrument offers the simplicity and convenience of a
traditional collision cell with Kinetic Energy Discrimination
(KED) and the recognized superior detection limits of a true
reaction cell. With this patented Universal Cell Technology™
(UCT), analysts can now choose the most appropriate
collision/reaction cell conditions for each analyte in FGDW
samples, without any restrictions to the type of gases that
can be used. The three modes of interference removal
available in the NexION 300 are:
• Standard mode: The cell is actively vented. This enables
the instrument to be run in true Standard mode, with the
cell conditions optimized for maximum ion transmission.
For FGDW samples, this mode is ideal for heavy metals
like Pb and Tl, where there are very few polyatomic
spectral interferences to be concerned about.
• Collision mode: In this mode, the instrument offers
conventional collision cell capability with KED. By using
a non-reactive gas, such as helium (He), the Collision
mode with KED removes many of the simple solventand argon-based polyatomic spectral interferences. This
makes it ideal for elements such as Co, Ni, Cu and Zn,
which are prone to the larger cross-sectional polyatomic
interferences.
• Reaction mode: Recognized as the technique that
offers the ultimate detection capability, the instrument’s
true Reaction mode, also known as DRC (Dynamic
Reaction Cell™) technology, removes the majority of
interferences with little or no loss of analyte sensitivity.
DRC technology features a scanning quadrupole with
a bandpass that removes by-product reactions created
in the Universal Cell. Therefore any reaction gas can
be used. And by optimizing the cell’s quadrupole
conditions, only the element of interest is allowed to
pass through to the analyzing quadrupole. It is well
recognized that ion-molecule reaction chemistry offers
the very best performance for the reduction of polyatomic
interference.8 This would be the mode of choice for the
lowest possible detection limits for elements such as Cr, V
and Mn, which are recognized as being the most difficult
to determine in a complex FGDW matrix.
Instrument Parameters
A NexION 300D ICP-MS, coupled with an SC-DX FAST
(ESI, Omaha, NE) automated sample delivery system,
was used for the investigation. This intelligent delivery
system has been described in the open literature,9,10 but is
basically a rapid flow injection technique integrated into
an autosampler, which significantly reduces the pre- and
post-measurement times involved with delivering a new
sample to and removing the previous sample from the ICPMS. By optimizing these times, a significant improvement
can be made in the sample throughput. As a result, the
measurement time for 3 replicates was 1.5 minutes, and the
total analysis time, sample to sample, was 2.5 minutes for
the 22 isotopes monitored. The major ICP-MS instrument
operating parameters are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Instrument operating conditions.
The NexION also features a unique Triple Cone Interface
(TCI), which includes an additional hyper skimmer cone
to tightly define and focus the ion beam entering the
Quadrupole Ion Deflector (QID), with very little maintenance,
even for FGDW samples, other than the sampler and
skimmer cones. All three cones can be quickly and easily
removed, cleaned or replaced, which is particularly relevant
for the analysis of FGDWs that contain high levels of matrix
components.
Component/ParameterType/Value/Mode
The highly focused ion beam then emerges from the TCI
and enters a QID, which is designed around a proprietary,
miniaturized quadrupole. This breakthrough filtering
technology bends the ion beam 90 degrees, focusing those
of a specified mass into the universal cell and discarding all
neutral species into the turbo pump. The path through the
QID is aligned with the tightly defined beam leaving the TCI,
which ensures that ions and neutral species never impact
or degrade component surfaces within the cell, virtually
eliminating the need for cleaning. By removing the majority
of particulates, neutrals and photons, this practical design
significantly minimizes drift and delivers exceptional signal
stability, even when running the most challenging FGDW
sample matrices.
Nebulizer
PFA ST
Spray Chamber
Peltier-cooled baffled quartz cyclonic
Triple Cone Interface
MaterialNickel
Plasma Gas Flow
16.0 L/min
Auxiliary Gas Flow
1.2 L/min
Nebulizer Gas Flow
0.98 L/min
Sample Uptake Rate
270 µL/min
RF Power
1600 W
Analytes
Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, Ag,
Tl, V and Zn
Internal Standards
Sc, In, Ge (added on line)
Isotopes Monitored
22 (analytes and internal standards)
Modes of Operation 1. Standard
2. Collision/KED (He gas)
3. Reaction (NH3 gas)
Replicates per Sample
3
Measurement Time
(3 replicates)
1 min 30 sec
Analysis Time
(sample to sample)
2 min 30 sec
Method Sample Preparation
Sample preparation was carried out as follows: A ten-fold
dilution of FGDW samples were followed by an open-vessel
digestion in a block digester according to U.S. EPA Method
1638 – aqueous sample preparation – total recoverable
metals – Section 12.2.1-12.2.7. The final acid concentration
of samples, calibration standards, and blank was 2% HNO3
+ 0.5% HCl.
3
Proposed U.S. EPA FGDW Methodology
Before a suite of samples can be analyzed, a set of
protocols, similar in design to other U.S. EPA ICP-MS
analytical procedures such as Method 200.8, must be
followed to ensure the instrument is working at its optimum
performance.11 A summary of these protocols is shown
in Table 2. This analytical run sequence outlined should
be performed on a daily basis in order to meet all quality
control requirements. Note: The samples shown in the
first section of the table (steps 1-19) must be run once per
sequence, while the 10 samples and the final continuing
calibration verification (CCV) and continuing calibration
blank (CCB) samples must be repeated.
Table 2. A summary of the analytical run sequence of the
FGDW standard operating procedure (SOP).
1. Turn on instrument
2. Warm up instrument
3. Tune instrument
4. Perform mass calibration
5. Perform resolution check
Analyzed once per sequence
6. Validate tuning criteria
7. Calibration blank
8. Calibration standard 1
9. Calibration standard 2
10. Calibration standard 3
11. More standards if required
12. Initial calibration verification (ICV)
13. Initial calibration blank (ICB)
14. Reporting limit (RL) verification standard
15. Synthetic FGD wastewater matrix
16. Spiked synthetic FGD matrix
17. Continuing calibration blank (CCB) (carryover check)
18. Continuing calibration verification (CCV)
Must be repeated
19. Continuing calibration blank (CCB)
4
20. 10 Samples, which must contain a laboratory control
sample (LCS) plus one matrix spike (MS) and matrix
spike duplicate (MSD)
21.CCV
22.CCB
It’s also worth explaining some of the terminology in this
procedure, as typical performance data will be presented
later in the study.
• Initial calibration verification (ICV): Multielement
standard of known concentrations prepared to verify
instrument calibration. This solution must be an
independent standard prepared near the mid-point of the
calibration curve, and at a concentration other than that
used for instrument calibration.
• Continuing calibration verification (CCV): A multielement standard of known concentrations prepared
to monitor and verify the instrument’s daily continuing
performance. This is monitored after every ten (10)
samples and at the end of an analytical sequence.
• Reporting limit (RL) verification standard: The
minimum concentration that can be reported with a
specified degree of confidence. The RL can be no lower
than the concentration of the lowest initial calibration
standard.
• Laboratory control sample (LCS): A multielement
standard of known concentrations that is carried through
the entire sample preparation and analysis procedure.
This solution is used to verify method performance in an
ideal sample matrix.
• Synthetic FGD wastewater matrix: A prepared mixed
solution of major constituents at typical concentrations
found in FGDW.
• Matrix spike (MS): A laboratory fortified sample (LFS) to
which known concentrations of the analyte elements of
interest are added. This fortified sample is taken through
all preparation and analytical steps of the procedure. The
results are used to determine the effectiveness of the
digestion procedure and any effects of the sample matrix
on analyte-recovery efficiency.
This procedure has to be carried out on a daily basis.
However, instrument detection limits (IDLs) must be carried
out on a quarterly basis and method detection limits (MDLs)
have to be carried out on an annual basis. It’s important
to emphasize that an initial IDL and MDL study must be
performed on each instrument before samples can be
analyzed. IDLs and MDLs are calculated in the following way:
Table 3. NexION 300D instrument detection limits (IDLs)
and dilution-corrected method detection limits (MDLs)
achievable in FGDW samples, together with the analyte
masses, cell mode and internal standards used.
Analyte/ InternalIDL MDL
Mass (amu) Mode
Standard
(μg/L)
(μg/L)
Al - 27
Standard
Sc
0.040
0.54
• Instrument detection limit (IDL): Prepare ten (10)
separate calibration blanks. For each analyte, analyze the
10 blanks in triplicate on three non-consecutive days. The
IDL is equal to three (3) times the standard deviation of
the ten blank measurement results, expressed as μg/L.
V - 51
Reaction
In
0.001
0.02
Cr - 52
Reaction
In
0.005
0.09
Mn - 55
Reaction
In
0.007
0.27
Ni - 60
Collision
Ge
0.005
0.28
Cu - 63
Collision
Ge
0.011
0.30
• Method detection limit (MDL): Prepare seven (7)
samples at 3-5x the estimated MDL concentration, as
described in the U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 136
Appendix B. Note: the MDL samples should be prepared
in the Synthetic FGD wastewater matrix. Analyze the MDL
standards in triplicate. Calculate the standard deviation
of the concentration(s) in μg/L for each analyte. The MDL
is calculated as the student’s t-value for the degrees of
freedom (i.e., 3.143 for 6 degrees of freedom) multiplied
by the standard deviation.
Zn - 66
Collision
Ge
0.065
1.20
As - 75
Collision
Ge
0.019
0.30
Se - 78
Collision
Ge
0.190
2.20
Ag - 107
Standard
In
0.001
0.03
Cd - 111
Collision
Ge
0.007
0.10
Tl - 205
Standard
In
0.001
0.01
Pb - 208
Standard
In
0.002
0.20
Synthetic FGDW Samples
Analytical Results
To show the applicability of the NexION 300D ICP-MS for
the analysis of FGDW samples, a number of selected tests
from the described procedure were carried out.
Table 4 represents a typical synthetic FGDW matrix as
defined by the U.S. EPA.
Table 4. Typical concentration of matrix components in a
synthetic FGDW sample.
Instrument and Method Detection Limits
Matrix
Table 3 shows multielement instrument and method
detection limits achievable on the NexION 300D ICP-MS,
together with the analyte masses, internal standards and
cell mode used. The IDLs were measured in 2% HNO3/0.5%
HCl, while MDLs were measured in a synthetic FGD matrix
(dilution corrected). However, because several analytes were
present at relatively high concentration in the synthetic
FGD, the matrix was not spiked for the MDL measurement.
As a result, the MDLs are directly related to the level of
contamination in the synthetic FGD matrix.
Chloride5000
Concentration (mg/L)
Calcium2000
Magnesium1000
Sulfate2000
Sodium1000
Butanol2000
5
Table 5 shows 3 different sources of synthetic FGDW matrix,
emphasizing the very different elemental contamination
levels in each solution (dilution corrected).
Table 5. Three different sources of synthetic FGDW matrix,
showing different elemental contamination levels.
Analyte/
Mass (amu)
SyntheticSynthetic Synthetic
FGDW #1
FGDW #2
FGDW #3
(μg/L)
(μg/L)
(μg/L)
Al - 27
36.4
5.33
7.16
V - 51
5.11
4.31
0.19
Cr - 52
2.97
0.76
1.38
Mn - 55
37.3
25.4
7.02
Ni - 60
4.36
7.44
1.42
Cu - 63
2.35
1.78
3.03
Zn - 66
5.84
27.6
9.26
As - 75
1.11
2.88
1.09
Se - 78
3.10
4.21
3.04
Ag - 107
0.22
2.33
0.31
Cd - 111
3.25
3.92
0.11
Tl - 205
0.19
0.94
0.05
Pb - 208
1.36
9.23
5.37
Table 6 shows the third source (FGDW #3) of synthetic
FGDW sample, which has been spiked with 40 μg/L of
analytes. Note: this spike was carried out after a 10x dilution
and before sample digestion. This is known as the laboratory
fortified sample (LFS) spike recovery test, for which the U.S.
EPA has set recovery limits of ±30%. It can be seen that
the spike recoveries of this LFS are well within the U.S.
EPA guidelines.
Table 6. Synthetic FGDW #3 sample, which has been spiked
with 40 μg/L of analytes.
Analyte/
Synthetic FGDW Spike Value
Spike
Mass (amu)
#3 (μg/L)
(μg/L)
Recovery (%)
6
Al - 27
7.16
40
111.1
V - 51
0.19
40
114.0
Cr - 52
1.38
40
106.8
Mn - 55
7.02
40
111.6
Ni - 60
1.42
40
100.1
Cu - 63
3.03
40
93.0
Zn - 66
9.26
40
94.0
As - 75
1.09
40
110.5
Se - 78
3.04
40
108.3
Ag - 107
0.31
40
90.0
Cd - 111
0.11
40
107.3
Tl - 205
0.05
40
102.6
Pb - 208
5.37
40
94.2
Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) Standard
The procedure states that the CCV has to be analyzed every
10 samples and also at the end of every analytical run,
and every element must achieve a recovery of 85-115%.
In addition, the internal standard must achieve a 60-125%
recovery over that timeframe. For that reason, it is critical
that the instrument drift specification is well within these
guidelines to ensure good accuracy and precision. With that
in mind, 110 FGDW samples were analyzed over 4.5 hours
with the CCV QC standard at 50 μg/L being measured every
10 samples. As can be seen in Figure 2 (Page 7), the stability
over that time was well within ±15% limit for all analytes.
The three internal standards (115In, 45Sc , and 72Ge) were
monitored during the 4.5 hour run. These data are seen in
Figure 3 (Page 7) and show that the drift was well within
the 60-125% recovery guidelines, as defined by the U.S. EPA.
Sample Results, Matrix Spikes (MS) and Matrix Spike
Duplicates (MSD)
Matrix spikes (MSs) were prepared by taking a second aliquot
of selected samples and spiking them with the analytes of
interest at 40 μg/L. Matrix spike duplicates (MSDs) were
prepared by taking a third aliquot of selected samples and
spiking them in the same way. The MSs and MSDs are
processed in the same manner as the samples. One MS/MSD
pair must be measured every 10 samples and the limits are
not to exceed 70-130% recovery, and 20% relative percent
difference (RPD).
Three real-world FGDW sample results, the MS/MSD and
RPD data are shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9 (Pages 7-8). Values
are reported in a 10x dilution of the samples, which were
all spiked at 40 μg/L. It can be seen that the spikes in all
three samples have been recovered well within the U.S.
EPA 70-130% recovery guideline (with the exception of Se,
which was 132.5%), while RPD values are all less than 6%,
which is well below the 20% guidelines set by the U.S. EPA.
It should also be noted that the Mn spike recovery was not
listed in sample #3 because the spike concentration was too
low in comparison with the sample concentration.
Figure 2. A 4.5 hour stability run of a CCV standard (50 μg/L for all elements) analyzed every 10 real
FGDW samples. A total of 110 samples were measured during this time.
Figure 3. Internal standard recovery in 4.5 hour long stability run.
Table 7. MS/MSD and RPD data for real-world FGDW sample #1.
Analyte/Mass Sample #1 Sample #1
Sample #1
RPD
Spike
(amu)
(μg/L)
+ Spike
+ Spike Dup
(%)
Recovery
(μg/L)(μg/L) (%)
Al - 27
18.5
58.5
59.1
1.0
99.9
V - 51
1.46
47.1
48.6
3.1
114.2
Cr - 52
1.59
45.1
45.7
1.3
108.7
Mn - 55
10.1
53.7
54.6
1.6
109.0
Ni - 60
0.33
39.8
39.2
1.5
98.6
Cu - 63
0.11
38.4
38.2
0.5
95.6
Zn - 66
1.14
41.4
42.3
2.1
100.7
As - 75
0.50
40.9
40.9
0.1
101.0
Se - 78
47.8
100.8
99.4
1.4
132.5
Ag - 107
<0.003
34.9
33.7
3.3
87.1
Cd - 111
<0.01
40.6
40.8
0.5
101.4
Tl - 205
1.10
38.6
37.5
2.7
93.7
Pb - 208
0.007
34.8
33.7
3.1
86.9
7
Conclusion
Table 8. MS/MSD and RPD data for real-world FGDW sample #2.
Analyte/Mass Sample #2 Sample #2
Sample #2 RPD
Spike
(amu)
(μg/L)
+ Spike
+ Spike Dup
(%)
Recovery
(μg/L)(μg/L) (%)
Al - 27
16.6
55.9
56.6
1.3
98.3
V - 51
0.19
46.0
44.8
2.8
114.6
Cr - 52
0.19
43.6
43.2
0.8
108.5
Mn - 55
1.81
44.7
45.0
0.7
107.2
Ni - 60
4.96
45.6
45.0
1.2
101.5
Cu - 63
2.24
39.5
38.4
2.7
93.1
Zn - 66
1.74
40.4
38.8
3.9
96.6
As - 75
0.40
44.8
44.6
0.5
111.0
Se - 78
36.5
84.2
81.1
3.7
119.3
Ag - 107
<0.003
35.6
37.2
4.5
89.0
Cd - 111
<0.01
42.0
40.4
3.9
105.1
Tl - 205
0.03
42.1
43.6
3.6
105.2
Pb - 208
0.09
39.3
41.2
4.6
98.1
Table 9. MS/MSD and RPD data for real-world FGDW sample #3.
Analyte/Mass Sample #3 Sample #3
Sample #3 RPD
Spike
(amu)
(μg/L)
+ Spike
+ Spike Dup
(%)
Recovery
(μg/L)(μg/L) (%)
Al - 27
4.82
40.2
40.9
1.7
88.5
V - 51
0.04
44.3
44.1
0.4
110.7
Cr - 52
0.09
42.3
42.7
1.0
105.5
Mn - 55
2191
2194
2227
1.5
N/A
Ni - 60
0.74
40.3
39.3
2.3
98.8
Cu - 63
0.04
35.6
35.3
0.7
88.9
Zn - 66
0.42
36.3
37.1
2.1
89.7
As - 75
0.60
43.8
43.5
0.7
108.0
Se - 78
17.8
64.0
60.5
5.5
115.5
Ag - 107
<0.003
34.1
34.6
1.6
85.2
Cd - 111
<0.01
40.7
40.5
0.5
101.7
Tl - 205
1.10
44.1
44.3
0.5
107.5
Pb - 208
<0.02
38.7
39.3
1.5
96.7
N/A = Not applicable, because the spike concentration was too low compared to the
sample concentration.
Flue gas desulfurization wastewater
samples are among the most difficult
samples to analyze by ICP-MS. The
extremely high levels of sulfates,
chloride, alkali/alkaline earth/heavy
metals and organic species in the
sample can cause a multitude of
problems. Some of these problem
areas include very high concentrations
of matrix components that produce
severe sample transport effects, unless
the necessary sample delivery steps are
taken. In addition, the heavy matrix has
the potential to cause serious signal
drift by depositing material on the
interface cones. The extremely high
levels of carbon can also impact the
ionization temperature in the plasma,
leading to suppression or enhancement
effects on the analytes of interest. And
finally, the high chloride, sulfate and
carbon levels will generate ions in the
plasma that combine with argon-,
solvent- and acid-based species to
produce severe polyatomic spectral
interferences on many of the analytes.
For these reasons, it is absolutely
critical that the analyst has all the
necessary tools to minimize the effects
of all these potential interferences.
The investigation has shown that
the NexION 300D ICP-MS has many
of these advanced interference
reduction tools to successfully analyze
FGDW waters according to U.S. EPA
methodology. From the discrete, fast
sampling, through the Triple Cone
Interface (TCI) to minimize drift, to the
Universal Cell reducing or removing
many severe spectral interferences, the
system can generate a high-quality,
stable signal over many hours of
operation. And finally, the Quadrupole
Ion Deflector (QID) allows for the
maximum throughput of ions, while
maintaining extremely low background
levels. This study has demonstrated
that the NexION 300D ICP-MS,
coupled with an SC-DX FAST system,
is ideally suited to cope with the
analytical demands of this very difficult
application.
8
References
1. U.S. EPA Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet
related to the FGDW process –http://www.epa.gov/
ttncatc1/dir1/ffdg.pdf
2. U.S. EPA Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA 821-R-09-008)
– http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/upload/
finalreport.pdf
3. Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry for Trace
Element Analysis in Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater:
EPA Office of Water Engineering & Analysis Division,
May 2011.
4. Trace Metals Determination in Flue Gas Desulfurization
Waters: Optimization of Dynamic Reaction Cell ICP-MS.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1017978 – http://my.epri.com/
portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001017978
5. U.S. EPA Method 200.8: “Determination of Trace
Elements in Waters and Wastewaters by Inductively
Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry,” 1994 – http://
www.epa.gov/sam/pdfs/EPA-200.8.pdf
6. U.S. EPA Method 1638. “Determination of Trace Elements
in Ambient Waters by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass
Spectrometry,”1996 – http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
methods/cwa/bioindicators/upload/2007_07_10_methods_
method_1638.pdf
7. The 30-Minute Guide to ICP-MS – PerkinElmer, Inc.
8. S.D. Tanner, V.I. Baranov, Atomic Spectroscopy, 20, 2,
45-52, (1999).
9. Improving Throughput of Environmental Samples by ICPMS Following EPA Method 200.8, ESI Application Note –
http://www.icpms.com/products/sc-fast-enviro.php
10. Improved Performance in the Analysis of Drinking Waters
and Wastewaters by U.S. EPA Method 200.8 with an
SC-FAST System – PerkinElmer, Inc.
11. The Analysis of Drinking Waters by U.S. EPA Method
200.8: Using the NexION 300D ICP-MS in Standard,
Collision and Reaction Modes – PerkinElmer, Inc.
PerkinElmer, Inc.
940 Winter Street
Waltham, MA 02451 USA
P: (800) 762-4000 or
(+1) 203-925-4602
www.perkinelmer.com
For a complete listing of our global offices, visit www.perkinelmer.com/ContactUs
Copyright ©2012-2014, PerkinElmer, Inc. All rights reserved. PerkinElmer® is a registered trademark of PerkinElmer, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
010397A_01
Similar pages