Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Water Air & Soil Pol...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Water Air & Soil Pollution
Article . 1994 . Peer-reviewed
License: Springer TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Aluminium speciation: Variations caused by the choice of analytical method and by sample storage

Authors: Maria Berd�n; Nicholas Clarke; Lars -G�ran Danielsson; Anders Spar�n;

Aluminium speciation: Variations caused by the choice of analytical method and by sample storage

Abstract

We have compared a new FIA method (M1) for aluminium speciation in natural waters and a manual one based on one of Driscoll's proposals (M2). In synthetic solutions, aluminium's fluoro complexes were measured as ‘labile monomeric AP (Ali) by M2, but not as ‘quickly reacting Al’ (Alqr) by M1. Aluminium's complexes with Nordic Reference Humic Acid were measured neither as Ali nor as Alqr, and the same result was obtained for Al's citrato complexes. After excluding aluminium's fluoro complexes from Ali, the results of the two methods agreed well for soil leaching samples and fairly well for natural water samples. Detection limits: 10μg L−1 (ca. 0.4 μM) for both methods. Sample throughputs: M1∶66 injections h−1; M2∶5 samples h−1. Repeatabilities (RSD) on natural water samples: M1∶0.6–5.8% and M2 0.7–4.6%.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    14
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
14
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!