Advertisement

Polymer Bulletin

, Volume 76, Issue 5, pp 2411–2425 | Cite as

Comparison of plain and indoline modified mercury film electrodes for determination of lead, cadmium and copper in urine samples by anodic stripping voltammetry

  • Serap Titretir DuranEmail author
  • A. Ersin Karagözler
Original Paper

Abstract

The objective of this work is to assess response characteristics of conventional mercury film (MFE) and (poly)indoline modified mercury film electrodes (ICMFE) in determination of Cu, Pb and Cd ions by voltammetric stripping analysis. Parameters regarding to mercury and polymer film formations (such as potential, electrochemical mode chosen for film growth, polymer and mercury film thicknesses) and supporting electrolyte type and pH in stripping analysis were thoroughly studied, and conditions providing the highest and most stable responses for the three test metal ions were determined for both electrode types. Performances of the electrodes were evaluated in terms of sensitivity and selectivity in both synthetic aqueous solutions and urine samples. Responses at ICMFE were invariably much lower compared to that obtained at plain MFE. Decomposition of urine samples by hot mineral acid gave rise to enhanced responses at both electrodes. However, ICMFE always exhibited negative selectivity toward Cd even in acid decomposed urine samples. Reliability of the concentration values calculated by the method of standard addition in complex matrices, such as urine, was discussed comprehensively on statistical basis.

Keywords

Stripping voltammetry Mercury film electrode Polymer modified mercury film electrode Urine sample Cu Cd Pb Heavy metal ions 

References

  1. 1.
    Wang J, Hutchins-Kulmar LD (1986) Cellulose acetate coated mercury film electrodes for anodic stripping voltammetry. Anal Chem 58:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoyer B, Florence TM, Batley GE (1987) Application of polymer-coated glassy carbon electrodes in anodic stripping voltammetry. Anal Chem 59:1608–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ge H, Zhao H, Wallace GG (1990) Development of a polymer dispersed-mercury modified electrode. Anal Chim Acta 238:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalangin RR, Gunasingham H (1994) Mercury(II) acetate-Nafion modified electrode for anodic stripping voltammetry of lead and copper with flow-injection analysis. Anal Chim Acta 291:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoyer B, Jensen N (1994) Signal stability of Nafion-coated thin mercury film electrodes for stripping voltammetry. Talanta 41(3):449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dam MER, Thomsen KN, Pickup PG, Schroder KH (1995) Comparative-study of polymer-coated mercury film electrodes for voltammetric analysis of lead and cadmium in the presence of surfactants. Electroanalysis 7:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckova M, Vanickova M, Labuda J (1996) Some analytical properties of the Nafion-coated mercury film electrode. Chem Pap 50(5):279–282Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dam MER, Schroder KH (1996) Mercury film electrodes coated with negatively charged polymer films in speciation studies of trace amounts of lead. Electroanalysis 8:1040–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matysik FM, Matysik S, Brett AMO, Brett CMA (1997) Ultrasound enhanced anodic stripping voltammetry using perfluorosulfonated ionomer-coated mercury thin-film electrodes. Anal Chem 69:1651–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brett CMA, Fungaro DA, Morgado JM, Gil MH (1999) Novel polymer-modified electrodes for batch injection sensors and application to environmental analysis. J Electroanal Chem 468:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brett CMA, Fungaro DA (2000) Poly(ester sulphonic acid) coated mercury thin film electrodes: characterization and application in batch injection analysis stripping voltammetry of heavy metal ions. Talanta 50:1223–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zen JM, Chung MJ (1996) Square-wave voltammetric stripping analysis of bismuth(III) at a poly(4-vinylpyridine)/mercury film electrode. Anal Chim Acta 320:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsai YC, Davis J, Compton RG, Ito S, Ono N (2001) Polypyrrole coated mercury film electrodes for sono-ASV analysis of cadmium and lead. Electroanalysis 13:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monterroso SSC, Carapuca HM, Duarte AC (2003) Performance of poly(styrenesulfonate)–coated thin mercury film electrodes in the determination of lead and copper in estuarine water samples of high salinity. Electroanalysis 15:1878–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rocha LS, Pinherio JP, Carapuca HM (2006) Ion-exchange voltammetry with Nafion/poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) mixed coating on mercury film electrodes: characterization studies and application toy he determination of trace metals. Langmuir 22:8241–8247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silva CP, Carapuca HM, Rocha LS, Pinheiro JP (2009) Evaluation of poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) film coating in thin mercury film electrodes for lead determination. J Electroanal Chem 626:192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozden M, Ekinci E, Karagozler AE (1998) Synthesis and optimization of permselective polymer (polyindoline) film. J Solid State Electrochem 2:427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lippe J, Rudolf H (1992) The anion-specific effect in the overoxidation of polyaniline and polyindoline. J Electroanal Chem 339:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller JN, Miller JC (2005) Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry, 5th edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, EnglandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Sciencesİnönü UniversityMalatyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and SciencesAdnan Menderes UniversityAydınTurkey

Personalised recommendations