杜艳丽, 刘世安, 何俊. 饮用水中氨氮的3种测定方法比对研究[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2020, 10(6): 602-605. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2020.06.016
    引用本文: 杜艳丽, 刘世安, 何俊. 饮用水中氨氮的3种测定方法比对研究[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2020, 10(6): 602-605. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2020.06.016
    DU YanLi, LIU ShiAn, HE Jun. Comparison Experiment on Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen in Drinking Water with Three Methods[J]. Journal of Environmental Hygiene, 2020, 10(6): 602-605. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2020.06.016
    Citation: DU YanLi, LIU ShiAn, HE Jun. Comparison Experiment on Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen in Drinking Water with Three Methods[J]. Journal of Environmental Hygiene, 2020, 10(6): 602-605. DOI: 10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2020.06.016

    饮用水中氨氮的3种测定方法比对研究

    Comparison Experiment on Determination of Ammonia Nitrogen in Drinking Water with Three Methods

    • 摘要:
      目的 比较连续流动分析法、离子色谱分析法和纳氏试剂光度法测定生活饮用水中氨氮的差异性。
      方法 采用连续流动分析法、离子色谱分析法和纳氏试剂光度法测定饮用水中氨氮的含量,比较3种分析方法的检出限,精密度,准确度以及加标回收,并对水样的测定结果进行方差分析,并采用Q检验进行两两比较。
      结果 连续流动分析法测定的相对偏差(RSD)为0.61%,加标回收率为96.0%~97.5%。离子色谱法测定的相对偏差(RSD)为0.41%,加标回收率为97.7%~102.1%。纳氏试剂分光光度法测定的相对偏差(RSD)为2.6%,加标回收率为93.3%~105.0%。结果表明3种分析方法都可以满足实验室质量控制要求,测定结果无显著性差异(F=1.199,P>0.05)。
      结论 与国家标准方法纳氏试剂光度法相比,另外两种方法简单、快速、无污染适用于大批量样品分析。连续流动分析法测定氨氮的同时还可测定饮用水中的挥发酚、阴离子合成洗涤剂、氰化物等。

       

      Abstract:
      Objectives To investigate the differences among continuous flow analysis, ion chromatography, and Nessler's reagent spectrophotometry in determining ammonia nitrogen in drinking water.
      Methods The method of continuous flow analysis, ion chromatography, and Nessler's reagent spectrophotometry were respectively used to determine ammonia nitrogen in drinking water and were compared in terms of detection limit, precision, accuracy, and recovery rate of standard addition. An analysis of variance was used to analyze the determination result of water samples, and the Q-test was used for comparison between any two method.
      Results Continuous flow analysis had a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 0.61% and a recovery rate of standard addition of 96.0%~97.5%; ion chromatography had a RSD of 0.41% and a recovery rate of standard addition of 97.7%~102.1%; Nessler's reagent spectrophotometry had a RSD of 2.6% and a recovery rate of standard addition of 93.3%~105.0%. The result showed that all three method met the requirement for laboratory quality control, and there was no significant difference in determination result (F=1.199, P>0.05).
      Conclusions Compared with Nessler's reagent spectrophotometry, continuous flow analysis and ion chromatography are simple, convenient, and rapid without pollution and can be used for the determination of ammonia nitrogen in a large number of drinking water samples. Continuous flow analysis can simultaneously determine volatile phenol, anionic synthetic detergent, and cyanide in drinking water.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回