Abstract

This work assesses the components contributing to the combined uncertainty budget associated with the measurement of the Fe amount content by flow injection chemiluminescence (FI‐CL) in <0.2 μm filtered and acidified seawater samples. Amounts of loaded standard solutions and samples were determined gravimetrically by differential weighing. Up to 5% variations in the loaded masses were observed during measurements, in contradiction to the usual assumptions made when operating under constant loading time conditions. Hence signal intensities (V) were normalised to the loaded mass and plots of average normalised intensities (in V kg−1) vs. values of the Fe amount content (in nmol kg−1) added to a “low level” iron seawater matrix were used to produce the calibration graphs. The measurement procedure implemented and the uncertainty estimation process developed were validated from the agreement obtained with consensus values for three SAFe and GEOTRACES reference materials (D2, GS, and GD). Relative expanded uncertainties for peak height and peak area based results were estimated to be around 12% and 10% (coverage factor k = 2), respectively. The most important contributory factors were the uncertainty on the sensitivity coefficient (i.e., calibration slope) and the within‐sequence‐stability (i.e., the signal stability over several hours of operation; here 32 h). For GD, using peak height measurements, these factors contributed respectively 69.7% and 21.6% while the short‐term repeatability accounted for only 7.9%. Therefore, an uncertainty estimation based on the intensity repeatability alone, as is often done in FI‐CL studies, is not a realistic estimation of the overall uncertainty of the procedure.

Highlights

  • This work assesses the components contributing to the combined uncertainty budget associated with the measurement of the Fe amount content by flow injection chemiluminescence (FI-CL) in

  • Since consensus values are available for the Fe amount content in samples from the SAFe and GEOTRACES campaigns (GEOTRACES 2013), these data were compared with results obtained by application of the model for combined uncertainty estimation and the calculations described above

  • It can be seen that both peak height and peak area based results are systematically lower than the consensus values

Read more

Summary

Amount content in the sample CS

Blank corrected sample signal intensity divided by the sensitivity (calibration slope) of the measurement procedure: CS. 2. Normalised signal intensity for the sample JS a. Normalised signal intensity for the sample accounting for all sources b. Average normalised raw signal intensity for consecutive replicates: JR Normalised signal intensity for the analytical blank JB oSf5u1nnX ciertmaISiSni ity:. Calibration slope F the analytical blank accounting for intensity for consecutive replicates all sources of under closed uncertainty: JB5J R B Á dstab sample line conditions: JR

Amount content of the added Fe in the calibration standards r Cstd j 22
Findings
Discussion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.