Does bottle type and acid-washing influence trace element analyses by ICP-MS on water samples?: A test covering 62 elements and four bottle types: high density polyethene (HDPE), polypropene (PP), fluorinated ethene propene copolymer (FEP) and perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA)

Abstract

Groundwater samples from 15 boreholes in crystalline bedrock aquifers in South Norway (Oslo area) have been collected in parallel in five different clear plastic bottle types (high density polyethene [HDPE], polypropene [PP, two manufacturers], fluorinated ethene propene copolymer [FEP] and perfluoroalkoxy polymer [PFA]. In the cases of polyethene and polypropene, parallel samples have been collected in factory-new (unwashed) bottles and acid-washed factory-new bottles. Samples have been analysed by ICP-MS techniques for a wide range of inorganic elements down to the ppt (ng/l) range. It was found that acid-washing of factory-new flasks had no clear systematic beneficial effect on analytical result. On the contrary, for the PP-bottles concentrations of Pb and Sn were clearly elevated in the acid-washed bottles. Likewise, for the vast majority of elements, bottle type was of no importance for analytical result. For six elements (Al, Cr, Hf, Hg, Pb and Sn) some systematic differences for one or more bottle types could be tentatively discerned, but in no case was the discrepancy of major cause for concern. The most pronounced effect was for Cr, with clearly elevated concentrations returned from the samples collected in HDPE bottles, regardless of acid-washing or not. For the above six elements, FEP or PFA bottles seemed to be marginally preferable to PP and HDPE. In general, cheap HDPE, factory new, unwashed flasks are suitable for sampling waters for ICP-MS ultra-trace analysis of the elements tested.