What is the expected analyte recovery when the relative intensity (RI) is zero in an LLE experiment with a selectivity coefficient of 0.825 and an error of 4.82%?
Answer from top 10 papers
The selectivity coefficient, often denoted as \( K' \), is a measure of the relative extraction efficiency of an analyte versus an interferent during a liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) process. A selectivity coefficient of 0.825 suggests that the analyte is less preferentially extracted compared to the interferent. When analyzing a sample with an interferent:analyte ratio of 1:5, an error of 4.82% indicates that the quantification of the analyte is slightly affected by the presence of the interferent, but the impact is relatively low.
The recovery of the analyte in an LLE process is the percentage of the total amount of the analyte that is successfully extracted from the original matrix into the extractant layer. The recovery is influenced by various factors, including the selectivity of the extraction process, the partitioning behavior of the analyte, and the experimental conditions. If the relative intensity (RI) is zero, this implies that there is no signal from the interferent affecting the analyte signal.
Given that the selectivity coefficient and the error percentage do not directly provide the recovery value, and without additional specific data on the extraction efficiency or the relationship between the selectivity coefficient and recovery, it is not possible to calculate the exact value of the analyte recovery. However, if the error due to the interferent is minimal and RI is zero, one could infer that the recovery of the analyte is likely to be high, assuming that the LLE method is efficient and other experimental conditions are optimized for the analyte of interest.
In summary, without explicit data correlating the selectivity coefficient or the error percentage to the recovery rate, the exact value of the analyte recovery cannot be determined from the provided information. The recovery rate would typically be determined empirically through calibration and validation of the LLE method under the specific conditions used by the students (Chytil et al., 2010).
Source Papers