摘 要 水質分析方法中,分析硫酸鹽的濁度法、離子層析法及分析氯鹽的滴定法、離子層析法,均為使用經年且相當成熟的分析分法;本研究經由添加標準品分析的方式,獲得添加標準品分析之回收率分別在87.1 ~ 124.4%、90.3 ~ 115.4%及76.5 ~ 118.4%的範圍,證實在地熱谷強酸性溫泉水的分析上,並未因含高濃度硫酸鹽及氯鹽之故,而產生嚴重基質干擾的情形。 其次,針對地熱谷的水質,於離子項目的分析方法比較部分,分別以[濁度法、離子層析法]及[滴定法、離子層析法]做硫酸鹽及氯鹽在分析方法上的比較;硫酸鹽方面,若在可選擇且著重分析效率的考量下,IC操作是較佳選擇;氯鹽方面,若在大量樣品且著重分析效率的考量下,以IC操作較佳,但若僅分析氯鹽或在有限經費的限制下,則滴定法也是不錯的選擇。 同樣的針對地熱谷的水質,在金屬分析部分,分別以0、30、60、90及120分鐘進行不同消化時間對分析結果影響之探討;在6個項目共18個數據組(每個數據組包括5個不同消化時間的樣品)的分析結果中,15個數據組顯示以僅經過過濾而不消化及僅消化30分鐘的樣品濃度最高,佔83.3%,2組消化0或30分鐘之結果濃度與最高濃度則幾無差距,佔11.1%,兩者共佔94.4%;根據該結果,本研究建議:分析地熱谷水質中的金屬成分,以消化30分鐘以內為佳。
Abstract Turbidimetric Method for sulfate analysis, as well as Ion Chromatographic (IC) Method for sulfate and chloride ion, are both mature approaches that have been used for many years. In this study, by adding standards we obtained the return rates of 87.1-124.4%, 90.3-115.4%, and 76.5-118.4% respectively, which suggested that the high concentration of sulfate and chloride ion does not have matrix interference on the examination of strong acid water in Hell hot spring valley. Comparing Turbidimetric Method and IC Method in testing sulfate in the water of Hell hot spring valley, we found the latter is better when considering analytical efficiency. On the other hand, when testing chloride ion, IC Method is preferable for its analysis capacity and less cost, while Mercuric Nitrate Method is acceptable if only chloride ion is concerned with limited expense. For metal analysis, we tested six items with three samples each, given each sample five digesting time, 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 minutes, i.e. 18 data groups. Among them, 15 groups showed the highest concentration in samples digested 0 and 30 minutes; also, there was no significant difference between the highest concentration and that of the 0- or 30-minute sample. Therefore, 30 minutes or less is the best digesting time for examining metal components in Hell hot spring valley water.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。