[tinapratiwi]

I worked in the company of gold and silver jewelry. This time the company needs AAS analysis tool, to analyze the content of silver, copper, zinc and gold in sample,
The type and brand of what is the appropriate tool for our company?
Help me and thank you to answer...
   

[JGK]

Have you considered Xray fluorescence (XRF) instead?

With AAS you would have to process the sample and analyse for each individual element against a calibration prepared by the analyst. 

XRFcan be done on solid samples and would detect/quantify the metals you are looking for and can be employed as a standardless technique which rely on built-in mathematical algorithms that describe the physics of the detector response to pure elements.

[marquis]

There are many manufacturers who make good atomic absorption instruments.  Varian, perkin elmer, etc all have good reputations.  A call to the salesmen will give you a flurry of folders and contacts.

It might be a good idea to examine related techniques, like ICP-OE or EDXRF.  All have their advantages. 

A safety note on analyzing many of these metals by flame atomic absorption.  The common flame uses air- acetylene or nitrous oxide- acetylene.  Silver and copper can form silver and copper acetylides during analysis.  These compounds are explosive. You need to make sure the burner is well cleaned out and flushed out after analyzing these elements. 

[tinapratiwi]

if it was what the benefits of ICP-EOS and EDXRF  than AAS?

[marquis]

With AA, you need to dissolve the metal in an acid and then analyze the solution, typically one metal at a time.  A specific lamp is used for each element.

ICP uses a similar sample prepartion, but does not require the lamps.  It is faster than AA, and usually more expensive.

EDXRF is none destructive.  No acid digestion is needed.  You do need to set up a calibration curve, which is usually more difficult than with AA.  You don't use lamps (a plus) but do use x-rays (a minus).  Cost varies, but many EDXRF instruments are more expensive than a comparable AA. 

[tinapratiwi]

thank you marquis...
but if I still work with AAS to know the composition of Silver,  I need wavelength of Silver, right?
do you know range of wavelength of silver, rhodium and Copper (ppm) ?

[JGK]

thank you marquis...
but if I still work with AAS to know the composition of Silver,  I need wavelength of Silver, right?
do you know range of wavelength of silver, rhodium and Copper (ppm) ?

With AAS you would buy the specific lamps for silver, rhodium and copper analyses the instrument should select the wavelength based on the lamp selection. If not the user manual should have all the information you need

[tinapratiwi]

thax you JGK...
what do you think about ICP-OES? Does the instrument more completely than AAS?
using ICP_OES is good, but not the tool should be a solid sample?
Because the sample would I analysis is a liquid.

[JGK]

for both AAS and ICP AES/OES, solids would have to be conversted in to liquid samples .

However, what you have to consider is the probable levels you want to detect. IF you want sensitive detection of "trace" impurities the ICP may be better. However, of the metals you listed (silver, copper, zinc and gold), the chances are none of these will be at "trace" levels consequently AAS would be a better option.

AS well as instrument choice you should also consider:

Instrument cost
General Running costs
Maintenance cost
Avaialbility of service personnel
Sample processing costs
Number and frequency of samples to be analysed.


Having an ICP may seem like a great idea but if you onlyhave enough samles to operate it 1 or 2 days per week it's not a cost effective choice.

[ToxLabRat]

I would strongly suggest that you consider ICP-MS.  Yes, they are more expensive than GFAA, however, with ICP-MS you can scan for all of the analytes simultaneously, whereas with the GFAA, you will have to run each analyte seperatley.  Also, because of the sample type in which you are going to be analyzing, you really need something that can help you with interfering isotopes (which will be an issue for you).  With ICP-MS you can not only monitor these interferring isotopes, but you can also get an ICP-MS with collision cell for dynamic reaction cell technology which helps to reduce certain interferences, such as polyatomic interferences.  Then there is the consideration of accuracy and traceability.  The ICP-MS is far superior to the GFAA in this area, and if you are wanting to get the true assay of your metals, then this is the way to go.
You can avoid digestion methods if you opt for the laser ablation autosampler.
Another consideration (and I do not know how large your facility is or what your manufacturing set up is), but if you have any waste streams that result from your production, then by having that ICP-MS there, you could actually perform your own wastewater monitoring and save some money there as well.  Just some things to consider.
No matter whether you go GFAA or ICP-MS or even ICP-OES/AES, I will strongly advise you to go with a Perkin Elmer-Trust me on that! http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/ProductInfoPage.htm?ProductID=N8120539