Using of OSC-PLS chemometry method for simultaneous determination of Gallium and Nickel in Echinacea purpurea and Humulus lupulus soil by UV-Vis Spectrophotometer
Subject Areas : Geneticمازیار Ahmadi Golsefidi 1 , R.A Rajabzadeh 2 , H.R Jalilian 3
1 - Chemistry Department, Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University- Gorgan Branch, Gorgan, Iran
2 - Chemistry Department, Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University- Gorgan Branch, Gorgan, Iran
3 - Chemistry Department, Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University- Gorgan Branch, Gorgan, Iran
Keywords: soil, Nickel, Humulus lupulus, Echinacea purpurea, Chemometry, Gallium,
Abstract :
Echinacea purpurea and Humulus lupulus are two strategic medicinal plants in Golestan province and have many usage in pharmaceutical and food industries. Heavy metals like gallium and nickel in a standard concentration range are accepted for the soil of these two plants. Extra concentration of the elements can aggregate and poisoned the metabolite activities in plants. Thus an accurate determination of concentration method is needed to control the amount of heavy metals in such a soils. Orthogonal signal correction – Partial least squares modeling is a powerful multivariate statistical tool applied to spectrophotometric simultaneous determination of mixtures of Gallium and Nickel. The method is based on the formation of the complex of PAN with Gallium and Nickel. The ISBO membrane shows enhanced selectivity for Ga3+ and Ni2+ but absorption spectra of these two complexes overlap strongly, thus it is difficult to analyze the compounds in their mixtures. In this study, the calibration model is based on absorption spectra in the 400-650 nm range for 25 different mixtures of Gallium and Nickel. A series of synthetic solutions containing different concentrations of Gallium and Nickel was used to check the prediction ability of the OSC-PLS model. The RMSEP were 0.3587 and 0.8496 for Gallium and Nickel, Respectively. Amount of Ga3+ and Ni2+ were determined 0.08 and 3.1 ppm in the plant soils respectively.
_||_
Al-Amir, S.M.S., Ashworth, D.C., Narayanaswamy, R. (1989). Talanta 36, 645.
Andersson, C.A. (1999). Chemom. Int. Lab. Syst. 47, 51.
Carter, R.M., Jacobs, M.B., (1997). Anal. Lett., 30(8), 1465.
Ciftci, H., Alcucu, A., Ciftci, T. (2007). International Journal of Science & Technolog, 2,105.
Craggs, A., Moody, J.G., Thomas, J.D.R., (1974). J. Chem. Edu., 51, 541.
Ghasemi, J., Niazi, A., (2005). Anal. Chim. Acta. 533, 169.
Ghasemi, J., Niazi, A. (2005). Talanta. 56, 1168.
Haaland, D.M., Thomas, E.V., (1990). Anal Chem 62, 1091.
Japanese Industrial Standard Hand Book, JIS K, (1993). 0102.
Kalivas, J.H. (1999). J. Chemometrics 13, 111.
Kamata, S., Onoyama, K. (1991) Anal. Chem 63, 1295.
Lan, W.G., Wong, M.K., Chen, N., Sin, Y.M., (1994). Analyst 119, 1669.
Langodegard , M., Wibetoe, G., (2002). Anal Bioanal Chem. 373, 820.
Moody, G.J., Oke, R.B., Thomas, J.D.R. (1970). Analyst 95.
Rouhollahi, R., Rajabzadeh, R., Ghasemi, J. (2006) Microchimica Acta 157(3), 139.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, American Public Health Association (APHA), America Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Pollution Control Federation, (WEF)
Washington DC, 21th Edition 5 (2005).
Tavakkoli, N., Shamsipur, M., (1996) Anal. Lett. 29