Advertisement

Proficiency testing for total mercury in oyster with a metrologically traceable reference value from isotope dilution mass spectrometry: implications on laboratory practices using mercury analyzers

  • Hwijin Kim
  • Euijin Hwang
  • Jwahaeng Park
  • Sung Woo Heo
  • Yong-Hyeon Yim
  • Youngran Lim
  • Myung Chul Lim
  • Jong Wha LeeEmail author
  • Kyoung-Seok LeeEmail author
General Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Mercury is a toxic element of particular concern for the environment and human health, but its accurate analysis is challenging due to its unique physical and chemical properties. In order to enhance the quality and traceability of measurements, a proficiency testing (PT) program (MFDS-PT-101FM-2017) for mercury in oyster tissue has been conducted by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) of Korea. A majority of the participating laboratories have used commercial mercury analyzers based on thermal decomposition amalgamation atomic absorption spectrometry (TDA–AAS). Good agreement between the participants’ results and the reference value (RV) was observed, where the RV is traceable to the International System of Units and verified for international equivalence. The results of this PT program support the participating laboratories in demonstrating their competence in quantitative analysis, and show the potential of commercial TDA–AAS systems for accurate mercury analysis.

Keywords

Proficiency testing Certified reference value Metrological traceability Mercury Mercury analyzer Isotope dilution mass spectrometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by MFDS under the project “Development of standard samples for 2017 proficiency testing of MFDS (I)” (Grant No. 33173019300), by KRISS under the project “Establishing Measurement Standards for Inorganic Analysis” (Grant No. 17011050) and the project “Establishing Measurement Standards for Analytical Chemistry” (Grant No. 18011054).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

769_2019_1379_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (443 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 443 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Zahir F, Rizwi SJ, Haq SK, Khan RH (2005) Low dose mercury toxicity and human health. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 20:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarkson TW, Magos L (2006) The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds. Crit Rev Toxicol 36:609–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mergler D, Anderson HA, Chan LHM, Mahaffey KR, Murray M, Sakamoto M, Stern AH (2007) Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern. Ambio 36:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selin NE (2009) Global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giang A, Stokes LC, Streets DG, Corbitt ES, Selin NE (2015) Impacts of the Minamata Convention on mercury emissions and global deposition from coal-fired power generation in asia. Environ Sci Technol 49:5326–5335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    United Nations Environment Programme (2018) Report of the ad hoc group of experts on effectiveness evaluation (UNEP/MC/COP.2/INF/8)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gustin MS, Huang J, Miller MB, Peterson C, Jaffe DA, Ambrose J, Finley BD, Lyman SN, Call K, Talbot R, Feddersen D, Mao H, Lindberg SE (2013) Do we understand what the mercury speciation instruments are actually measuring? Results of RAMIX. Environ Sci Technol 47:7295–7306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaffe DA, Lyman S, Amos HM, Gustin MS, Huang J, Selin NE, Levin L, ter Schure A, Mason RP, Talbot R, Rutter A, Finley B, Jaeglé L, Shah V, McClure C, Ambrose J, Gratz L, Lindberg S, Weiss-Penzias P, Sheu G-R, Feddersen D, Horvat M, Dastoor A, Hynes AJ, Mao H, Sonke JE, Slemr F, Fisher JA, Ebinghaus R, Zhang Y, Edwards G (2014) Progress on understanding atmospheric mercury hampered by uncertain measurements. Environ Sci Technol 48:7204–7206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    WHO (2008) Guidance for identifying populations at risk from mercury exposure. UNEP DTIE Chemicals Branch, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leopold K, Foulkes M, Worsfold P (2010) Methods for the determination and speciation of mercury in natural waters—a review. Anal Chim Acta 663:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lo JM, Wai CM (1975) Mercury loss from water during storage. Mechanisms and prevention. Anal Chem 47:1869–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y, Chen C, Li B, Sun J, Wang J, Gao Y, Zhao Y, Chai Z (2006) Elimination efficiency of different reagents for the memory effect of mercury using ICP-MS. J Anal At Spectrom 21:94–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hingle DN, Kirkbright GF, West TS (1967) Some observations on the determination of mercury by atomic-absorption spectroscopy in an air-acetylene flame. Analyst 92:759–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson DH, Evans JH, Murphy JJ, White WW (1971) Determination of mercury by a combustion technique using gold as a collector. Anal Chem 43:1511–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Száková J, Kolihová D, Miholová D, Mader P (2004) Single-purpose atomic absorption spectrometer AMA-254 for mercury determination and its performance in analysis of agricultural and environmental materials. Chem Papers 58:311–315Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Butala SJ, Scanlan LP, Chaudhuri SN (2006) A detailed study of thermal decomposition, amalgamation/atomic absorption spectrophotometry methodology for the quantitative analysis of mercury in fish and hair. J Food Prot 69:2720–2728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costley CT, Mossop KF, Dean JR, Garden LM, Marshall J, Carroll J (2000) Determination of mercury in environmental and biological samples using pyrolysis atomic absorption spectrometry with gold amalgamation. Anal Chim Acta 405:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haynes S, Gragg RD, Johnson E, Robinson L, Orazio CE (2006) An evaluation of a reagentless method for the determination of total mercury in aquatic life. Water Air Soil Pollut 172:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melendez-Perez JJ, Fostier AH (2013) Assessment of Direct Mercury Analyzer® to quantify mercury in soils and leaf samples. J Braz Chem Soc 24:1880–1886Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torres DP, Martins-Teixeira MB, Cadore S, Queiroz HM (2015) Method validation for control determination of mercury in fresh fish and shrimp samples by solid sampling thermal decomposition/amalgamation atomic absorption spectrometry. J Environ Sci Health B 50:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwaansa-Ansah EE, Adimado AA, Nriagu JO, Basu N (2016) Comparison of three analytical methods for the quantitation of mercury in environmental samples from the Volta Lake, Ghana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 97:677–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    EPA Method 7473 (SW-846) (2007) Mercury in solids and solutions by thermal decomposition, amalgamation, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Has-Schon E, Bogut I, Rajkovic V, Bogut S, Cacic M, Horvatic J (2008) Heavy metal distribution in tissues of six fish species included in human diet, inhabiting freshwaters of the Nature Park “Hutovo Blato” (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 54:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palkovicova L, Ursinyova M, Masanova V, Yu Z, Hertz-Picciotto I (2008) Maternal amalgam dental fillings as the source of mercury exposure in developing fetus and newborn. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 18:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Juillerat JI, Ross DS, Bank MS (2012) Mercury in litterfall and upper soil horizons in forested ecosystems in Vermont, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1720–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maggi C, Ausili A, Boscolo R, Cacciatore F, Bonometto A, Cornello M, Berto D (2012) Sediment and biota in trend monitoring of contaminants in transitional waters. Trends Anal Chem 36:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ouédraogo O, Amyot M (2013) Mercury, arsenic and selenium concentrations in water and fish from sub-Saharan semi-arid freshwater reservoirs (Burkina Faso). Sci Total Environ 444:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cizdziel JV, Gerstenberger S (2004) Determination of total mercury in human hair and animal fur by combustion atomic absorption spectrometry. Talanta 64:918–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lasrado JA, Santerre CR, Shim SM, Stahl JR (2005) Analysis of mercury in sportfish tissue by thermal decomposition, amalgamation/atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J Food Prot 68:879–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roy NK, Bose SS (2008) Determination of mercury in thirty-three international stream sediment and soil reference samples by direct mercury analyser. Geostand Geoanal Res 32:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Torres DP, Martins-Teixeira MB, Silva EF, Queiroz HM (2012) Method development for the control determination of mercury in seafood by solid-sampling thermal decomposition amalgamation atomic absorption spectrometry (TDA AAS). Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 29:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torres DP, Olivares IR, Queiroz HM (2015) Estimate of the uncertainty in measurement for the determination of mercury in seafood by TDA AAS. J Environ Sci Health B 50:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ASTM D6722-11 (2011) Standard test method for total mercury in coal and coal combustion residues by direct combustion analysis. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ASTM D7623-10(2015) (2015) Standard test method for total mercury in crude oil using combustion-gold amalgamation and cold vapor atomic absorption method. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    ASTM D7622-10(2015) (2015) Standard test method for total mercury in crude oil using combustion and direct cold vapor atomic absorption method with zeeman background correction. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Butala SJ, Scanlan LP, Chaudhuri SN, Perry DD, Taylor RJ (2007) Interlaboratory bias in the determination of mercury concentrations in commercially available fish utilizing thermal decomposition/amalgamation atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J Food Prot 70:2422–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taverniers I, De Loose M, Van Bockstaele E (2004) Trends in quality in the analytical laboratory. II. Analytical method validation and quality assurance. Trends Anal Chem 23:535–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thompson M, Ellison Stephen LR, Wood R (2006) The International Harmonized Protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem 78:145–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    ISO/IEC 17043:2010 (2010) Conformity assessment—general requirements for proficiency testing. ISO and IEC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ISO 13528:2015 (2015) Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Araujo P, Frøyland L (2006) Hierarchical classification designs for the estimation of different sources of variability in proficiency testing experiments. Anal Chim Acta 555:348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Calibration and Measurement Capabilities—CMCs. International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). https://kcdb.bipm.org/appendixC/. Accessed 14 March 2019
  43. 43.
    International equivalence of measurements: the CIPM MRA. International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/. Accessed 14 March 2019
  44. 44.
    Kim SH, Heo SW, Cho H, Yim Y-H, Lim Y, Lee K, Hwang E (2016) Asia-Pacific Metrology Program (APMP) and Asia-Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) joint proficiency testing with metrological reference values for hazardous elements in cabbage. Trends Anal Chem 85:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISO Guide 35:2017 (2017) Reference materials—guidance for characterization and assessment of homogeneity and stability. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Watters RL Jr, Eberhardt KR, Beary ES, Fassett JD (1997) Protocol for isotope dilution using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for the determination of inorganic elements. Metrologia 34:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vogl J, Pritzkow W (2010) Isotope dilution mass spectrometry—a primary method of measurement and its role for RM certification. MAPAN 25:135–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim SH, Lim Y, Hwang E, Yim Y-H (2016) Development of an ID ICP-MS reference method for the determination of Cd, Hg and Pb in a cosmetic powder certified reference material. Anal Methods 8:796–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Choi J, Hwang E, Yim Y-H, Jo HM, Lim Y, Kim TK, Lee K-S (2017) Development of a paste-type certified reference material of tomato for elemental analysis: certification and long-term stability study. Bull Korean Chem Soc 38:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee H-S, Kim SH, Jeong J-S, Lee Y-M, Yim Y-H (2015) Sulfur-based absolute quantification of proteins using isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Metrologia 52:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Coyne RV, Collins JA (1972) Loss of mercury from water during storage. Anal Chem 44:1093–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Feldman C (1974) Preservation of dilute mercury solutions. Anal Chem 46:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Parker JL, Bloom NS (2005) Preservation and storage techniques for low-level aqueous mercury speciation. Sci Total Environ 337:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 (JCGM/WG1/100) (2008) Uncertainty of measurement—Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995). ISO and IEC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Choi J, Hwang E, So H-Y, Kim B (2003) An uncertainty evaluation for multiple measurements by GUM. Accred Qual Assur 8:13–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Choi J, D-h Kim, Hwang E, So H-Y (2003) An uncertainty evaluation for multiple measurements by GUM, II. Accred Qual Assur 8:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim B, Hwang E, So H-Y, Son E, Kim Y (2010) Development of a model system of uncertainty evaluations for multiple measurements by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: determination of folic acid in infant formula. Bull Korean Chem Soc 31:3139–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kim IJ, Kim B, Hwang E (2014) An approach for the uncertainty evaluation of the overall result from replications of measurement: separately combining individual uncertainty components according to their ‘systematic’ and ‘random’ effects. Bull Korean Chem Soc 35:1057–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cohen ER, Cvitas T, Frey JG, Holmstrom B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2008) Quantities, units and symbols in physical chemistry, IUPAC Green Book, 3rd edn. IUPAC and RSC Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Myors RB, Nolan AL, Askew S, Saxby DL, Hearn R, Mackay LG (2005) High-accuracy IDMS analysis of trace elements in wheat flour for the provision of reference values to a proficiency testing scheme. J Anal At Spectrom 20:1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yarita T, Otake T, Aoyagi Y, Kuroiwa T, Numata M, Takatsu A (2015) Proficiency testing for determination of pesticide residues in soybean: comparison of assigned values from participants׳ results and isotope-dilution mass spectrometric determination. Talanta 132:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Horwitz W, Albert R (2006) The Horwitz ratio (HorRat): a useful index of method performance with respect to precision. J AOAC Int 89:1095–1109Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kučera J, Mader P, Miholová D, Cibulka J, Poláková M, Kordík D (1990) Preparation of the bovine liver 12-02-01 reference material and the certification of element contents from an interlaboratory comparison. Fresenius J Anal Chem 338:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kučera J, Mader P, Miholová D, Cibulka J, Faltejsek J, Kordík D (1995) Preparation of the bovine kidney and bovine muscle reference materials and the certification of element contents from interlaboratory comparisons. Fresenius J Anal Chem 352:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    IAEA-436 (2006) World-wide intercomparison exercise for the determination of trace elements and methylmercury in tuna fish flesh homogenate. International Atomic Energy Agency Marine Environment Laboratory, MonacoGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pereira E, Rodrigues SM, Otero M, Válega M, Lopes CB, Pato P, Coelho JP, Lillebø AI, Duarte AC, Pardal MA, Rocha R (2008) Evaluation of an interlaboratory proficiency-testing exercise for total mercury in environmental samples of soils, sediments and fish tissue. Trends Anal Chem 27:959–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    de la Calle Guntiñas MB, Wysocka I, Quétel C, Vassileva E, Robouch P, Emteborg H, Taylor P (2009) Proficiency test for heavy metals in feed and food in Europe. Trends Anal Chem 28:454–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Baer I, Emteborg H, de la Calle B (2011) Results from two interlaboratory comparisons on the measurement of trace element contents in food supplements—State of the art of control laboratories in Europe. Food Chem 126:1498–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reis AT, Duarte AC, Henriques B, Coelho C, Lopes CB, Mieiro CL, Tavares DS, Ahmad I, Coelho JP, Rocha LS, Cruz N, Monteiro RJR, Rocha R, Rodrigues S, Pereira E (2015) An international proficiency test as a tool to evaluate mercury determination in environmental matrices. Trends Anal Chem 64:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    European Commission (2016) EURL-HM-22 proficiency test report: determination of total As, Cd, Pb, Hg, MeHg and inorganic As in fish. Joint Research Centre (JRC), LuxembourgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Chemical and Medical Metrology, Center for Analytical ChemistryKorea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS)DaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Bio-Analytical ScienceUniversity of Science and Technology (UST)DaejeonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Consumer Risk Prevention BureauMinistry of Food and Drug SafetyCheongju-siRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations