Skip to main content
Log in

Critical comparison of wet and dry digestion procedures for trace metal analysis of meat and fish tissues

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Microchimica Acta Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The efficiency of four methods of digestion was evaluated for trace metal analysis of pork meat and carp fish tissues. Two methods of dry and two methods of wet ashing were compared in terms of calculated variances. Mixtures of HCl+HNO3 were applied for wet ashing of the samples at 100 °C, while dry ashing with or without H2SO4 at 450 °C were the alternative methods. The digests were subsequently analysed for Pb, Cd, Cu and Zn by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry. Analysis of variance and Student's t-test were performed separately for meat and fish analytical results. Wet digestion with a (1+1) mixture of HCl+HNO3 has given better recovery and repeatability for almost all metals than a (9+1) mixture of HCl+HNO3. Also between the dry ashing methods, the use of H2SO4 has given better results than ashing of the tissues without H2SO4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on Residues, Recommendations,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 1992,75, 160.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Agemian, D. P. Sturtevant, K. D. Austen,Analyst 1980,105, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. E. Cantle,Techniques and Instrumentation in Analytical Chemistry-Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, Vol. 5, Elsevier, New York, 1982, Chapter 4K.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. D. Salisbury, W. Chan,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 1985,68, 218.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. T. Cabanis, G. Cassanas, J. C. Cabanis, S. Brun,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 1988,71, 1033.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. T. McCarthy, P. Christopher Ellis,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 1991,74, 566.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. W. May, W. G. Brumbaugh,Anal. Chem 1982,54, 1032.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Lundberg, W. Frech, I. Lindberg,Anal. Chim. Acta 1984,160, 205.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. S. Beary,Anal. Chem 1988,60, 742.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E. J. Hinderberger, M. L. Kaiser, S. R. Koirtyohann,At. Spectrosc 1981,2, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. M. Beebe, E. Lay, S. Eisenberg,J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem 1989,72, 777.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. C. Manning, W. Slavin,Appl. Spectrosc 1983,37, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Malissa, V. Simeonov,Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem. 1978,289, 257.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. T. Friend, C. A. Smith, D. Wishart,At. Absorpt. Newslet 1977,16, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Bock,A Handbook of Decomposition Methods in Analytical Chemistry, International Textbook Company, London, 1979, pp. 128–130. (translated by Iain Marr).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zachariadis, G.A., Stratis, J.A., Kaniou, I. et al. Critical comparison of wet and dry digestion procedures for trace metal analysis of meat and fish tissues. Mikrochim Acta 119, 191–198 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01243998

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01243998

Key words

Navigation