Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 5, 2016Keywords:
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Reliability of graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry as alternative method for trace analysis of arsenic in natural medicinal products
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the comparative efficiency of graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS) and hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry (HGAAS) for trace analysis of arsenic (As) in natural herbal products (NHPs).
Method: Arsenic analysis in natural herbal products and standard reference material was conducted using atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), namely, hydride generation ASSAAS (HGAAS) and graphite furnace (GFAAS). The samples were digested with HNO3–H2O2 in a ratio of 4:1 using microwave-assisted acid digestion. The methods were validated with the aid of the standard reference material 1515 Apple Leaves (SRM) from NIST
Results: Mean recovery of three different samples of NHPs, using HGAAS and GFAAS, ranged from 89.3 - 91.4 %, and 91.7 - 93.0 %, respectively. The difference between the two methods was insignificant. A (P= 0.5), B (P=0.4) and C (P=0.88) Relative standard deviation (RSD) RSD, i.e., precision was 2.5 - 6.5 % and 2.3 - 6.7 % using HGAAS and GFAAS techniques, respectively. Recovery of arsenic in SRM was 98 and 102 % by GFAAS and HGAAS, respectively.
Conclusion: GFAAS demonstrates acceptable levels of precision and accuracy. Both techniques possess comparable accuracy and repeatability. Thus, the two methods are recommended as an alternative approach for trace analysis of arsenic in natural herbal products.
Keywords: Arsenic, Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometer (GFAAS), Hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometer (HGAAS), Natural herbal products
