Chapter 28: Q4P (page 790)
What mass of sample in Figure 28-3 is expected to give a sampling standard deviation of \( \pm 6\% \)?
Short Answer
The mass of the sample which produces the relative standard deviation of \(1\% \)
Chapter 28: Q4P (page 790)
What mass of sample in Figure 28-3 is expected to give a sampling standard deviation of \( \pm 6\% \)?
The mass of the sample which produces the relative standard deviation of \(1\% \)
All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.
Get started for free
From their standard reduction potentials, which of the following metals would you expect to dissolve in \({\rm{HCl}}\)by the reaction\({\rm{M}} + n{{\rm{H}}^ + } \to {{\rm{M}}^{n + }} + \frac{n}{2}{{\rm{H}}_2}:{\rm{Zn}},{\rm{Fe}},{\rm{Co}},{\rm{Al}},{\rm{Hg}},{\rm{Cu}},{\rm{Pt}}\),\({\bf{Au}}\)?
(When the potential predicts that the element will not dissolve, it probably will not. If it is expected to dissolve, it may dissolve if some other process does not interfere. Predictions based on standard reduction potentials at \({\bf{2}}{{\bf{5}}^{^{\bf{o}}}}C\) are only tentative, because the potentials and activities in hot, concentrated solutions vary widely from those in the table of standard potentials.)
:(a) Describe the steps in QuEChERS and explain their purpose.
(b) Why is an internal standard used in QuEChERS?
(c) What is displayed in the total ion chromatogram in Figure 28-22?
(d) What is displayed in the extracted ion chromatogram in Figure 28-22? What is the difference between an extracted ion chromatogram and a selected ion chromatogram? Which would have greater signal-to-noise ratio?
(e) What mass spectrometric method could be used to obtain even greater signal-to-noise ratio from the same QuEChERS extract?
How does solid-supported liquid-liquid extraction differ from solid-phase extraction?
The following wet-ashing procedure was used to measure arsenic in organic soil samples by atomic absorption spectroscopy: A 0.1- to \({\bf{0}}.{\bf{5}} - \)g sample was heated in a \({\bf{150}} - {\bf{mL}}\) Teflon bomb in a microwave oven for \(2.5\;{\rm{min}}\) with \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of\(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3}\). After the sample cooled, a mixture containing \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of \(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3},1.5\;{\rm{mL}}\) of\(70\% \,\,{\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\), and \(1.0\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{S}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\)was added and the sample was reheated for three \({\bf{2}}.{\bf{5}} - {\bf{min}}\) intervals with 2 -min unheated periods in between. The final solution was diluted with \(0.2{\rm{M}}\,\,\,{\rm{HCl}}\)for analysis. Why was \({\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\) not introduced until the second heating?

EXAMPLE- Particles designated \(50/00\)mesh pass through a 50 mesh sieve bou are retained by a lo0 mesh sieve. Their size is in the range 0.150-0.300 mm.
does not pass is retained for your sample. This procedure gives particles whose diameters are in the range \(0.85 - 1.18\;{\rm{mm}}.\) We refer to the size range as \(16/20{\rm{mesh}}.\)
Suppose that much finer particles of \(80/120\)mesh size (average diameter \( = 152\mu {\rm{m}},\) average volume\( = 1.84\;{\rm{nL}}\)) were used instead. Now the mass containing \({10^4}\) particles is reduced from \(11.0to0.0388\;{\rm{g}}.\) We could analyze a larger sample to reduce the sampling uncertainty for chloride.
What do you think about this solution?
We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.