• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.17 no.6
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2012

This study was performed to find the problems according to interference factors (organic matter, pH, Cr, Mn, Fe, clay, and etc.) when we analyzed the hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] in soils using UV/VIS spectrometer (US EPA 7196A), attempted to evaluate the domestic applicability of analytical method (US EPA 7199) using IC-UV/VIS spectrometer as alternative method. The recovery rate of certified reference materials was 75.0% (US EPA 7196A) and 101.4% (US EPA 7199) by the analytical methods. As the results of performing QA/QC about US EPA 7199, method detection limit (MDL) and limit of quantification (LOQ) were 0.062 mg/kg, 0.196 mg/kg, respectively. The LOQ of US EPA 7199 was lower than that of the current soil official testing method in Korea (0.5 mg/kg). Cr(VI) contents in 23 soil samples were compared by the analytical methods of EPA 7196A and 7199. Cr(VI) was detected in 13 of 23 soil samples by EPA 7196A, while EPA 7199 was not detected in any soil samples. The Cr(VI) content in 23 soil samples by EPA 7196A was not clearly correlated with Cr, Fe, Mn and clay content in the soil samples. However, the contents of Cr(VI) and organic matter of the soil samples had the highest coefficient of determination ($R^2$) of 0.80. In order to evaluate the correlation between the recovery rates of Cr(VI) and organic matter contents in the soil samples, the recovery rates of 5 soil samples added Cr(VI) standard solution were analyzed by the analytical methods. According to the results, the higher the organic matter contents in soil samples, the lower the recovery rates of Cr(VI) by US EPA 7196, while in case of US EPA 7199, the recovery rates were stable regardless of the organic matter contents.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2012

According to the agreement on WTO/TBT, we are under the situation to adopt international standard (ISO standard) as a national standard if it exists. However, in case of environmental area, it is a domestic legal obligation to use Korean environmental standard method(KESM) for analyzing various contaminants. Therefore it is necessary to assess the comparability between KEM and ISO standard prior to apply ISO standard to soil conservation law in Korea. The main purpose of this study is to assess the comparability of both methods for analyzing heavy metals in soil. We looked over various aspects like pre-treatment, calibration curve range, detection wavelength, soil organic matter content and so on. Apparently, the procedure of both methods is almost same. However in details, both methods are different in stationary time before aqua-regia extraction using reflux system, calibration curve range for Cu, Pb, Ni and measuring wavelength for Pb. According to the results of comparison test, the results were significantly different when the different calibration range was used. In case that all the extracts independent of methods were reanalyzed with the same calibration range of each method, both methods showed statistically same results. Other conditions like different stationary time, measuring wavelength of AAS and soil organic matter content did not have any influence on the analytical result. Therefore, we suggest to extend the calibration curve range to 0~8 mg/L which is used in KS I ISO standard(Korean standard related with environment which is translation version of ISO standard without any technical change). In case of $Cr^{6+}$, the results showed no significant differences between two methods even though the pretreatment, instrumentation and other analysis conditions were different. In addition to UV/Visble spectrometry of KESM for soil contamination, we suggest to adopt ion chromatography of ISO 15192(US EPA method 7199) for analyzing $Cr^{6+}$ with the consideration of laboratory work efficiency.