Affiliation: | aCentro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Centenário 303, CP 96, 13400-970, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil bDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Valencia, Research Building, 50 Dr. Moliner St., 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain |
Abstract: | It has been developed an automatic stop-flow procedure for sequential photometric determination of anionic and cationic surfactants in a same sample of water. The flow system was based on multicommutation process that was designed employing two solenoid micro-pumps and six solenoid pinch valves, which under microcomputer control carry out fluid propelling and reagent solutions handling. A homemade photometer using a photodiode as detector and two light emitting diodes (LEDs) with emission at 470 nm (blue) and 650 nm (red) as radiation sources, which was tailored to allow the determination of anionic and cationic surfactants in waters. The procedure for anionic surfactant determination was based on the substitution reaction of methyl orange (MO) by the anionic surfactant sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (DBS) to form an ion-pair with the cetyl pyridine chloride (CPC). Features such as a linear response ranging from 0.35 to 10.5 mg L−1 DBS (R = 0.999), a detection limit of 0.06 mg L−1 DBS and a relative standard deviation of 0.6% (n = 11) were achieved. For cationic surfactant determination, the procedure was based on the ternary complex formation between cationic surfactant, Fe(III) and chromazurol S (CAS) using CPC as reference standard solution. A linear response range between 0.34 and 10.2 mg L−1 CPC (R = 0.999), a detection limit of 0.05 mg L−1 CPC and a relative standard deviation of 0.5% (n = 11) were obtained. In both cases, the sampling throughput was 60 determinations per hour. Reagents consumption of 7.8 μg MO, 8.2 μg CPC, 37.2 μg CAS and 21.6 μg Fe(III) per determination were achieved. Analyzing river water samples and applying t-test between the results found and those obtained using reference procedures for both surfactant types provide no significant differences at 95% confidence level. |