2026-04-29T09:57:57Zhttps://riubu.ubu.es/oai/request

oai:riubu.ubu.es:10259/53322022-04-07T11:32:51Zcom_10259_4376com_10259_5086com_10259_2604col_10259_4377

Domínguez Renedo, Olga Navarro Cuñado, A. Marta Ventas Romay, Eduardo Alonso Lomillo, Mª Asunción 2020-06-09T12:00:39Z 2020-06-09T12:00:39Z 2019-05 0039-9140 http://hdl.handle.net/10259/5332 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.12.048 Three different methods for the determination of Al(III) in aqueous samples were compared. The different described procedures were based on the formation of the Al(III)-morin complex. UV–Vis spectrophotometry, spectrofluorimetry and differential pulse adsorptive stripping voltammetry (DPAdSV) techniques were compared under optimized experimental conditions. The DPAdSV method showed a better performance for the analysis of Al(III) in terms of capability of detection (70 nM) in comparison with the value obtained for UV–Vis spectrophotometric (300 nM) and spectrofluorimetic (110 nM) techniques. Thus, DPAdSV method was selected for the analysis of aluminium in river, tap and bottled water samples under the following optimized experimental conditions: pH = 4.4, deposition potential = +243 mV, deposition time = 210 s, giving satisfactory results. eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional Aluminium Morin Stripping voltammetry UV–Vis spectroscopy Fluorescence Water samples Determination of aluminium using different techniques based on the Al(III)-morin complex info:eu-repo/semantics/article