Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions
In the present work, known concentration of sulfite aqueous solutions in the presence and absence of gallic acid was measured to corroborate the validity of modified Monier-Williams method. Free and bound-sulfite was estimated by differential pulse voltammetry. To our surprise, the modified Monier-W...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2012-01-01
|
| Series: | The Scientific World Journal |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/168148 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850174426918682624 |
|---|---|
| author | C. Montes J. H. Vélez G. Ramírez M. Isaacs R. Arce M. J. Aguirre |
| author_facet | C. Montes J. H. Vélez G. Ramírez M. Isaacs R. Arce M. J. Aguirre |
| author_sort | C. Montes |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In the present work, known concentration of sulfite aqueous solutions in the presence and absence of gallic acid was measured to corroborate the validity of modified Monier-Williams method. Free and bound-sulfite was estimated by differential pulse voltammetry. To our surprise, the modified Monier-Williams method (also known as aspiration method) showed to be very inaccurate for free-sulfite, although suitable for bound-sulfite determination. The differential pulse approach, using the standard addition method and a correction coefficient, proved to be swift, cheap, and very precise and accurate. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d617c6144e30459fb8ed8a75bcfe7801 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1537-744X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Scientific World Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-d617c6144e30459fb8ed8a75bcfe78012025-08-20T02:19:40ZengWileyThe Scientific World Journal1537-744X2012-01-01201210.1100/2012/168148168148Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous SolutionsC. Montes0J. H. Vélez1G. Ramírez2M. Isaacs3R. Arce4M. J. Aguirre5Departamento de Química de Los Materiales, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Avenida L.B. O'Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago 9170022, ChileDepartamento de Química de Los Materiales, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Avenida L.B. O'Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago 9170022, ChileDepartamento de Química Inorgánica, Facultad de Química, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820536, ChileDepartamento de Química Inorgánica, Facultad de Química, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820536, ChileDepartamento de Química de Los Materiales, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Avenida L.B. O'Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago 9170022, ChileDepartamento de Química de Los Materiales, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Avenida L.B. O'Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago 9170022, ChileIn the present work, known concentration of sulfite aqueous solutions in the presence and absence of gallic acid was measured to corroborate the validity of modified Monier-Williams method. Free and bound-sulfite was estimated by differential pulse voltammetry. To our surprise, the modified Monier-Williams method (also known as aspiration method) showed to be very inaccurate for free-sulfite, although suitable for bound-sulfite determination. The differential pulse approach, using the standard addition method and a correction coefficient, proved to be swift, cheap, and very precise and accurate.http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/168148 |
| spellingShingle | C. Montes J. H. Vélez G. Ramírez M. Isaacs R. Arce M. J. Aguirre Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions The Scientific World Journal |
| title | Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions |
| title_full | Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions |
| title_fullStr | Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions |
| title_short | Critical Comparison between Modified Monier-Williams and Electrochemical Methods to Determine Sulfite in Aqueous Solutions |
| title_sort | critical comparison between modified monier williams and electrochemical methods to determine sulfite in aqueous solutions |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/168148 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cmontes criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions AT jhvelez criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions AT gramirez criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions AT misaacs criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions AT rarce criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions AT mjaguirre criticalcomparisonbetweenmodifiedmonierwilliamsandelectrochemicalmethodstodeterminesulfiteinaqueoussolutions |