CIESC Journal

• 表面与界面工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

电镀液中铑含量的不同分析方法

肖耀坤;张峰;刘振华;陈宗璋;王旭辉;余刚   

  1. 湖南大学化学化工学院,湖南 长沙 410082;广州杰赛科技股份有限公司,广东 广州 510310
  • 出版日期:2006-01-25 发布日期:2006-01-25

Different analytical methods to determine rhodium in plating solution

XIAO Yaokun;ZHANG Feng;LIU Zhenhua;CHEN Zongzhang;WANG Xuhui;YU Gang   

  • Online:2006-01-25 Published:2006-01-25

摘要: 对标准浓度的铑溶液进行了重量法、等离子发射光谱法(ICP)、火焰原子吸收光谱法(FAAS)、改进后的FAAS(引入一个校正因子, 对FAAS测定方法进行了优化、校正)等不同方法的测定,比较了不同测定方法的精密度和准确度.结果表明:对于杂质少的铑电镀液,宜采用重量法测定,其测定偏差在4%以内,而硼氢化钠作为还原剂的重量法的测定偏差可控制在0.2%以内;对于杂质多的铑电镀液,用ICP和改进的FAAS法均能获得满意结果,相对偏差都小于1%.

Abstract: Several analytical methods to dertermine rhodium such as gravimetric method, inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICP), flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) and FAAS improved (FAASI) by a calibration constant K were studied in this paper. The results showed that for pure rhodium plating solution, gravimetric method was an accurate method to determine rhodium with relative deviation less than 4%, and especially, the deviation was only within 0.2% with alkaline sodium borohydride as reducing agent. For highly contaminated rhodium solution, ICP and FAASI were very good choice and the relative deviation was less than 1%.