ICP-MS is better (in terms of accuracy). However, it's more expensive than AAS. The real issue here is money. However, if you do ionomics - it should be ICP/MS.
ICP-MS is better (in terms of accuracy). However, it's more expensive than AAS. The real issue here is money. However, if you do ionomics - it should be ICP/MS.
Yes ICP-MS is more accurate as it can trace as low as 0.6 ppb lebel.
The detection limits are better and more importantly you can analyse many metals at a time with ICP however, the running cost is very high. If the no of samples are less, I would suggest AAS-graphite furnace.
No doubt ICP-MS is better. But for routine analysis of metals where results are expected in ppm/ppb , AAS can be used. Moreever,ICPMS is much more expensive than AAS. I agree that if you do ionomics - ICP-MS can only be used.
Definitely ICP-MS is better than AAS because it gives more accuracy. On the other hand, AAS is best for rough and routine type analysis whereas ICP-MS is much more sophisticate and expensive.
Of course, ICP-MS is a much better technique to use for the following reasons: ICP-MS has the capacity of analyzing a greater number of elements at the same time (multi-element analysis) while AAS can only analyze one element per time
(single metal analysis); ICP-MS is far more sensitive, and It analyzes the metals at a faster rate compared to AAS. However, fewer interferences are experienced with the AAS compared with the ICP-MS technique.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Soil Science
- Soil Analysis