For the determination of Arsenic in ppb level, ICP-MS is reliable. In AAS this much detection ( ppb) level may not be reliable.

Dear Mijan,

flame atomization is not sensitive enough for Determination of ppb Levels.

Please Change to electrothermal atomization but take care on interferences: Article Improved Background Compensation in Atomic Absorption Spectr...

Dear Mijan,

ICPMS is a recommended method for the sensitive Determination of Arsenic. Here is an example of Arsenic in beer: Poster How Pure is Pure? Determination of Contaminants in Beer by I...

Hello Miljan,

ICP-MS (with collision device !) is certainly the method of choice. Graphite furnace is cumbersome and very prone to interferences. Direct analysis by flame AAS without separation of As will not be reliable. A hydride system out of service must not necessarily mean a device without any use. However, there are so many modifications of systems that it is difficult to assess whether or not you could bring possibly available parts into function. In principle, you need a mixing chamber, a peristaltic pump (or pumps) where you can adjust 3 different flow rates, and a quartz tubing (T-piece) mounted into the flame zone of your AAS. If you have the parts you should be able to do As; it will take some trials – but in case of hydride systems and As some tuning of ready to use systems is a good idea, anyway. Detection limits of 0.3 ppb can be achieved (quartz tubing length: about 11 cm). So possibly you could have a look on your spare parts portfolio. However, As analysis by AAS (hydride or electrothermal) is prone to interferences (e.g. due to the presence of noble metals in solution). I had a fine job analyzing As by AAS hydride system in some series of adsorption isotherm experiments where interferences could be left out (results sporadically counterchecked by ICP-MS).

Wish you good luck

D. Zachmann