Instrumental NAA is a subset of NAA in which activity measurements of activity are carried out directly on irradiated samples without chemical separation. In response to your second question,in most cases, in the days of relatively cheap ICPMS and very good sample preparation techniques available today I would be hard pressed to find a reason to use NAA in plant analysis. However I am sure that others may have a different opinion.

I agree with Alan Newman answer. I will add that if INAA is what you have available (which is our case), it is necessary to be very carefull with the cleaning of samples of geological particulate. NAA quantifies the total amount of isotopes regardless the matrix all the isotopes present in geological particulate will cause interferences during the measurements. Also, because of the low contents of pollutants in plants, you need a reactor with high thermal neutron flux (>10^12)

Dr Newman´s definition of NAA/INAA is correct. However, having used nearly all activation methods (RNAA, INAA, RPAA, IPAA, CPAA) as well as non-radioanalytical ones for 45 years I have found that basically no method can replace another one completely. I frequently analysed organic matter including plant material using  radiochemical, instrumental and non-destructive activation analysis as well as "classical" non-radioanalytical methods quite successfully. I disagree with Dr Newman´s statement about a general superiority of ICP-MS versus INAA; finding the "Method of choice" depends very much upon the closer conditions and requirements in any case. As to the remark of Dr Arribére: the problem of contamination is immanent to ALL analytical methods, thus it does not make the decision about the method to apply. Also: up-to-date research reactors usually provide the mentioned thermal neutron flux density of more than 10^12 cm^-2s^-1.

If NAA is conducted directly on irradiated samples, it is termed (INAA)

You can see this link for clarification the deference between NAA / INAAhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/323017682_Neutron_activation_analysis_of_major_and_trace_elements_in_Arabica_and_Robusta_coffee_beans_samples_consumed_in_Algeria?ev=prf_ov_fet_res&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=6WAxRcXLozNH5p0M0A9E5ZxR13FAX6GaYR7D&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfhpi&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItemCount%5D=3&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BuserSelectedItemCount%5D=3&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightCount%5D=2&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightIndex%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BfeaturedItem1of2%5D=1&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A323017682&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

I am interested in the paper authored or cited by Messaoudi Mohammed; unfortunately the citation is unclear. Dear colleague, please, provide the normal citation of the paper: "Neutron_activation_analysis_of_major_and_trace_elements_in_Arabic..."

Chr. Segebade

Good question to follow

Dear Christian Segebade

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ract.ahead-of-print/ract-2017-2875/ract-2017-2875.xml

Thank you Samir B for the paper. I am currently working on similar work Nigeria. Trying to access the Health risk index in some selected parts of Nigeria then compared it with other related work across the globe. However we are employing AAS and INAA for this work.We have send a component of this work for publication. Thank you once again for the positive response.

Best Regards

U M Ibrahim

Dear Dr. Soliman,

instrumental analysis and non-destructive analysis are two different issues. It would take a lot of time (and writing space) to make this clear. Thus, I recommend the following: send me your mail address, and I mail the explanation to you. My address is [email protected]