Hello Atef,

due to prices of equipment, ease of handling, and versatility ICP-MS should be preferred. Both devices (ICP-MS; INAA) are highly sensitive in analysing metals in environmental samples. Also, you should consider whether equipment of such high sensitivity is necessary at all. In most cases ICP-OES is by far good enough and should do. It is also very versatile, easy to use and prices are not as high.In case of using the devices with the extreme sensitivity like INAA or ICP-MS you have to take in account that the lab equipment like vessels, dest water, chemicals must be of highest purity which causes also very high costs; and also handling of samples and solutions requires highest diligence and experience to avoid the production of artefact data.

Good luck and regards

D. Zachmann

I think ICP-MS technique is better based on its advantages as listed below over other analytical techniques as stated by Herrmann, T. (2006).

1. Trace analysis with excellent limits of detection (pg/L range),

2. Multi-element method for concurrent determination of virtually all elements of the periodic table,

3. Dynamic measuring range of over eight orders of magnitude,

4. Rapid, semi-quantitative analysis with high informative value for preliminary overviews,

5. Can determine isotopic ratios and of isotope dilution analysis,

6. Liquid, solid, and gaseous samples can be analyzed with the correct sample introduction/preparation for analysis and;

6. Only a small amount of sample is needed

Hello, all depends which exact elements are you interested to analyse and which accuracy you need.

Also remember ICP/MS is destructive.

Here some advantages of all equipments.

The strengths of INAA are:

a. Can analyze a large number of elements simultaneously

b. Very low detection limits for many elements

c. Small sample sizes (1—200 mg)

d. No chemical preparation

e. Non-destructive. The material is available for other analytical techniques.

There are very few limitations. The major limitation is the number of elements that can be analyzed by this technique. Several elements of geological interest, such as Nb, Y and some transition metals, are better determined by other analytical methods. For example, more precise Rb, Sr, Y, Nb, and Zr concentrations can be obtained by x-ray fluorescence (XRF). In fact, INAA and XRF are complimentary techniques and rock and mineral chemistries are often determined using both INAA and XRF. Also, because there is no chemical pre-separation, the sensitivity of the method is dependent upon the sample matrix. For example, detection limits for all elements are lower in tree ring samples than in rock samples.

For ICP/MS all advantages already listed in previous answer.

Only points d,e sometimes point c not available at ICP/MS technique.

Also I am disagree with commercial point for ICP/MS- Multi-element method for concurrent determination of virtually all elements of the periodic table.

Practically environmental samples contain all elements in very different concentrations and detection of all elements of periodic system by one analysis In pg/L range impossible, also a lot of problems with detection of some elements with major isotope.

Hope this info will help you.

Good luck!

Depending of the element of interest and the amount of sampled material I would suggest:

i. ICP-MS, LA-ICP-MS, -ii. INAA (total non-invasive, but Cd and Pb could not be determined with accuracy,) -iii. XRF (its sensitivity is about 50 mg/kg), -iv. EDX with ESM.

i think ICP-MS, but depend on the sample because there are other techniques; useful, more available, and not expensive, like FAAS and GFAAS

The first step in determination of elements in water samples is extraction of element using suitable ligands ,then measured the element by ICP-MS coupled instruments Dr fathi kamel

ICP-Ms

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer ICP-MS

For more detailed analysis concerning the spatial distribution of different elements in flat, fine polished samples having a size of few cm, the Energy Dispersive XRF (EDXRF) coupled with Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) could give the most interesting results. Accordingly, you can obtain the distribution maps of the elemental contant of desired elements on the sample surface.

All depend on your targeted elements and purpose.

INAA is best among the mentioned techniques because of its precision, nondestructive, versatility and ability to analyze several elements simultaneously and requires a very small amount of sample (50mg). However, if your target is for rare earth elements and ultratrace elements, I would recommend you to go for ICP-MS. On the other hand, if you want a quick overview of your sample, you can go for XRF.