Microsoft Power Point Flow Analysis Webinar April 2009
description
Transcript of Microsoft Power Point Flow Analysis Webinar April 2009
Flow Injection Analysis orSegmented Flow Analysis –
which method to use foryour application
William LippsMarket Specialist – Water Analyzer Products
Why do laboratories automate?
• Automationincreasesproductivity
• Automationdecreases laborcost
• Automationincreases day today reproducibility
When laboratories should notautomate
• it takes more time and effortthan it did before youautomated
Analytes that can be measuredusing automated chemistry
• Alkalinity• Ammonia• Chloride• Nitrate• Nitrite• Nitrogen, Total
Kjeldahl (TKN)• Cyanide
• Phenolics• ortho-
Phosphate• Total
Phosphorus• Silica• Sulfide• Sulfate
Laboratory costs that can bereduced by automation
Laboratory Cost
10 – 20 %OperationalSupplies
7 – 12 %Indirect Labor
20 – 28 %Direct labor
Reagent usage is decreased byautomation
0
5
10
15
20
25
ManualMethodsFlow Methods
DiscreteMethods
Milliliters
Waste generation is decreased byautomation
0102030405060708090
100
ManualMethodsFlow Methods
DiscreteMethods
Milliliters
The potential profit and cost savingsis high using automated methods
$ 10, 360$100Potential Profit
$25$25Per Test Price
48010Capacity (day)
$37.5$150Labor + OH
14Labor hours
$15$15Wage
OIA 1677CATC
The grand daddy of automation isthe continuous flow analyzer
• Segmented Flow Analysis (SFA)– 1954 by Leonard Skeggs– Technicon Autoanalyzer – introduced
1957
• Flow Injection Analysis (FIA)– About 1975 by Ruzika and others– Perstorp Tecator
All continuous flow analyzers havecommon parts
• Autosampler• Peristaltic Pump• Chemistry Cartridge• Flow through Detector• Signal Processor
Segmented Flow Analysis (SFA) - thefirst wet chemistry automation tool
• Established, mature technique• Multiple methods in literature and
as approved regulatory testmethods.
Sample is pumped into a segmentedcontinuous stream of reagent
R2
Sample/Wash
AIR
Det
WasteR1
Waste
Sample + Wash Pumpedinto Tubing
Pump
Flow Injection Analysis wasintroduced as an alternative to SFA.
• An acceptable alternative to SFAmethods.
• Multiple literary references, ATPapprovals.
Sample is injected into a continuousstream of reagent
CARRIER
R1
WasteR2
DET
Sample
Mixing
Sample does not passthrough pump
SFA and FIA are both continuous flowmethods
• narrow bore tubing, mixing coils,and finally a detector.
• reaction is determined by theconfiguration and placement of thetubing the sample and reagentspass through.
Comparison between SFA and FIA
ValveInjection intoflowingstream
Peristalticpumping intoflowingstream
SampleIntroduction
0.020 – 0.034”0.034 – 0.050”Conduits
Non-Segmented
SegmentedReagent System15 minutes15 minutesStartup time
FIASFA
Comparison between SFA and FIA
< 1%< 1%Reproducibility
rarelyAlmost alwaysSteady State
ControlledDispersion
“end over end”(inversion)
Sample mixing
30 - 120/hour30 - 120/hourSample rate
20 – 2500 ul20 – 500 ulSample VolumesFIASFA
Comparison between SFA and FIA
15 minutes15 minutesShutdown
yesyesDialysis/Gasdiffusion
< 2 minutespreferred
Up to 20minutes or more
Incubation Times
FIASFA
Reasons to use a continuous flowanalyzer
• Method requires it• Eliminate interferences• Decrease manual labor• Lower your MDL
Choosing between FIA and SFA isnot personal preference
• use the best approach for theintended purpose
• methods must be adapted to suit thetechnique chosen– Redox reactions require long contact
times– Exposure to air causes extraneous
results
There are some methods best by FIAand some best by SFA
• Some flow methods cannot be doneas well by FIA– Dialysis– Distillation
• Some flow methods cannot be doneas well by SFA– Gas diffusion– Alkalinity
SFA has significant detection limitadvantages with dialysis methods
FIAMDL (mg/L)
SFAMDL (mg/L)
Analyte
0.10.02PO4
0.050.004NO3/NO2
0.20.01NH3
SFA has a significant throughputadvantage in in-line distillation
FIASamples / hour
SFASamples / hour
Analyte
1733Phenol
17*30CN
* Competitor data
Reaction rates are independent ofthe technique used
• Reaction rates are determined by thetemperature and concentration of thereagents.
• The rate of a color reaction is thesame whether by FIA or SFA.
Matrix interferences could cause FIAresults to be biased low.
Standards inDI water
Sample matrix
FIA SFA
When to use SFA or FIA is based onoptimum method performance
• FIA– Full color in < 2 minutes– Simplicity– Ease of Use
• SFA– More than 2 minutes for reaction– Complex matrices– Dialysis– On-line distillations / digestions
We will help you choose the best auto-analyzer for you.
• Depends entirely upon yourapplication.
• We will determine the optimumsolution for you.
• We assume you desire to automatesome aspect of your laboratory.
OI flow analyzers are capable of SFAand FIA on the same instrument
• User flexibility• Modular design• Increased capability• Low operating cost
Multiple channel instruments shouldrun every channel at the same time
SFA cartridges traditionally use glasscoils
A SFA cartridge A broken glass coil
Plastic cartridges that do not break;both SFA and FIA
• Flow IV cartridge
• FS3100 cartridge
Pins
Plastic cartridges are easier tointerchange than glass
• Reagentconnections – Luerlock
• Mixing coils– Nut and ferrule– Teflon or EVA
Comparison of SFA and FIA on theOI FS3100
2 - 42 - 3Reagent(mL)
< 2%< 2%RSD30 - 12040 - 90Sample/hour
1 - 2minutes
10 minutesMax delaytime
~200 µL~200 µLVolumelooptimeSample introFIASFA
Method comparison of SFA and FIAon the FS3100
FIAthroughput
FIAMDL
SFAthroughput
SFAMDL
Analyte
600.001450.001PO4
600.002550.0005NO3/NO2
510.002720.003NH3
OI Flow methods enjoy a largecalibration range
FIA CalibrationRange (mg/L)
SFA CalibrationRange (mg/L)Analyte
0.01 – 5.00.01 – 2.0PO4
0.005 - 100.005 - 10NO3/NO2
0.01 - 200.01 - 25NH3
Choosing between SFA and FIA bylaboratory requirement
Simple Chemistry Minimal Training Ability to AddModules Later
Complex andVariable Matrices
SFAFIA