Instrumental_Analysis_of_Process_Products/Instrumental Analysis of Process Products/AA Analysis.pptAtomic Absorption
Terry A. RingChemical EngineeringUniversity of Utah

E= -13.6 eV Z2/n2

Photo absorption/emision

Atomic Absorption

Lamps are Special
Cathode with receptacle for material Vapor of Material to be analyzedVapor Excited by plasmaLight of particular wavelength

Aerosol Flow
Burner Fuel (& oxidizer) mixed with aerosol of sampleSample asperated into burner Flame ionizes Sample

Intensity vs Wavelength in AA
Light Source

Absorbance

MonochromaticDetector

Analysis
Absorption of LightElectrons are excitedLight Intensity on detector is less

Graphite furnace AA

Other AAs
FlameSparkArcPlasmaLaserX-ray

Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
Flame is used to generated Atoms with excited electrons and ionsLight is filtered in spectrometer to give Intensity vs wavelength

Spectrometer
Emitted LightBroken into different color componentsPrismGrating

X-ray Fluorescence
Two StepsAbsorption of X-rayElimination of electron for k or L shellCollapse of M shell electron to fill holeLight emission (x-ray)

Potential X-ray Emissions
From K shell holeK, K, K, Zeeman Effect - 1, 2, 3From L shell holeL, L, L,

Generation of X-rays
High Voltage ElectronsElectron ScatteringElectron AbsorptionX-ray photo ionization

XRF
Energy-dispersive XRFWavelength-dispersive XRF

XRF Detectors
Energy-dispersive XRFSemiconductorWavelength dispersive XRFScintilation Counter

XRF Analysis
Samples can be in any formSolidPowderLiquid

Instrumental_Analysis_of_Process_Products/Instrumental Analysis of Process Products/CriticalReview.pptIntroduction to Critical Review
Instrumental Analysis CHFEN 5503Sarah Read, C.E.L.

Ways of Reading a Text
For Content to get information from the text: Answers the question What is this text about?For Function to understand how the text is constructed. Answers the question What is this text doing? (thesis, main point, introduction, example, conclusion)Rhetorically to put the text in the broader context of the field: Answers the question What is the authors purpose, context, intended audience, bias?

2 Roles for Doing Research
Layperson: Focuses on the issues and problems of the assignment and topic, but does not do so within the discourse (insiders knowledge and perspective) of Chemical Engineering. Examples of how we are laypersons everyday Professional-in-training: Focuses on the issues and problems of the assignment and topic, but uses the methodologies and jargon of the field. Contexts in which we have the authority of an insider

What makes a critical review different?

Your purpose is to evaluate your research, not to just report it.Thus, it is an argument (think: thesis and supporting points) for your assessment of the source(s) you research.

How to treat each source:
Write an interpretive summary of the main points. This is your hypothesis about what is important and relevant for your reader to know about the source. You do not need to be comprehensive.Present what you believe are the most important strengths and weaknesses of the source and explain why. Compare the source to your other sources. Think rhetorically (in context) and with authority. What do youthe professionalthink?

What Makes a Question Researchable?
Its not too broad or too narrow for the scope of the project. Consider time/length.The question focuses on some aspect of the topic about which something has been said. Sources are available.It interests the researcher. You are interested.It matters to your field. It raises more questions. Avoid Yes/No questions. The answer to the question should not be simple.

Instrumental_Analysis_of_Process_Products/Instrumental Analysis of Process Products/Grade sheet.docUniversity of Utah

Department of Chemical Engineering

Scoring Rubric for CHFEN 5503 Instrumental Analysis Laboratory

Student_________________________________________________________ Group _______ Semester:_______ Year ________Project______________________________________ Faculty Supervisor___________________________ Report Type_______

CategoryExemplaryProficientApprentice Novice Score

A. Preliminary Oral Presentation, TeamworkStudent worked well in group, helped set group goals, participated in all team discussions, played a leadership role, prepared well for and presented an excellent oral presentation from the technical point of viewStudent worked well in group, helped set some group goals, participated in most team discussions, prepared well for and presented a good oral presentation from the technical point of viewStudent worked fairly well in group, helped set only a few group goals, participated in a few team discussions, fairly prepared for oral quiz and presented a fair oral presentation from the technical point of viewStudent did not work well in group, did not help set group goals, did not participate in team discussions, was not prepared for oral quiz and presented a poor presentation from the technical point of view

_________20 points max

B. Coherence Does the report tell a technically coherent story? Are objectives stated and met?Objectives were well stated and all objectives were met. Report told a technically coherent story and was well written. Analyses, interpretations and conclusions clear and logical.Objectives were fairly well stated and most were met. Report told a technically coherent story and was fairly well written. Analyses, interpretations and conclusions were mostly clear and logical.Objectives were fairly well stated and some objectives were met. Report did not tell a technically coherent story but was fairly well written. Analyses, interpretations and conclusions were fairly clear and logical.Objectives were not stated well and objectives were not met. Report did not tell a technically coherent story and was poorly written. Analyses, interpretations and conclusions were neither clear nor logical.

__________20 points max

C. Technical AccuracyExperiments were designed and conducted with virtually no errors; concepts (theory) from previous courses applied correctly; uncertainty analysis excellent; excellent comparison with accepted correlations/resultsExperiments were designed and conducted with only a few errors; concepts (theory) from previous courses applied correctly with few errors; uncertainty analysis good; good comparison with accepted correlations/resultsExperiments were designed and conducted with several errors; concepts (theory) from previous courses not applied correctly; uncertainty analysis fair; comparison with accepted correlations/results not quite done correctlyExperiments were not designed and conducted correctly; concepts (theory) from previous courses not understood; uncertainty analysis poor; no comparison with accepted correlations/results_________40 points max

D. Professional Standards includes quality of English Language, Form, Visuals, Citations Lab Operations, safety, efficient use of equipment, cleanupWritten report is virtually error-free, well-organized, easy to read, contains high-quality graphics, several good references, followed required format; excellent attention to safety and cleanup; knowledgeable of equipment; used equipment efficientlyWritten report has only a few errors, relatively well-organized, easy to read, contains good graphics, a few good references, mostly followed required format; good attention to safety and cleanup; fairly knowledgeable of equipment; mostly used equipment efficientlyWritten report has several errors, not very well-organized nor easy to read, fair graphics, references not good, usually followed required format; fair attention to safety and cleanup; not very knowledgeable of equipment; used equipment efficientlyWritten report is not acceptable, not well-organized nor easy to read, contains poor graphics, no references, did not followed required format; poor attention to safety and cleanup; not knowledgeable of equipment; used equipment efficiently

_________20 points max

TOTAL________100 points max

English Rewrite

-2 for 1st-5 for 2nd

Late Penalties (total for all categories)

-5 for