Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Recent advances in ion-selective electrodes have pushed the detection limits of direct potentiometry to the nanomolar concentration range. Here we present a direct comparison of the sensitivity and selectivity of potentiometric and stripping-voltammetric measurements of cadmium and lead. While both techniques offer a similar sensitivity, the potentiometric method offers higher selectivity in the presence of excess of metal ions (e.g., thallium, tin) that commonly interfere in the stripping-voltammetric operation. Because of the complementary nature of the potentiometric and stripping-voltammetric methods, it is recommended that these techniques will be selected based on the specific analytical problem or used in parallel to provide additional analytical information.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836769 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/elan.200904613 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!