Determination of manganese, nickel, lead, titanium, vanadium, and copper in oils from the Tyumen field by a spectral method

R. D. Glukhovskaya, L. S. Kolesnikova, Yu. A. Karbainov
Submitted 1976 | SovietRxiv: ru-197601.13397 | Translated from Russian

Abstract Generated abstract

This paper describes an emission spectral method for determining trace manganese, nickel, lead, titanium, vanadium, and copper in crude oils from the Tyumen field. After comparing sample preparation approaches, the authors use sulfate ashing of 20 to 25 g oil samples, dilution of the ash concentrate with spectrally pure carbon powder and sodium chloride, excitation in an alternating current arc, and calibration against oxide based standards. The method is applied to oils from multiple fields, and the resulting elemental concentrations are tabulated with statistical treatment of replicate measurements, indicating variable trace metal contents and generally quantified relative errors for many determinations.

Full Text

DETERMINATION OF MANGANESE, NICKEL, LEAD, TITANIUM, VANADIUM, AND COPPER IN OILS OF THE TYUMEN FIELD BY A SPECTRAL METHOD

R. D. Glukhovskaya, L. S. Kolesnikova, Yu. A. Karbainov,
L. V. Peneva

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Analytical Chemistry)

In a previous communication (an article in this collection) it was shown that, when comparing various methods of sample preparation, two procedures proved to be the most rational: ashing the sample with sulfuric acid [1–3] and ashing in the presence of a collector—carbon powder [4–7]. The first method, as can be seen from Table 1, gives more reproducible results. This is apparently due to the fact that the dry residue with the collector is not completely ashed. The sintered coke residues were difficult to grind, and this could have caused an uneven distribution of the elements throughout the mass of the carbon powder. In this connection, the oil samples intended for the study were ashed by the sulfate method.

Analytical procedure. An oil sample (20–25 g) is placed in a quartz dish, an equal volume of sulfuric acid is added, and the dish is placed on an electric hot plate (with asbestos) and carefully heated. Gradually increasing the heating temperature, heating is continued until the evolution of sulfurous gas vapors ceases and a black spongy mass forms.

The dish is transferred to a slightly preheated muffle furnace, and the temperature is gradually increased to \(500 \pm 50^\circ\mathrm{C}\). Calcination is carried out until complete ashing of the dry residue; the dish is cooled, small amounts of spectrally pure carbon powder are added, the powder is moistened with alcohol, the walls of the dish are wiped with a glass rod with a polyethylene tip, and the material is transferred to a preweighed watch glass. This operation is repeated several times until all the ash has been quantitatively transferred from the dish. The watch glass with its contents is then weighed, and the weight of the concentrate is brought to 120–150 mg with carbon powder. The sample is thoroughly ground in the presence of alcohol. Part of the resulting sample is diluted with carbon powder by factors of 10 and 100 and ground again in the same way. To the resulting samples and standards, 5% spectrally pure sodium chloride is added; they are ground for 5–10 min and used to fill the channel of a crater-type carbon electrode.

On one plate, the spectra of the samples prepared in this way and of standards with concentrations from \(3 \cdot 10^{-5}\) to \(1 \cdot 10^{-2}\%\) are photographed three times on an ISP-28 spectrograph.

The excitation source used in the work was an alternating-current arc (current strength 10 A).

The standards were prepared by grinding carbon powder with oxides of the corresponding elements [8].

On an MF-4 microphotometer, the intensity of the analytical lines was measured: Mn — \(\lambda = 2801.06\ \text{Å}\), Ti — \(3088.03\ \text{Å}\), V — \(3185.4\ \text{Å}\); Ni — \(3050.82\ \text{Å}\); Cu — \(3247.54\ \text{Å}\); Pb — \(2833.07\ \text{Å}\); and from \(\Delta S = S_{\ell} - S_{\phi}\) and \(\lg C\) a calibration graph was constructed.

The percentage content of the elements in the oil being analyzed was calculated by the formula

\[ \% Me = \frac{(C_1 - C_0)\cdot n}{a\cdot H}, \]

where

\(C_1\) — content of the element in the oil sample (from the graph), %;
\(C_0\) — content of the element in the blank sample (from the graph), %;
\(n\) — weight of the concentrate, g;
\(a\) — dilution, \(H\) — sample weight, g.

The results of the determinations were processed by the method of mathematical statistics and are given in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Table 1

Ashing method Mn Ni Pb Ti V Cu
Sulfate \(1.3\cdot10^{-5}\) \(2.9\cdot10^{-4}\) \(2.2\cdot10^{-6}\) \(6.4\cdot10^{-6}\) \(4.4\cdot10^{-4}\) \(5\cdot10^{-5}\)
Sulfate \(1.6\cdot10^{-5}\) \(3.2\cdot10^{-4}\) \(1.5\cdot10^{-6}\) \(7.9\cdot10^{-6}\) \(4.7\cdot10^{-4}\) \(4.37\cdot10^{-5}\)
With collector \(3.2\cdot10^{-5}\) \(3.2\cdot10^{-4}\) \(2.6\cdot10^{-6}\) \(4.6\cdot10^{-6}\) \(9.4\cdot10^{-4}\) \(5.1\cdot10^{-5}\)
With collector \(4.6\cdot10^{-5}\) \(2.1\cdot10^{-4}\) \(1.7\cdot10^{-6}\) \(8.4\cdot10^{-6}\) \(7.3\cdot10^{-4}\) \(3.1\cdot10^{-5}\)

Table 2

Results of spectral analysis for nickel content

No. Field Number of measurements, \(n\) Arithmetic mean \(\bar{x}\cdot10^4\) Error of the arithmetic mean \(\pm S\bar{x}\cdot10^4\) Student parameter \(t_{0.95}\) Absolute deviation \(\pm\varepsilon\cdot10^4\) Experimental results \(10^4\%\) % errors
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 5 17.0 \(\pm2.4\) 2.78 \(\pm6.6\) \(17.0\pm6.6\) 38.8
2 Myldzhinskaya 7 12 2.7 \(\pm0.5\) 2.2 \(\pm0.33\) \(2.7\pm0.33\) 12.0
3 Novoportovskaya 79 5 0.55 \(\pm0.025\) 2.78 \(\pm0.07\) \(0.55\pm0.07\) 12.0
4 Solymskaya 24 4 0.053 — — — — —
5 Sovetskaya 41 5 4.3 \(\pm0.3\) 2.78 \(\pm0.83\) \(4.3\pm0.83\) 19.5
6 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 5 1.2 — — — — —
7 Ubinskaya 311 6 5.4 \(\pm0.15\) 2.57 \(\pm0.4\) \(5.4\pm0.4\) 7.4
8 Tolumskaya 13 6 0.68 \(\pm0.036\) 2.57 \(\pm0.093\) \(0.68\pm0.093\) 13.6
9 Yu-Cheremshanskaya 6 4.7 \(\pm0.2\) 2.57 \(\pm0.51\) \(4.7\pm0.51\) 11.0
10 Tazovskaya 11 8 9.0 \(\pm0.21\) 2.36 \(\pm0.5\) \(9.0\pm0.5\) 5.6
11 Trekhozernaya 527 11 2.0 \(\pm0.11\) 2.23 \(\pm0.24\) \(2.0\pm0.24\) 12.0
12 Russkaya 13 5 6.4 \(\pm0.34\) 2.78 \(\pm0.94\) \(6.4\pm0.94\) 15.0
13 Tolumskaya 25 5 1.3 \(\pm0.062\) 2.78 \(\pm0.17\) \(1.3\pm0.17\) 13.0
14 Strezhevaya 15 6 8.5 \(\pm0.4\) 2.57 \(\pm1.03\) \(8.5\pm1.03\) 12.0

Table 3

Results of spectral analysis for titanium content

Sample No. Field Number of measurements, $n$ Arithmetic mean $\bar{x}\cdot 10^5$ Error of the arithmetic mean $\pm S\bar{x}\cdot 10^5$ Student parameter $t_{0.95}$ Absolute deviation $\pm \varepsilon \cdot 10^5$ Experimental results, $10^5\%$ % error
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 3 0.57 ±0.015 — ±0.05 0.57±0.05 8.8
2 Tolumskaya 3 3 1.53 — — — — —
3 Sovetskaya 41 6 0.201 — — — — —
4 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 3 0.23 — — — — —
5 Solymskaya 24 2 0.405 — — — — —
6 Novopoltavskaya 7 0.88 — — — — —
7 Myldzhinskaya 7 9 2.1 ±0.057 2.31 ±0.11 2.1±0.11 5.2
8 Ubinskaya 311 4 0.9 ±0.07 2.36 ±0.22 0.9±0.22 24.0
9 Yu-Cheremshanskaya 4 1.8 — — — — —
10 Tazovskaya 11 5 3.3 ±0.24 2.78 ±0.68 3.3±0.68 20.0
11 Trekhozernaya 527 8 0.26 ±0.17 2.36 ±0.4 0.28±0.4 14.0
12 Russkaya 13 7 3.7 ±0.22 2.45 ±0.54 3.7±0.54 14.0
13 Tolumskaya 25 5 2.3 ±0.12 2.78 ±0.33 2.3±0.33 14.3
14 Strezhevaya 15 4 5.9 ±0.43 3.18 ±1.37 5.9±1.37 23.3

Table 4

Results of spectral analysis for lead content

Sample No. Field Number of measurements, $n$ Arithmetic mean $\bar{x}\cdot 10^6$ Error of the arithmetic mean $\pm S\bar{x}\cdot 10^6$ Student parameter $t_{0.95}$ Absolute deviation $\pm \varepsilon \cdot 10^6$ Experimental results, $10^6\%$ % error
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 4 1.9 ±0.3 3.18 ±0.41 1.9±0.41 21.6
2 Myldzhinskaya 7 12 14.5 ±0.52 2.2 ±1.1 14.5±1.1 7.6
3 Novoportovskaya 79 4 52.0 ±2.0 3.18 ±6.4 52.0±6.4 12.3
4 Solymskaya 24 4 0.54 — — — — —
5 Sovetskaya 41 4 0.92 — — — — —
6 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 5 7.2 ±0.54 2.78 ±1.5 7.2±1.5 21.0
7 Ubinskaya 311 6 2.5 — — — — —
8 Tolumskaya 13 4 3.2 — — — — —
9 Yu-Cheremshanskaya 4 2.9 ±0.23 3.18 ±0.73 2.9±0.73 25.2
10 Tazovskaya 11 5 0.92 ±0.074 2.78 ±0.2 0.92±0.2 22
11 Trekhozernaya 527 5 1.8 ±0.16 2.78 ±0.46 1.8±0.46 25
12 Russkaya 13 5 6.7 ±0.19 2.78 ±0.54 6.7±0.54 8.5
13 Tolumskaya 25 4 5.5 ±0.13 3.18 ±0.41 5.5±0.41 7.5
14 Strezhevaya 15 5 1.3 ±0.13 2.78 ±0.35 1.3±0.35 27

Table 5

Results of spectral analysis for copper content

No. Field Number of measurements, \(n\) Arithmetic mean \(\bar{x}\cdot10^5\) Error of the mean \(\pm Sx\cdot10^5\) Student parameter \(t_{0.95}\) Absolute deviation \(\pm \varepsilon\cdot10^5\) Experimental results \(10^5\) % error
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 3 0,43 — — — — —
2 Myldzhinskaya 7 6 50,0 ±1,3 2,57 3,3 50±3,3 6,6
3 Novoportovskaya 79 6 2,8 ±0,65 2,57 0,17 2,8±0,17 6,1
4 Solymskaya 24 4 0,55 — — — — —
5 Sovetskaya 41 5 1,6 — — — — —
6 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 4 1,8 ±0,07 3,18 ±0,22 1,8±0,22 12,0
7 Ubinskaya 311 4 15,0 ±1,30 3,18 ±4,1 15±4,1 28,0
8 Tolumskaya 13 4 28,0 ±1,6 3,18 ±5,1 28,0±5,1 18,0
9 Yu.-Cheremshanskaya 3 3,6 — — — — —
10 Trekhozernaya 527 7 5,4 ±0,36 2,45 ±0,88 5,4±0,88 16,5
11 Tazovskaya 11 9 17,0 ±1,0 2,31 ±2,3 17±2,3 13,5
12 Russkaya 13 4 0,8 ±0,55 2,36 ±1,53 0,8±1,53 19,2
13 Tolumskaya 25 7 7,05 ±0,63 2,45 ±1,63 7,05±1,63 23,3
14 Strezhevaya 15 6 2,6 ±0,16 2,57 ±1,54 2,6±0,4 15,4

Table 6

Results of spectral analysis for manganese content

No. Field Number of measurements, \(n\) Arithmetic mean \(\bar{x}\cdot10^5\) Error of the mean \(\pm Sx\cdot10^5\) Student parameter \(t_{0.95}\) Absolute deviation \(\pm \varepsilon\cdot10^5\) Experimental results \(10^5\) % error
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 4 2,2 ±0,15 3,18 ±0,48 2,2±0,48 22,0
2 Myldzhinskaya 7 8 27,0 ±0,92 2,36 ±2,22 27,0±2,2 8,0
3 Novoportovskaya 79 9 1,6 ±0,07 2,31 ±0,16 1,6±0,16 10,0
4 Solymskaya 24 5 0,41 ±0,034 2,78 ±0,095 0,41±0,034 23,0
5 Sovetskaya 41 6 0,65 ±0,043 2,57 ±0,11 0,65±0,11 17,0
6 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 6 0,8 ±0,053 2,57 ±0,14 0,8±0,14 17,5
7 Ubinskaya 311 8 0,84 ±0,02 2,36 ±0,047 0,84±0,047 5,6
8 Tolumskaya 13 5 6,0 ±0,35 2,78 ±0,97 6±0,97 16,0
9 Yu.-Cheremshanskaya 4 0,45 ±0,021 3,18 ±0,067 0,45±0,067 15,0
10 Tazovskaya 11 11 1,5 ±0,11 2,23 ±0,24 1,5±0,24 16,0
11 Trekhozernaya 527 7 0,3 ±0,018 2,45 ±0,045 0,3±0,045 15,0
12 Russkaya 13 8 5,9 ±0,44 2,36 ±1,05 5,9±1,05 17,0
13 Tolumskaya 25 6 6,3 ±0,23 2,57 ±0,59 6,3±0,59 9,3
14 Strezhevaya 15 4 6,4 ±1,0 3,18 ±1,6 6,4±1,6 25,0

Table 7

Results of spectral analysis for vanadium content

No. Field Number of measurements $n$ Arithmetic mean $\bar{x}\cdot 10^4$ Error of the arithmetic mean $\pm Sx\cdot 10^4$ Student parameter $t_{0.95}$ Absolute deviation $\pm \varepsilon \cdot 10^4$ Experimental results $10^4\%$ % error
1 Matyushkinskaya 34 6 11,0 ±0,6 2,57 ±1,55 11,0±1,55 1,4
2 Myldzhinskaya 7 6 4,8 ±0,13 2,57 ±0,35 4,8±0,35 7,2
3 Novoportovskaya 79 6 2,0 ±0,11 2,57 ±0,29 2,0±0,29 15,0
4 Solymskaya 24 5 0,34 — — — — —
5 Sovetskaya 41 4 1,1 ±0,75 3,18 ±0,28 1,1±0,28 25,0
6 Kiev-Eganskaya 350 5 0,19 ±0,011 2,78 ±0,032 0,19±0,032 5,8
7 Ubinskaya 311 5 7,3 ±0,42 2,78 ±1,2 7,3±1,2 16,0
8 Tolymskaya 13 6 0,11 ±0,01 2,57 ±0,026 0,11±0,026 23,0
9 Yu-Cheremshanskaya 6 1,0 ±0,052 2,57 ±0,13 1,0±0,13 13,0
10 Tazovskaya 11 4 7,5 ±0,67 3,18 ±0,21 7,5±0,21 28,0
11 Trekhozernaya 527 5 3,3 ±0,12 2,78 ±0,33 3,3±0,33 10,0
12 Russkaya 13 5 1,9 ±0,09 2,78 ±0,25 1,9±0,25 13,0
13 Tolymskaya 25 4 1,35 ±0,08 3,18 ±0,25 1,35±0,25 19,0
14 Strezhevaya 15 4 5,5 — — — — —

REFERENCES

  1. S. P. Gusev, L. V. Grishina. Collection of scientific works of the Moscow Institute of National Economy. Issue 18, 112 (1961).

  2. S. N. Aleksandrov, Ya. E. Shmulyakovskii, S. A. Alekseev. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, No. 9, 69 (1958).

  3. S. K. Kyuregyan. Emission Spectral Analysis of Petroleum Products. Moscow, “Khimiya,” 1969.

  4. E. V. Ilyina, K. I. Taganov. Spectral Analysis of Lubricating and Fuel Oils for Monitoring Wear of Parts in Mechanical Engineering. TsINTI, 1956.

  5. N. P. Gorozhankina, S. G. Soboleva. Application of Spectral Analysis of Oils to Increase the Reliability and Durability of Machines and Mechanisms. TsINTI, 1965, p. 86.

  6. M. M. Marenova, S. K. Kyuregyan. Application of Spectral Analysis of Oils to Increase the Reliability and Durability of Machines and Mechanisms. TsINTI, 1965, p. 32.

  7. A. I. Sokolov. Chemistry and Technology of Fuels and Oils, No. 2, 70 (1964).

  8. Methods for Analysis of Chemical Reagents and Preparations. Moscow, issue 8, 10 (1964).

Submission history

Determination of manganese, nickel, lead, titanium, vanadium, and copper in oils from the Tyumen field by a spectral method