ABSTRACT The literature of Analytical Chemistry abounds in papers describing the use of specific measurement techniques for the determination of trace amounts of both inorganic and organic constituents. Recent emphasis throughout the world on problems of pollution and health has encouraged the extension of existing trace methods and the search for, and development of, potential new techniques. Unfortunately, it often appears that the field of trace analysis is split into two widely disparate groups: one, where proponents of a particular technique tend to measure the capabilities of their methods on ‘distilled water’ or other near ideal systems, and the other, where those developing the trace methods must apply them without delay to very practical samples such as air particulates, waste water, food, blood, etc. The former experimenter often extolls the ‘ultra’ sensitivities of 10-8to 10-9 grammes attainable under certain conditions, while the latter often expresses satisfaction if he can get an answer on his practical sample to within an accuracy of 10-25 or even 50 per cent. Often, also, there is little communication and/or understanding between members of these two groups. Whether we like it or not, trace analysis is today in the spotlight of public attention and the analytical chemist can perform an important service if many of his efforts can be related to the solution of some of these practical problems. Thus, when the environmentalist asks about the amount of contaminant in a specific sample the analytical chemist should be able to give an unbiased value with an associated accuracy limit—not just a value obtained with highly refined measurements using one or another specific technique or procedure. Proponents of widely-used trace analysis methods such as atomic absorption, spark source mass spectrometry, polarography, activation analysis, etc., often give the impression that their methods alone can solve a large fraction of the problems of trace analysis. In addition, from time to time new, specialized trace methods are reported and sometimes find use in solving special analytical problems. However, the trace analyst deceives himself and, worse yet, gives false impressions to others unless he is able to understand the biases of his methods and instruments in relation to other possible methods and instruments and in addition expresses these biases quantitatively as accuracy error limits. Our experience at NBS in certifying trace element Standard Reference Materials in matrices as diverse as glass, orchard leaves, gold, zinc, beef liver, tuna fish and coal has given us an insight into the optimum contributions which can be made by many of these methods. The advantages and disadvantages of activation analysis as well as of several other types of radiochemical methods will be discussed in relation to other trace analysis techniques, based on our NBS experience in practical trace analysis.

中文翻译：

---

放射化学是痕量分析的终极目标吗？

摘要 分析化学文献中有大量描述使用特定测量技术测定痕量无机和有机成分的论文。最近全世界对污染和健康问题的重视鼓励了现有痕量方法的扩展以及潜在新技术的寻找和开发。不幸的是，痕量分析领域似乎经常被分成两个截然不同的群体：一个是特定技术的支持者倾向于测量他们的方法在“蒸馏水”或其他接近理想的系统上的能力，另一个是，那些开发痕量方法的人必须毫不拖延地将它们应用于非常实用的样品，例如空气微粒、废水、食物、血液等。前者经常夸耀在某些条件下可以达到 10-8 到 10-9 克的“超”灵敏度，而后者通常表示满意，如果他能在他的实际样品上得到准确度在 10-25 甚至 50 以内的答案百分。通常，这两个群体的成员之间也几乎没有交流和/或理解。不管我们喜欢与否，痕量分析今天是公众关注的焦点，如果分析化学家的许多努力可以与解决这些实际问题中的一些相关，那么分析化学家就可以提供重要的服务。因此，当环保主义者询问特定样品中污染物的含量时，分析化学家应该能够给出具有相关准确度限制的无偏值——而不仅仅是使用一种或另一种特定技术或程序通过高度精确测量获得的值。原子吸收法、火花源质谱法、极谱法、活化分析等广泛使用的痕量分析方法的支持者往往给人的印象是，他们的方法本身就可以解决痕量分析的很大一部分问题。此外，新的、专门的示踪方法不时被报道，有时可用于解决特殊的分析问题。然而，踪迹分析师自欺欺人，更糟糕的是，除非他能够理解他的方法和仪器相对于其他可能的方法和仪器的偏差，并且另外将这些偏差定量地表达为准确度误差限制，否则会给他人错误的印象。我们在 NBS 认证各种基质中的微量元素标准参考物质方面的经验，如玻璃、果园树叶、金、锌、牛肝、金枪鱼和煤炭，让我们深入了解了许多这些方法可以做出的最佳贡献. 基于我们在实际痕量分析中的 NBS 经验，将结合其他痕量分析技术讨论活化分析以及其他几种放射化学方法的优缺点。