Kinetic Stability and Operational Optimization of Turbidimetric Sulfate Analysis Based on SNI 6989.20:2019 Methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v6i2.485Abstract
The measurement of sulfate (SO₄²⁻) levels using the SNI 6989.20:2019 turbidimetric method is highly dependent on the stability of the barium sulfate (BaSO₄) suspension. This study aims to evaluate the effect of waiting time (standing time) variations ranging from 5 to 35 minutes and sample container handling protocols (single vs. multi-Erlenmeyer) on the accuracy of analytical results at concentration levels of 20 mg/L and 60 mg/L. Measurements were conducted using a UV–Vis spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 420 nm. The results indicated that, at low concentrations (20 mg/L), the suspension remained relatively stable, with recovery values within the acceptable limits (90–110%) up to 35 minutes. Conversely, at high concentrations (60 mg/L), a significant decrease in recovery was observed after the 10-minute threshold, reaching 77.83% at 35 minutes due to particle sedimentation. The multi-Erlenmeyer protocol provided more accurate kinetic data compared to the single-Erlenmeyer approach, which tended to produce positively biased results due to mechanical re-suspension effects during repeated sampling.It is concluded that strict adherence to a 5-minute waiting time window is essential to ensure the validity of water quality monitoring, particularly for samples with high pollutant loads.
Keywords: Sulfate, Turbidimetry, SNI 6989.20:2019, Waiting Time, Kinetic Stability
Downloads
References
[1]. American Public Health Association. (2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd ed.). Washington, DC: APHA.https://www.standardmethods.org
[2]. Badan Standardisasi Nasional. (2019). SNI 6989.20:2019: Air dan air limbah—Bagian 20: Cara uji sulfat secara turbidimetri. Jakarta: BSN.https://sispk.bsn.go.id/SNI/DetailSNI/13064
[3]. European Medicines Agency. (2006). Guideline on specifications: Test procedures and acceptance criteria for new drug substances and new drug products. London: EMA.https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientificguideline/specifications-test-procedures-acceptance-criteria-new-drug-substances-new-drug products_en.pdf
[4]. Harris, D. C. (2016). Quantitative chemical analysis (9th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3535-7
[5]. Hem, J. D. (1985). Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3rd ed.). U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp2254
[6]. Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2016). Atmospheric chemistry and physics: From air pollution to climate change (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119221166
[7]. Skoog, D. A., Holler, F. J., & Crouch, S. R. (2014). Principles of instrumental analysis (6th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-495-01201-6
[8]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). 2012 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. Washington, DC: EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201509/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf
[9]. World Health Organization. (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (4th ed.). Geneva: WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549950 .
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Uswatul Husna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
