4.7 Article

Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence and scattering assessment of soil quality via partial least squares and artificial neural networks analytical modeling approaches

Journal

TALANTA
Volume 98, Issue -, Pages 236-240

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2012.06.081

Keywords

Artificial neural networks; Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence and scattering; Partial least squares; Soil quality assessment; Spectra modeling

Funding

  1. University of Nairobi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil quality assessment (SQA) calls for rapid, simple and affordable but accurate analysis of soil quality indicators (SQIs). Routine methods of soil analysis are tedious and expensive. Energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence and scattering (EDXRFS) spectrometry in conjunction with chemometrics is a potentially powerful method for rapid SQA. In this study, a 25 m Ci Cd-109 isotope source XRF spectrometer was used to realize EDXRFS spectrometry of soils. Glycerol (a simulate of organic soil solution) and kaolin (a model clay soil) doped with soil micro (Fe, Cu, Zn) and macro(NO3-, SO42-, H2PO4-) nutrients were used to train multivariate chemometric calibration models for direct (non-invasive) analysis of SQIs based on partial least squares (PLS) and artificial neural networks (ANN). The techniques were compared for each SQI with respect to speed, robustness, correction ability for matrix effects, and resolution of spectral overlap. The method was then applied to perform direct rapid analysis of SQIs in field soils. A one-way ANOVA test showed no statistical difference at 95% confidence interval between PLS and ANN results compared to reference soil nutrients. PLS was more accurate analyzing C, N, Na, P and Zn (R-2 > 0.9) and low SEP of (0.05%, 0.01%, 0.01%, and 1.98 mu g g(-1) respectively), while ANN was better suited for analysis of Mg, Cu and Fe (R-2 > 0.9 and SEP of 0.08%, 4.02 mu g g(-1), and 0.88 mu g g(-1) respectively). (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available