4.6 Article

A spectrum standardization approach for laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy measurements

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2012.01.005

关键词

LIBS; Standardization; Normalization; Quantitative measurement; Plasma property

资金

  1. Chinese governmental 973 project [2010CB227006]
  2. 863 project [20091860346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper follows and completes a previous presentation of a spectrum normalization method for laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) measurements by converting the experimentally recorded line intensity at varying operational conditions to the intensity that would be obtained under a standard state condition, characterized by a standard plasma temperature, electron number density, and total number density of the interested species. At first, for each laser shot and corresponding spectrum, the line intensities of the interested species are converted to the intensity at a fixed plasma temperature and electron number density, but with varying total number density. Under this state, if the influence of changing plasma morphology is neglected, the sum of multiple spectral line intensities for the measured element is proportional to the total number density of the specific element. Therefore, the fluctuation of the total number density, or the variation of ablation mass, can be compensated for by applying the proportional relationship. The application of this method to Cu in 29 brass alloy samples, showed an improvement over the commonly applied normalization method with regard to measurement precision and accuracy. The average relative standard deviation (RSD) value, average value of the error bar, R-2, root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), and average value of the maximum relative error were: 5.29%, 0.68%, 0.98,2.72%, 16.97%, respectively, while the above parameter values for normalization with the whole spectrum area were: 8.61%. 1.37%, 0.95, 3.28%, 29.19%. respectively. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据