4.6 Article

Non-destructive distinction between geogenic and anthropogenic calcite by Raman spectroscopy combined with machine learning workflow

期刊

ANALYST
卷 148, 期 12, 页码 2861-2870

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3an00441d

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate a non-destructive and effective method to distinguish between geogenic and anthropogenic calcite for the first time. Geogenic calcite comes from natural sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, while anthropogenic calcite is artificially formed through the carbonation process in mortars and plaster lime binders. This distinction is crucial in several fields and has been addressed in this paper using high-resolution micro-Raman spectroscopy combined with data mining and machine learning methods.
Here, we demonstrate, for the first time, the possibility of distinguishing between geogenic and anthropogenic calcite in a non-destructive and effective way. Geogenic calcite derives from natural sedimentary and metamorphic rocks whereas anthropogenic calcite is formed artificially due to the carbonation process in mortars and plaster lime binders. Currently, their distinction is a major unaddressed issue although it is crucial across several fields such as C-14 dating of historical mortars to avoid contamination with carbonate aggregates, investigating the origins of pigments, and studying the origins of sediments, to name a few. In this paper, we address this unmet need combining high-resolution micro-Raman spectroscopy with data mining and machine learning methods. This approach provides an effective means of obtaining robust and representative Raman datasets from which samples' origins can be effectively deduced; moreover, a distinction between sedimentary and metamorphic calcite has been also highlighted. The samples, chemically identical, exhibit systematic and reliable differences in Raman band positions, band shape and intensity, which are likely related to the degree of structural order and polarization effects.

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