4.7 Article

CF-LIBS analysis of frozen aqueous solution samples by using a standard internal reference and correcting the self-absorption effect

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 629-641

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ja00299h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Laboratory of Surfaces and Nanostructures of the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas
  2. Nucleus of Biomass Studies and Water Management of the Fluminense Federal University
  3. Brazilian government agency CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this paper is to present an innovative procedure to determine the composition of a liquid sample using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy without calibration curves, or the so-called CF-LIBS (Calibration Free-Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy). Our results of CF-LIBS for the elemental composition were compared with the sample standard concentration determined by Microwave PlasmaAtomic Emission Spectroscopy (MP-AES). In this work, a controlled amount of an internal standard, an extra chemical element, is placed into a liquid sample that is afterward frozen to produce a solid target. The plasma of the target material is produced at atmospheric pressure by focusing a Nd: YAG laser on the frozen target surface. Time-resolved emission spectra are acquired and used for quantitative analysis. An extraordinary increase in the accuracy of elemental concentration is achieved when the spectroscopic data are corrected through an analytical elimination of the self-absorption effect. The corrected data plotted in a Boltzmann diagram show that CF-LIBS can provide good analytical sensitivity and accurate and reliable elemental concentrations when the local thermodynamic equilibrium conditions are experimentally fulfilled and the self-absorption effect on the line intensities is corrected. In the case analyzed here, the concentration results obtained by the improved CF-LIBS procedure give relative deviations of 3.3% maximum when compared with those of MP-AES.

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

4.7
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