4.4 Article

Quantitative analysis of C, Si, Mn, Ni, Cr and Cu in low-alloy steel under ambient conditions via laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy

期刊

PLASMA SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2058-6272/aabc5d

关键词

laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS); diode-pumped solid-state laser (DPSSL); optical emission spectrometry; laser-induced plasma

资金

  1. Development Fund of National Autonomous Demonstration Innovation Zone of Shandong Peninsula [ZCQ17104]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFB0305400]
  3. 'double hundred plan' Yantai talent funding project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A diode-pumped solid-state laser (DPSSL) with a high energetic stability and long service life is applied to ablate the steel samples instead of traditional Nd:YAG laser pumped by a xenon lamp, and several factors, such as laser pulse energy, repetition rate and argon flow rate, that influence laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) analytical performance are investigated in detail. Under the optimal experiment conditions, the relative standard deviations for C, Si, Mn, Ni, Cr and Cu are 3.3%-8.9%, 0.9%-2.8%, 1.2%-4.1%, 1.7%-3.0%, 1.1%-3.4% and 2.5%-8.5%, respectively, with the corresponding relative errors of 1.1%-7.9%, 1.0%-6.3%, 0.4%-3.9%, 1.5%-6.3%, 1.2%-4.0% and 1.2%-6.4%. Compared with the results of the traditional spark discharge optical emission spectrometry technique, the analytical performance of LIBS is just a little inferior due to the less stable laser-induced plasma and smaller amount of ablated sample by the laser. However, the precision, detection limits and accuracy of LIBS obtained in our present work were sufficient to meet the requirements for process analysis. These technical performances of higher stability of output energy and longer service life for DPSSL, in comparison to the Q-switch laser pumped by aeon lamp, qualify it well for the real time online analysis for different industrial applications.

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

4.4
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