4.6 Article

Accuracy enhancement of a multivariate calibration for lead determination in soils by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2017.12.005

关键词

-

资金

  1. RFBR [15-33-70055]
  2. Moscow city Government [15-33-70055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated matrix effects and spectral interferences on example of lead determination in different types of soils by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). Comparison between analytical performances of univariate and multivariate calibrations with the use of different laser wavelength for ablation (532, 355 and 266 nm) have been reported. A set of 17 soil samples (Ca-rich, Fe-rich, lean soils etc., 8.5-280 ppm of Pb) was involved into construction of the calibration models. Spectral interferences from main components (Ca, Fe, Ti, Mg) and trace components (Mn, Nb, Zr) were estimated by spectra modeling, and they were a reason for significant differences between the univariate calibration models obtained for a three different soil types (black, red, gray) separately. Implementation of 3rd harmonic of Nd:YAG laser in combination with multivariate calibration model based on PCR with 3 principal components provided the best analytical results: the RMSEC has been lowered down to 8 ppm. The sufficient improvement of the relative uncertainty (up to 5-10%) in comparison with univariate calibration was observed at the Pb concentration level > 50 ppm, while the problem of accuracy still remains for some samples with Pb concentration at the similar to 20 ppm level. We have also discussed a few possible ways to estimate LOD without a blank sample. The most rigorous criterion has resulted in LOD of Pb in soils being similar to 13 ppm. Finally, a good agreement between the values of lead content predicted by LIBS (46 +/- 5 ppm) and XRF (42.1 +/- 3.3 ppm) in the unknown soil sample from Lomonosov Moscow State University area was demonstrated. (C) 2017 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