4.7 Article

Mid-infrared attenuated total reflectance spectroscopy for soil carbon and particle size determination

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 213, 期 -, 页码 57-63

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.017

关键词

Soil carbon; Clay; Evanescent field; Partial least squares regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In soil analysis mid-infrared spectroscopy (MIR) is not as widely used as visible and near infrared spectroscopy (VisNIR), mainly due to (1) the need for sample preparation and (2) strong absorption leading to spectral distortion and total absorption. In this study we used attenuated total reflectance (ATR) as a sample presentation technique to obtain MIR spectra of neat soil samples to overcome the two aforementioned drawbacks. A set of diverse soil samples (N = 270) were scanned with a Fourier Transform IR spectrometer (4000 to 400 cm(-1)) on its diamond ATR crystal. The objective was to investigate the usefulness of ATR spectra in determining clay, sand, organic and inorganic C using partial least squares regression. Results showed that inorganic C and clay can be predicted very well with ATE, with validation R-2 around 0.94 and Ratio of Performance to Deviation (RPD) around 4.0. Sand can be predicted satisfactorily also, with R-2 = 0.88 and RPD slightly lower than 3.0. Organic C is predicted with R-2 = 0.77 and RPD > 2.1. Compared to the results of VisNIR models, significantly higher accuracy was obtained for clay, sand, and inorganic C, and a slight improvement was obtained for organic C. In our opinion, MIR-ATR can be a promising and powerful tool for soil characterization. It combines the advantages of both VisNIR (minimum sample preparation and high analysis throughput) and diffuse reflectance MIR (better model performance). Finally, as evidenced in our leave-whole-field-out experiment, the models developed with ATR spectra performed better on dissimilar samples and might have a larger scope of application than VisNIR. (C) 2013 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

4.7
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