Chemische Charakterisierung und Spurenanalytik
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Schlagworte
- LIBS (2)
- Analytical Chemistry (1)
- Calibration (1)
- Laser induced plasma (1)
- Plasma diagnostics (1)
- Plasma modeling (1)
- Spectroscopy (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Two calibration-free (CF) LIBS approaches are used for the quantitative analysis of cement samples: the CF-LIBS based on the Boltzmann plot method and the Monte Carlo (MC) LIBS based on the iterative spectrum fitting. In CF-LIBS, the inverse problem is solved, i.e. the elemental concentrations are determined by the reconstruction of plasma parameters from spectra. The MC-LIBS technique solves the direct problem by finding the highest correlation between the model-generated and experimental spectrum. The accuracy of both calibration-free LIBS methods suffers from factors such as inaccurately determined instrumental function, the deviation of experimental plasma from the mathematical model used, not taking into account the collection geometry, and from the uncertainty of spectroscopic data. The both calibration-free LIBS approaches are first applied to synthetic spectra which perfectly suit the mathematical model of the method, i.e. the model of the uniform, isothermal, and stationary plasma. This test yields the accuracy of both the approaches for the ideal case. In addition, the accuracy of both the methods is investigated for non-uniform and non-isothermal plasma, because real laser-induced plasma often has high gradients in temperature and particle number densities. Finally, both calibration-free LIBS approaches are applied to experimental spectra obtained from cement samples. The figures of merits of two approaches are compared when working with both synthetic and experimental spectra.
This technical note highlights the fact that CF-LIBS algorithms work in mole fractions, while results of spectrochemical analysis are usually reported in mass fractions or mass percent. Ignoring this difference and not converting mole fractions to mass fractions can lead to errors in reported concentrations determined by the CF-LIBS method and inadequate comparison of these concentrations with certified concentrations. Here, the key points of the CF-LIBS algorithm are reproduced and the formulae for converting a mole fraction to a mass fraction and vice versa are given. Several numerical examples are also given, which show that the greater the difference between the molar mass of an individual element in a sample and the average molar mass, the greater the discrepancy between the mole and mass fractions.