Improving Detection Accuracy of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Cu Element in Pig Feed Based on Spatial Confinement

Mengqin Huang; Shujia Wu; Mingyin Yao; Zihao Liu; Chongjiu Wu; Long Xue; Muhua Liu; Jing Li

doi:10.3788/LOP213301

Journals >Laser & Optoelectronics Progress >Volume 60 >Issue 7 >Page 0730002 > Article

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
Vol. 60, Issue 7, 0730002 (2023)

Improving Detection Accuracy of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Cu Element in Pig Feed Based on Spatial Confinement

Mengqin Huang¹, Shujia Wu¹, Mingyin Yao^1、2, Zihao Liu¹, Chongjiu Wu¹, Long Xue^1、2, Muhua Liu^1、2, and Jing Li^1、2、*

Author Affiliations

¹School of Engineering, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, Jiangxi, China

²Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Modern Agricultural Equipment, Nanchang 330045, Jiangxi, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/LOP213301 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Mengqin Huang, Shujia Wu, Mingyin Yao, Zihao Liu, Chongjiu Wu, Long Xue, Muhua Liu, Jing Li. Improving Detection Accuracy of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Cu Element in Pig Feed Based on Spatial Confinement[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2023, 60(7): 0730002 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of CC-LIBS system

Download full size

Fig. 2. LIBS diagram from 324.301 to 328.421 nm of 60 # sample

Download full size

Fig. 3. Spectral intensity of Cu element changing with concentration under two LIBS conditions. (a) LIBS; (b) CC-LIBS

Download full size

Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）
01#	53.9±0.06	16#	60.8±0.04	31#	133.9±0.13	46#	224.7±0.14
02#	53.9±0.05	17#	61.4±0.03	32#	133.2±0.02	47#	219.0±0.25
03#	53.6±0.06	18#	61.1±0.07	33#	133.2±0.03	48#	210.9±0.17
04#	39.2±0.13	19#	80.8±0.01	34#	153.5±0.19	49#	265.0±0.22
05#	39.2±0.07	20#	80.2±0.04	35#	153.2±0.28	50#	265.6±0.22
06#	40.2±0.11	21#	78.9±0.08	36#	153.5±0.21	51#	268.7±0.11
07#	35.2±0.07	22#	96.2±0.05	37#	172.0±0.31	52#	289.0±0.10
08#	32.7±0.08	23#	95.9±0.13	38#	173.5±0.37	53#	288.4±0.13
09#	32.0±0.07	24#	95.3±0.17	39#	174.5±0.12	54#	286.5±0.08
10#	41.1±0.02	25#	107.8±0.05	40#	185.1±0.09	55#	305.7±0.15
11#	41.1±0.02	26#	107.4±0.20	41#	183.9±0.14	56#	302.2±0.26
12#	41.4±0.04	27#	108.7±0.18	42#	182.9±0.03	57#	297.9±0.33
13#	40.1±0.05	28#	108.8±0.12	43#	167.6±0.05	58#	293.3±0.37
14#	39.8±0.03	29#	106.0±0.12	44#	168.9±0.05	59#	301.4±1.19
15#	40.1±0.05	30#	103.5±0.05	45#	167.6±0.17	60#	297.3±0.23

Table 1. Actual content of Cu element in pig feed samples

Pretreatment method	Without confinement		With confinement
Pretreatment method	R	RMSEP	R	RMSEP
SNV	0.9099	41.8	0.9868	16.5
MSC	0.8684	49.3	0.9881	14.4
Center	0.9515	28.4	0.9676	25.3
FD	0.9308	32.9	0.9732	24.7
SD	0.9431	30.0	0.9826	19.0

Table 2. Prediction results of PLS models for five pretreatment methods with and without spatial confinement

Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Without confinement		With confinement
Sample	Reference concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Predicted concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Relative error /%	Predicted concentration /（mg·kg^-1）	Relative error /%
3#	35.150	$-$ 3.594	110.22	45.321	28.94
7#	40.146	27.319	31.95	50.029	24.62
11#	41.075	59.296	44.36	49.408	20.29
15#	53.907	$-$ 21.063	139.07	49.268	8.61
19#	78.937	112.957	43.10	89.777	13.73
23#	95.912	126.808	32.21	84.715	11.67
27#	107.446	163.677	52.33	122.788	14.28
31#	133.200	196.734	47.70	155.134	16.47
35#	153.535	214.088	39.44	157.989	2.90
39#	168.866	240.759	42.57	183.333	8.57
43#	182.927	206.155	12.70	161.797	11.55
47#	219.028	262.547	19.87	240.801	9.94
51#	268.743	276.095	2.74	249.887	7.02
55#	293.271	250.601	14.55	307.080	4.71
59#	302.249	222.260	26.46	289.109	4.35

Table 3. Prediction results of Cu element in MSC pretreatment model

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information