Fig. 1. Diagram of LIBS experimental setup
Fig. 2. Sunscreen film sample preparation diagram
Fig. 3. Spectral comparison between the film sample and a clean slide
Fig. 4. Relationship between cadmium line intensity and SNR and film thickness. (a) Cd Ⅱ 214.44 nm; (b) Cd Ⅱ 226.50 nm; (c) Cd Ⅰ 228.80 nm
Fig. 5. Calculating fitting curve of plasma temperature of thin film sample
Fig. 6. Cd spectral intensity map of four substrates
Fig. 7. Linear fitting of Cd spectral line intensity. (a) Cd Ⅱ 214.44 nm; (b) Cd Ⅱ 226.50 nm; (c) Cd Ⅰ 228.80 nm
Sample | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
---|
Mass ratio /(μg·g-1) | 5 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 60 | 80 | 40 | 70 | 100 |
|
Table 1. Mass ratio of Cd element in sunscreen samples
Base material | Wavelength /nm | Plasma temperature /K |
---|
Glass | Si Ⅰ 243.51,Si Ⅰ 263.13,Si Ⅰ 298.76,and Si Ⅰ 390.55 | 8473 | Zn | Zn Ⅱ 250.20,Zn Ⅱ 255.79,Zn Ⅱ 257.07,and Zn Ⅱ 276.40 | 7329 | Al | Al Ⅰ 221.01,Al Ⅰ 226.91,Al Ⅰ 256.80,Al Ⅰ 257.51,Al Ⅰ 265.25,Al Ⅰ 266.04,Al Ⅰ 308.22,and Al Ⅰ 309.27 | 6149 | Ceramics | Si Ⅰ 243.51,Si Ⅰ 263.13,Si Ⅰ 298.76,and Si Ⅰ 390.55 | 4620 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of plasma temperature under different substrates
Wavelength /nm | R2 | Standard deviation | LOD /(μg·g-1) |
---|
Cd Ⅱ 214.44 | 0.988 | 52.34 | 2.17 | Cd Ⅱ 226.50 | 0.979 | 69.66 | 2.72 | Cd Ⅰ 228.80 | 0.979 | 60.31 | 3.93 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of LOD values obtained from different Cd spectral lines
Type | Wavelength /nm | Process | LOD /(μg·g-1) | Reference |
---|
Lipstick | Cd Ⅰ 361.10 | Froze | 2.00 | [15] | Soap | Cr Ⅰ 425.43 | Press | 2.30 | [27] | Sunscreen | Cd Ⅱ 214.44 | Film | 2.17 | Proposed |
|
Table 4. Comparison of different cosmetic pretreatment methods and their results
GFAAS detection value/(μg·g-1) | Cd Ⅱ 214.44 nm | Cd Ⅱ 226.50 nm | Cd Ⅰ 228.80 nm |
---|
LIBS predicted value/(μg·g-1) | RE /% | LIBS predicted value/(μg·g-1) | RE /% | LIBS predicted value/(μg·g-1) | RE /% |
---|
42.08 | 41.43 | 1.54 | 42.70 | 1.47 | 42.58 | 1.19 | 71.27 | 74.05 | 3.90 | 75.79 | 6.34 | 73.04 | 2.48 | 96.84 | 102.49 | 5.83 | 100.95 | 4.24 | 97.75 | 0.94 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of GFAAS detected value and LIBS predicted value of film samples