| Literature DB >> 29295592 |
Noèlia Carbó1, Javier López Carrero2, F Javier Garcia-Castillo3, Isabel Tormos4, Estela Olivas5, Elisa Folch6, Miguel Alcañiz Fillol7,8, Juan Soto9,10, Ramón Martínez-Máñez11,12,13,14,15, M Carmen Martínez-Bisbal16,17,18.
Abstract
The use of a voltammetric electronic tongue for the quantitative analysis of quality parameters in spring water is proposed here. The electronic voltammetric tongue consisted of a set of four noble electrodes (iridium, rhodium, platinum, and gold) housed inside a stainless steel cylinder. These noble metals have a high durability and are not demanding for maintenance, features required for the development of future automated equipment. A pulse voltammetry study was conducted in 83 spring water samples to determine concentrations of nitrate (range: 6.9-115 mg/L), sulfate (32-472 mg/L), fluoride (0.08-0.26 mg/L), chloride (17-190 mg/L), and sodium (11-94 mg/L) as well as pH (7.3-7.8). These parameters were also determined by routine analytical methods in spring water samples. A partial least squares (PLS) analysis was run to obtain a model to predict these parameter. Orthogonal signal correction (OSC) was applied in the preprocessing step. Calibration (67%) and validation (33%) sets were selected randomly. The electronic tongue showed good predictive power to determine the concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, chloride, and sodium as well as pH and displayed a lower R² and slope in the validation set for fluoride. Nitrate and fluoride concentrations were estimated with errors lower than 15%, whereas chloride, sulfate, and sodium concentrations as well as pH were estimated with errors below 10%.Entities:
Keywords: electronic voltammetric tongue; partial least squares; spring water; water quality control
Year: 2017 PMID: 29295592 PMCID: PMC5795646 DOI: 10.3390/s18010040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Number of samples analyzed, nitrate, chloride, sodium, sulfate, and fluoride concentrations (in mg/L), and pH values for each natural water spring studied.
| Spring | Samples | Nitrate 1 | Chloride 1 | Sodium 1 | Sulfate 1 | Fluoride 1 | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 | 3.9 | 17 | 11 | 472 | 0.26 | 7.8 |
| 2 | 9 | 52 | 55 | 36 | 214 | 0.14 | 7.3 |
| 3 | 11 | 115 | 61 | 41 | 261 | 0.08 | 7.5 |
| 4 | 5 | 115 | 190 | 94 | 248 | 0.18 | 7.3 |
| 5 | 9 | 48 | 50 | 28 | 240 | 0.11 | 7.6 |
| 6 | 9 | 9.5 | 41 | 26 | 248 | 0.19 | 7.5 |
| 7 | 9 | 40 | 66 | 28 | 32 | 0.09 | 7.4 |
| 8 | 10 | 8.1 | 34 | 22 | 185 | 0.18 | 7.5 |
| 9 | 9 | 17 | 44 | 27 | 205 | 0.11 | 7.5 |
1 The content of ions is shown in mg/L.
Figure 1Block diagram of the measurement system.
Figure 2Responses from single examples of each spring included in the analysis. The data of all the electrodes are shown in the same figure. The abscissa axis shows the measured points and is equivalent to the time in ms as a pulse is described with 100 points and a duration is 100 ms.
The range of data for different quality parameters. R2, RMSEP, and p1 and p2 data for the different parameters. CV random subsets, 10 subsets, 20 iterations.
| Range | R2 | RMSEP | p1 | p2 | RMSEP × 100/max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 7.3–7.8 | 0.856 | 0.1 | 0.799 | 1.50 | 1.28 |
| Nitrate | 3.9–115 | 0.852 | 17 | 0.973 | 7.15 | 14.78 |
| Sulfate | 32–472 | 0.898 | 36 | 0.876 | 16.00 | 7.63 |
| Fluoride | 0.08–0.26 | 0.630 | 0.03 | 0.653 | 0.04 | 11.54 |
| Chloride | 17–190 | 0.955 | 10 | 0.920 | 7.36 | 5.26 |
| Chloride II | 17–66 | 0.869 | 6 | 0.845 | 9.15 | 9.09 |
| Sodium | 11–94 | 0.980 | 3 | 0.967 | 1.46 | 3.19 |
| Sodium II | 11–41 | 0.895 | 3 | 0.911 | 2.25 | 7.32 |
Figure 3PLS prediction for the validation set for nitrate, chloride, sodium, sulfate, and fluoride content as well as pH. The green line is the line 1:1, whereas the red line is the fitted line y = p1·x + p2 for the validation set.
Figure 4PLS prediction for the validation set for Chloride II and Sodium II. In both cases, for this calculation, the spring with the higher values was not considered for training and validation. The green line is the line 1:1, whereas the red line is the fitted line y = p1·x + p2 for the validation set.
Figure 5PLS-DA prediction for the validation set for classifying water samples as potable or non-potable. Springs 1–4 contain non-potable water, and Springs 5–9 contain potable water. The dashed red line indicates the limit beyond discrimination between potable (down) and non-potable (up) samples cannot occur.