| Literature DB >> 29495445 |
Fei Liu1,2, Lanhan Ye3, Jiyu Peng4, Kunlin Song5, Tingting Shen6, Chu Zhang7, Yong He8,9.
Abstract
Fast detection of heavy metals is very important for ensuring the quality and safety of crops. Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS), coupled with uni- and multivariate analysis, was applied for quantitative analysis of copper in three kinds of rice (Jiangsu rice, regular rice, and Simiao rice). For univariate analysis, three pre-processing methods were applied to reduce fluctuations, including background normalization, the internal standard method, and the standard normal variate (SNV). Linear regression models showed a strong correlation between spectral intensity and Cu content, with an R 2 more than 0.97. The limit of detection (LOD) was around 5 ppm, lower than the tolerance limit of copper in foods. For multivariate analysis, partial least squares regression (PLSR) showed its advantage in extracting effective information for prediction, and its sensitivity reached 1.95 ppm, while support vector machine regression (SVMR) performed better in both calibration and prediction sets, where R c 2 and R p 2 reached 0.9979 and 0.9879, respectively. This study showed that LIBS could be considered as a constructive tool for the quantification of copper contamination in rice.Entities:
Keywords: copper content; laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS); multivariate analysis; rice; univariate analysis
Year: 2018 PMID: 29495445 PMCID: PMC5876664 DOI: 10.3390/s18030705
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The structural diagram of the LIBS system.
Figure 2LIBS spectra of three different kinds of rice. Raw spectra of three different kinds of rice without extra added Cu.
Figure 3Results of PCA. (a) Explanation of X-variance; and (b) PCA loadings of PC1-PC4.
Figure 4Scatter plots of PCA scores. (a) Scores plot of PC2 vs. PC3; and (b) scores plot of PC3 vs. PC4.
Reference values of Cu concentrations and uncertainties detected by FAAS
| Regular Rice | Content (ppm) | Jiangsu Rice | Content (ppm) | Simiao Rice | Content (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.68 ± 0.06 | 1 | 7.60 ± 0.11 | 1 | 5.10 ± 0.06 |
| 2 | 28.54 ± 0.78 | 2 | 59.48 ± 0.58 | 2 | 59.07 ± 1.18 |
| 3 | 46.35 ± 0.57 | 3 | 80.45 ± 1.53 | 3 | 103.18 ± 1.07 |
| 4 | 63.99 ± 1.17 | 4 | 123.09 ± 1.56 | 4 | 256.52 ± 4.43 |
| 5 | 71.09 ± 1.02 | 5 | 274.34 ± 4.22 | 5 | 396.65 ± 4.91 |
| 6 | 113.94 ± 2.26 | 6 | 554.35 ± 7.78 | 6 | 572.53 ± 9.72 |
| 7 | 116.84 ± 4.94 | 7 | 651.68 ± 8.07 | 7 | 742.62 ± 11.13 |
| 8 | 1162.10 ± 34.86 | 8 | 1104.76 ± 19.10 | 8 | 1074.92 ± 11.06 |
| 9 | 1668.75 ± 33.36 | 9 | 1115.28 ± 13.49 | 9 | 1213.76 ± 15.41 |
Figure 5Scatterplots and curve-fitting results of reference Cu concentrations of Simiao rice versus the peak intensity of Cu I 324.754 nm and 327.396 nm. The reference concentration of Cu was obtained by FAAS.
The results for univariate calibration with different pre-processing methods.
| Analytical Signal |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regular Rice | Simiao Rice | All Kinds | ||
| 324.754 nm | ||||
| Peak intensity | 0.9962 | 0.9051 | 0.9880 | 0.9875 |
| Peak intensity/Background | 0.9971 | 0.9601 | 0.9884 | 0.9845 |
| Voigt profile (peak height) | 0.9958 | 0.8985 | 0.9863 | 0.9853 |
| Voigt profile (area) | 0.9941 | 0.9033 | 0.9822 | 0.9807 |
| Peak intensity/C I 247.856 nm | 0.9989 | 0.9717 | 0.9932 | 0.9898 |
| SNV | 0.9984 | 0.9719 | 0.9895 | 0.9873 |
| 327.396 nm | ||||
| Peak intensity | 0.9985 | 0.9303 | 0.9918 | 0.9884 |
| Peak intensity/Background | 0.9964 | 0.9769 | 0.9893 | 0.9829 |
| Voigt profile (peak height) | 0.9984 | 0.9227 | 0.9920 | 0.9886 |
| Voigt profile (area) | 0.9985 | 0.9183 | 0.9912 | 0.9830 |
| Peak intensity/C I 247.856 nm | 0.9993 | 0.9125 | 0.9880 | 0.9863 |
| SNV | 0.9986 | 0.9864 | 0.9889 | 0.9872 |
Figure 6The best univariate calibration curves. (a) Jiangsu rice: I (Cu I 327.396 nm)/I (C I 247.856 nm); (b) regular rice: Cu at 327.396 with SNV processed; (c) Simiao rice: I (Cu I 324.754 nm)/I (C I 247.856 nm); and (d) the total samples: I (Cu I 324.754 nm)/I (C I 247.856 nm).
The results for multivariate analysis for total samples with different modeling algorithms.
| Algorithm | Calibration | Validation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSEC | RMSCV |
|
| RMSEP | |
| PLSR | 0.9767 | 34.8186 | 38.1774 | 0.9727 | 0.9808 | 33.2252 |
| SVMR | 0.9929 | 33.5980 | 121.6671 | 0.8816 | 0.8858 | 84.0770 |
| SVMR (data reduction) | 0.9979 | 11.1120 | 26.6166 | 0.9866 | 0.9879 | 24.7755 |
Figure 7Calibration and prediction for multivariate analysis. (a) The calibration result of PLSR; (b) the prediction result of PLSR; (c) the calibration result of SVMR; and (d) the prediction result of SVMR.
Figure 8Explanation of the X-variate for PCA.