| Literature DB >> 30373313 |
Xianlong Zhang1,2,3, Fei Zhang4,5,6, Hsiang-Te Kung7, Ping Shi8, Ayinuer Yushanjiang9,10,11, Shidan Zhu12,13,14.
Abstract
Traditional technology for detecting heavy metals in water is time consuming and difficult and thus is not suitable for quantitative detection of large samples. Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) can identify multi-state (such as solid, liquid, and gas) substances simultaneously, rapidly and remotely. In this study, water samples were collected from the Ebinur Lake Basin. The water samples were subjected to LIBS to extract the characteristic peaks of iron (Fe) and copper (Cu). Most of the quantitative analysis of LIBS rarely models and estimates the heavy metal contents in natural environments and cannot quickly determine the heavy metals in field water samples. This study creatively uses the Fe and Cu contents in water samples and the characteristics of their spectral curves in LIBS for regression modelling analysis and estimates their contents in an unknown water body by using LIBS technology and a machine learning algorithm, thus improving the detection rate. The results are as follows: (1) The Cu content of the Ebinur Lake Basin is generally higher than the Fe content, the highest Fe and Cu contents found within the basin are in the Ebinur Lake watershed, and the lowest are in the Jing River. (2) A number of peaks from each sample were found of the LIBS curve. The characteristic analysis lines of Fe and Cu were finally determined according to the intensities of the Fe and Cu characteristic lines, transition probabilities and high signal-to-background ratio (S/B). Their wavelengths were 396.3 and 324.7 nm, respectively. (3) The relative percent deviation (RPD) of the Fe content back-propagation (BP) network estimation model is 0.23, and the prediction ability is poor, so it is impossible to accurately predict the Fe content of samples. In the estimation model of BP network of Cu, the coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.8, the root mean squared error (RMSE) is 0.1, and the RPD is 1.79. This result indicates that the BP estimation model of Cu content has good accuracy and strong predictive ability and can accurately predict the Cu content in a sample. In summary, estimation based on LIBS improved the accuracy and efficiency of Fe and Cu content detection in water and provided new ideas and methods for the accurate estimation of Fe and Cu contents in water.Entities:
Keywords: Fe and Cu contents; estimation; laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS); machine learning algorithm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373313 PMCID: PMC6267471 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112390
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1(a) Map of the locations of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region within China; (b) map of the study area in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region; (c) map of the research area and sampling points; (d) picture of Ebinur Lake; (e) picture of the Jing River; (f) Picture of Bortala River (photographed by Xianlong Zhang, Map by ArcGIS 10.2.2 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedLands, CA, USA).
Figure 2Schematic diagram of LIBS experimental device.
Figure 3Three-dimensional LIBS spectra.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of a BP neural network.
Figure 5Box plots of (a) Fe and (b) Cu contents.
Figure 6System cluster pedigree chart: (a) Fe; (b) Cu.
The distance from Fe and Cu contents in each sample to the cluster centre.
| Ion Species | Sample No. | Clustering Category | Cluster Distance | Sample No. | Clustering Category | Cluster Distance | Sample No. | Clustering Category | Cluster Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe | #1 | 1 | 0.00143 | #29 | 1 | 0.00857 | #11 | 3 | 0.00625 |
|
| 1 | 0.00143 |
| 1 | 0.00143 |
| 3 | 0.00375 | |
|
| 1 | 0.00143 | #31 | 1 | 0.00857 | #14 | 3 | 0.00375 | |
| #18 | 1 | 0.01143 | #3 | 2 | 0.004 |
| 3 | 0.00375 | |
| #19 | 1 | 0.00857 | #5 | 2 | 0.006 | #26 | 3 | 0.00375 | |
| #20 | 1 | 0.01143 | #7 | 2 | 0.006 | #28 | 3 | 0.00375 | |
| #22 | 1 | 0.01143 |
| 2 | 0.004 | #4 | 4 | 0.0025 | |
| #23 | 1 | 0.00143 | #13 | 2 | 0.004 | #6 | 4 | 0.0075 | |
| #24 | 1 | 0.00857 | #9 | 3 | 0.00625 | #16 | 4 | 0.0025 | |
|
| 1 | 0.00143 | #10 | 3 | 0.00625 |
| 4 | 0.0025 | |
| #27 | 1 | 0.00857 | |||||||
| Cu | #1 | 1 | 0.04538 | #30 | 1 | 0.04462 |
| 2 | 0.01385 |
|
| 1 | 0.02462 | #31 | 1 | 0.05462 | #11 | 2 | 0.02385 | |
| #17 | 1 | 0.04538 | #2 | 2 | 0.03385 | #12 | 2 | 0.06615 | |
| #18 | 1 | 0.07462 |
| 2 | 0.02385 |
| 2 | 0.01385 | |
|
| 1 | 0.03538 | #4 | 2 | 0.05615 | #26 | 2 | 0.02615 | |
| #20 | 1 | 0.07538 | #5 | 2 | 0.04385 | #14 | 3 | 0.062 | |
| #21 | 1 | 0.08462 | #6 | 2 | 0.05385 | #16 | 3 | 0.058 | |
| #24 | 1 | 0.06538 | #7 | 2 | 0.06615 |
| 3 | 0.002 | |
|
| 1 | 0.00462 | #8 | 2 | 0.04615 | #23 | 3 | 0.018 | |
| #27 | 1 | 0.02538 | #9 | 2 | 0.05385 | #29 | 3 | 0.012 | |
|
| 1 | 0.00462 |
The bold sample numbers with the underline are selected as the verification set for estimation model.
Data statistics of the Fe and Cu content estimation models.
| Ion Species | Model | Sample Size | Minimum (mg/L) | Maximum (mg/L) | Mean (mg/L) | Standard Deviation | Variance/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe | Estimation | 23 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 47.16 |
| Verification | 8 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 34.9 | |
| Cu | Estimation | 23 | 0.01 | 0.48 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 71.97 |
| Verification | 8 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 71.52 |
The characteristic peaks of the main element.
| Elements | Wavelength (nm) | Transition | Rel. Int. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Level | Lower Level | |||
| OΙ | 777.2 | 2s22p3(4s°)3p | 2s22p3(4s°)3s | 870 |
| H | 656.3 | 3p 2P° 1/2 | 2s 2S 1/2 | 500000 |
| FeΙ | 308.2 | 3d6(3F2)4s4p(3P°) | 3d7(4F)4s | 1 |
| FeΙ | 341.1 | 3d6(3G)4s4p(3P°) | 3d7(2G)4s | 1550 |
| FeΙ | 396.3 | 3d6(5D)4s(6D)4d | 3d6(5D)4s4p(3P°) | 5500 |
| FeΙ | 460.2 | 3d7(4F)4p | 3d7(4F)4s | 760 |
| CuΙ | 324.7 | 3d104p | 3d104s | 10000r |
| CuΙ | 327.4 | 3d104p | 3d104s | 10000r |
Figure 7LIBS spectral curve of water sample #16 after pretreatment.
Figure 8Magnification of characteristic peaks of (a) Fe and (b) Cu.
The results of Fe and Cu content estimation models.
| Estimation Model of Elements | R2 | RMSE | SD | RPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe | 0.89 | 0.82 | 6.51 | 7.93 |
| Cu | 0.82 | 0.40 | 8.28 | 20.48 |
Figure 9Accuracy test of BP neural network regression model.