MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508379722 · doi:10.1109/plasma.2016.7534208

Application of laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) for detection of lead contaminants in water using wood sample substrates

2016· article· en· W2508379722 on OpenAlexaff
Tadelech Keyata, H. F. Tiedje, R. Fedosejevs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser-induced breakdown spectroscopyDetection limitContaminationSpectroscopyMaterials scienceLaserAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryChemistryOpticsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toxic heavy metals can be a significant risk to human health. Lead poisoning has been a recognized health hazard for more than 2000 years. Exposure can occur through drinking water, food, air, soil, and dust from old paint containing lead. Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) is a powerful analytical technique to monitor heavy metals in all forms including aqueous solutions. Our goal is to develop a LIBS sampling technique for the measurement of heavy metal contaminants in water that has sufficient sensitivity to measure contamination at the allowable limit for drinking water (e.g. 15 ppb for lead). To perform fast and sensitive trace metal detection in aqueous solution with LIBS, a thin wood sample has been used as a liquid absorber to transform liquid sample analysis to solid sample analysis [1]. Initial studies have been carried out for lead in water. The plasma was generated by focusing Nd: YAG laser pulses with ~7 mJ energy at 1064nm on test samples in air. We also tried to further improve the sensitivity by carrying out experiments in argon gas in a sample chamber. The dependence of the elemental spectra on time delay and laser beam energy was also investigated. Initial results for lead in water indicate that a 3-sigma limit of detection (LOD) of the order of 10 ppb is achievable with a 1000 lasers shots, which is readily achievable with moderate repetition rate laser systems today. The experimental results will be presented and discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207