Comparison of univariate and multivariate models for prediction of major and minor elements from laser-induced breakdown spectra with and without masking

Abstract This study uses 1356 spectra from 452 geologically-diverse samples, the largest suite of LIBS rock spectra ever assembled, to compare the accuracy of elemental predictions in models that use only spectral regions thought to contain peaks arising from the element of interest versus those that use information in the entire spectrum. Results show that for the elements Si, Al, Ti, Fe, Mg, Ca, Na, K, Ni, Mn, Cr, Co, and Zn, univariate predictions based on single emission lines are by far the least accurate, no matter how carefully the region of channels/wavelengths is chosen and despite the prominence of the selected emission lines. An automated iterative algorithm was developed to sweep through all 5485 channels of data and select the single region that produces the optimal prediction accuracy for each element using univariate analysis. For the eight major elements, use of this technique results in a 35% improvement in prediction accuracy; for minors, the improvement is 13%. The best wavelength region choice for any given univariate analysis is likely to be an inherent property of the specific training set that cannot be generalized. In comparison, multivariate analysis using partial least-squares (PLS) almost universally outperforms univariate analysis. PLS using all the same wavelength regions from the univariate analysis produces results that improve in accuracy by 63% for major elements and 3% for minor element. This difference is likely a reflection of signal to noise ratios, which are far better for major elements than for minor elements, and likely limit their prediction accuracy by any technique. We also compare predictions using specific wavelength ranges for each element against those employing all channels. Masking out channels to focus on emission lines from a specific element that occurs decreases prediction accuracy for major elements but is useful for minor elements with low signals and proportionally much higher noise; use of PLS rather than univariate analysis is still recommended. Finally, we tested the generalizability of our results by analyzing a second data set from a different instrument. Overall prediction accuracies for the mixed data sets are higher than for either set alone for all major and minor elements except Ni, Cr, and Co, where results are roughly comparable.

[1]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  LIBS analysis of geomaterials: geochemical fingerprinting for the rapid analysis and discrimination of minerals. , 2009 .

[2]  Robert L. Tokar,et al.  Pre-flight calibration and initial data processing for the ChemCam laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy instrument on the Mars Science Laboratory rover , 2013 .

[3]  Jeffrey R. Johnson,et al.  Observation of > 5 wt % zinc at the Kimberley outcrop, Gale crater, Mars , 2016 .

[4]  Sridhar Mahadevan,et al.  A Fully Customized Baseline Removal Framework for Spectroscopic Applications , 2017, Applied spectroscopy.

[5]  S. Clegg,et al.  Comparison of partial least squares and lasso regression techniques as applied to laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy of geological samples , 2012 .

[6]  S. Mahadevan,et al.  A study of machine learning regression methods for major elemental analysis of rocks using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy , 2015 .

[7]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Optimization of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for rapid geochemical analysis , 2010 .

[8]  Robert L. Tokar,et al.  In situ calibration using univariate analyses based on the onboard ChemCam targets: first prediction of Martian rock and soil compositions , 2014 .

[9]  Manuela Rossi,et al.  Multi-methodological investigation of kunzite, hiddenite, alexandrite, elbaite and topaz, based on laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy and conventional analytical techniques for supporting mineralogical characterization , 2014, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals.

[10]  J. Rhodes,et al.  Composition of basaltic lavas sampled by phase‐2 of the Hawaii Scientific Drilling Project: Geochemical stratigraphy and magma types , 2004 .

[11]  Nancy J. McMillan,et al.  Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy analysis of minerals: Carbonates and silicates , 2007 .

[12]  Roger C. Wiens,et al.  ChemCam analysis of Martian fine dust , 2013 .

[13]  M. T. Sweetapple,et al.  Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) as a tool for in situ mapping and textural interpretation of lithium in pegmatite minerals , 2015 .

[14]  M B Madsen,et al.  Soil Diversity and Hydration as Observed by ChemCam at Gale Crater, Mars , 2013, Science.

[15]  Roger C Wiens,et al.  Joint analyses by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) and Raman spectroscopy at stand-off distances. , 2005, Spectrochimica acta. Part A, Molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy.

[16]  Roger C. Wiens,et al.  Trace element geochemistry (Li, Ba, Sr, and Rb) using Curiosity's ChemCam: Early results for Gale crater from Bradbury Landing Site to Rocknest , 2014 .

[17]  S. Giguere,et al.  Comparison of baseline removal methods for laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy of geological samples , 2016 .

[18]  D. Milori,et al.  Physical and Chemical Matrix Effects in Soil Carbon Quantification Using Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy , 2014 .

[19]  C. Fabre,et al.  Advances in lithium analysis in solids by means of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy: an exploratory study , 2002 .

[20]  O. Forni,et al.  High manganese concentrations in rocks at Gale crater, Mars , 2014 .

[21]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Recalibration of the Mars Science Laboratory ChemCam instrument with an expanded geochemical database , 2017 .

[22]  S. Maurice,et al.  Feasibility study of rock identification at the surface of Mars by remote laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy and three chemometric methods , 2007 .

[23]  Kevin L. McNesby,et al.  Analysis of environmental lead contamination: comparison of LIBS field and laboratory instruments , 2001 .

[24]  Roger C. Wiens,et al.  Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy library for the Martian environment , 2011 .

[25]  Adolfo Cobo,et al.  Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy: Fundamentals, Applications, and Challenges , 2012 .

[26]  Trevor G. Graff,et al.  The influence of multivariate analysis methods and target grain size on the accuracy of remote quantitative chemical analysis of rocks using laser induced breakdown spectroscopy , 2011 .

[27]  Y. Liao,et al.  Methods of Data Processing for Trace Elements Analysis Using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy , 2015 .

[28]  Pavel Pořízka,et al.  Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for in situ qualitative and quantitative analysis of mineral ores , 2014 .

[29]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Hydrogen detection with ChemCam at Gale crater , 2015 .

[30]  M. Dyar,et al.  Testing the veracity of LIBS analyses on Mars using the LIBSSIM program , 2013 .