Automated Estimation of White Gaussian Noise Level in a Spectrum with or without Spike Noise Using a Spectral Shifting Technique

Various tasks, for example, the determination of signal-to-noise ratios, require the estimation of noise levels in a spectrum. This is generally accomplished by calculating the standard deviation of manually chosen points in a region of the spectrum that has a flat baseline and is otherwise devoid of artifacts and signal peaks. However, an automated procedure has the advantage of being faster and operator-independent. In principle, automated noise estimation in a single spectrum can be carried out by taking that spectrum, shifting a copy thereof by one channel, and subtracting the shifted spectrum from the original spectrum. This leads to an addition of independent noise and a reduction of slowly varying features such as baselines and signal peaks; hence, noise can be more readily determined from the difference spectrum. We demonstrate this technique and a spike-discrimination variant on white Gaussian noise, in the presence and absence of spike noise, and show that highly accurate results can be obtained on a series of simulated Raman spectra and consistent results obtained on real-world Raman spectra. Furthermore, the method can be easily adapted to accommodate heteroscedastic noise.

[1]  Yukihiro Ozaki,et al.  Practical Algorithm for Reducing Convex Spike Noises on a Spectrum , 2003, Applied spectroscopy.

[2]  A Jirasek,et al.  Accuracy and Precision of Manual Baseline Determination , 2004, Applied spectroscopy.

[3]  Andrew Jirasek,et al.  Investigation of Selected Baseline Removal Techniques as Candidates for Automated Implementation , 2005, Applied spectroscopy.

[4]  H. G. Schulze,et al.  Fiber-optic Probes with Improved Excitation and Collection Efficiency for Deep-uv Raman and Resonance Raman Spectroscopy Probes with Improved Excitation and Collection Efficiency for Deep-uv Raman and Resonance , 1998 .

[5]  James N. Demas,et al.  Interfacing and Scientific Computing on Personal Computers , 1990 .

[6]  Peter R. Griffiths,et al.  Factors Affecting the Performance of Bench—Top Raman Spectrometers. Part II: Effect of Sample , 2000 .

[7]  Peter R. Griffiths,et al.  Factors Affecting the Performance of Bench-Top Raman Spectrometers. Part I: Instrumental Effects , 2000 .

[8]  James D. Winefordner,et al.  Estimating Detection Limits in Ultratrace Analysis. Part I: The Variability of Estimated Detection Limits , 1991 .

[9]  J. D. Winefordner,et al.  Comparison of Calculated Detection Limits in Molecular Absorption, Molecular Luminescence, Raman, Molecular Ionization, and Photothermal Spectrometry* , 1985 .

[10]  Hideo Takeuchi,et al.  Simple and Efficient Method to Eliminate Spike Noise from Spectra Recorded on Charge-Coupled Device Detectors , 1993 .

[11]  Kristin H. Jarman,et al.  A new approach to automated peak detection , 2003 .

[12]  Chris W. Brown,et al.  Near-Infrared Mixture Identification by an Automated Library Searching Method: A Multivariate Approach , 1992 .

[13]  Jun Zhao,et al.  Image Curvature Correction and Cosmic Removal for High-Throughput Dispersive Raman Spectroscopy , 2003, Applied spectroscopy.

[14]  T. Rejtar,et al.  A universal denoising and peak picking algorithm for LC-MS based on matched filtration in the chromatographic time domain. , 2003, Analytical chemistry.

[15]  F. J. Holler,et al.  Principles of Instrumental Analysis , 1973 .