Calibration method choice by comparison of model basis functions to the theoretical instrumental response function

Abstract Sorting through the large array of calibration methods available for first and second order calibration is often a daunting task for initiates into the field of chemometrics. Justifying the selected method as the most appropriate one is even more difficult. Presented here is a justification for calibration method selection based on matching the model employed in the calibration method with the instrumental response function. This is applied to the disparate types of nonlinearities found in both first and second order calibration. Matching the calibration method to the instrumental response function is employed to parse the decision making process for choosing between branches in the first order parsimony tree. The different types of nonlinearities present in second order data and their implications on calibration model selection are discussed.

[1]  Age K. Smilde,et al.  Multicomponent Determination of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Using a Reaction-Based Chemical Sensor. 3. Medium-Rank Second-Order Calibration with Restricted Tucker Models , 1994 .

[2]  B. Kowalski,et al.  Theory of medium‐rank second‐order calibration with restricted‐Tucker models , 1994 .

[3]  B. Kowalski,et al.  The parsimony principle applied to multivariate calibration , 1993 .

[4]  T. Næs,et al.  Locally weighted regression and scatter correction for near-infrared reflectance data , 1990 .

[5]  Paul Geladi,et al.  Relationships between higher‐order data array configurations and problem formulations in multivariate data analysis , 1989 .

[6]  B. Kowalski,et al.  ChemNets: Theory and Application , 1995 .

[7]  J. Michael Steele,et al.  ACE guided-transformation method for estimation of the coefficient of soil-water diffusivity , 1989 .

[8]  F. J. Holler,et al.  Analytical chemistry,: An introduction , 1974 .

[9]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Locally Weighted Regression: An Approach to Regression Analysis by Local Fitting , 1988 .

[10]  Age K. Smilde,et al.  Multicomponent Determination of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Using a Reaction-based Chemical Sensor. Part 2. Chemical Speciation Using Multivariate Curve Resolution , 1994 .

[11]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  Tensorial calibration: I. First‐order calibration , 1988 .

[12]  S. Wold,et al.  Residual bilinearization. Part 1: Theory and algorithms , 1990 .

[13]  B. Kowalski,et al.  Rank determination and analysis of non‐linear processes by global linearizing transformation , 1996 .

[14]  Age K. Smilde,et al.  Three‐way methods for the calibration of chromatographic systems: Comparing PARAFAC and three‐way PLS , 1991 .

[15]  B. Everitt,et al.  Three-Mode Principal Component Analysis. , 1986 .

[16]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  Extension of Trilinear Decomposition Method with an Application to the Flow Probe Sensor , 1994 .

[17]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  An improved algorithm for the generalized rank annihilation method , 1989 .

[18]  J. Friedman,et al.  Estimating Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression and Correlation. , 1985 .

[19]  E. Davidson,et al.  Application of the method of rank annihilation to quantitative analyses of multicomponent fluorescence data from the video fluorometer , 1978 .

[20]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  A second‐order standard addition method with application to calibration of a kinetics–spectroscopic sensor for quantitation of trichloroethylene , 1995 .

[21]  B. Kowalski,et al.  Advances in second‐order calibration , 1993 .

[22]  Paul J. Gemperline,et al.  Evolving factor analysis applied to flow injection analysis data , 1989 .

[23]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  MARS: A tutorial , 1992 .

[24]  B. Bushaw.  Double resonance multiphoton ionization determination of mercury vapor , 1985 .