Quantitative Measurement of Uranium in Ore Using Fiber‑Optic Laser‑Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy and Multivariate Calibration

Xinyu Guo; Jian Wu; Mingxin Shi; Xinxin Zhu; Yan Qiu; Jinghui Li; Di Wu; Ziyuan Song

doi:10.3788/CJL230993

Chinese Journal of Lasers, Volume. 51, Issue 8, 0811001(2024)

Quantitative Measurement of Uranium in Ore Using Fiber‑Optic Laser‑Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy and Multivariate Calibration

Xinyu Guo¹, Jian Wu^1、*, Mingxin Shi¹, Xinxin Zhu², Yan Qiu³, Jinghui Li¹, Di Wu¹, and Ziyuan Song¹

Author Affiliations

¹State Key Laboratory of Electrical Insulation and Power Equipment, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shaanxi , China

²China Academy of Atomic Energy Sciences, Beijing 102413, China

³Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Electronic Physics and Devices, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shaanxi , China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(13)

Fig. 1. Uranium element detection experimental system

Download full size

Fig. 2. Identification of spectral lines of uranium and other elements in GBW04101 sample

Download full size

$Uranium spectral lines of the samples with mass fraction of 0.0726%, 0.219%, and 0.425% in air and He atmosphere. (a)(b) U I 356.659 nm; (c)(d) U II 367.007 nm; (e)(f) U II 409.013 nm$

Fig. 3. Uranium spectral lines of the samples with mass fraction of 0.0726%, 0.219%, and 0.425% in air and He atmosphere. (a)(b) U I 356.659 nm; (c)(d) U II 367.007 nm; (e)(f) U II 409.013 nm

Download full size

Fig. 4. Variations of uranium spectral lines and their signal-to-background ratio (SBR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and net intensity with detection delay in He atmosphere. (a) Variation of spectral line with detection delay; (b) variation of SBR, SNR, and net intensity of the spectral lines with detection delay

Download full size

Fig. 5. Spectra comparison of different natural samples

Download full size

Fig. 6. Flow chart of matrix correction training (R²: coefficient of determination; RMSECV: root mean square error of cross verification; ε₁: acceptable minimum coefficient of determination; ε₂: acceptable maximum root mean square error of cross verification)

Download full size

$U II 409.013 nm spectral line of standard and mixed samples with different uranium mass fractions$

Fig. 7. U II 409.013 nm spectral line of standard and mixed samples with different uranium mass fractions

Download full size

Fig. 8. Calibration curves. (a) Traditional spectral information calibration; (b) PLSR matrix correction; (c) GA regression matrix correction

Download full size

Table 1. Mass fraction of uranium element and other components in standard samples
View table
Table 1. Mass fraction of uranium element and other components in standard samples
Sample Mass fraction /%
U SiO₂ Al₂O₂ CaO MgO
GBW04101 3.29 81.31 6.29 0.806 0.312
GBW04103 0.219 50.42 13.39 13.75 0.561
GBW04104 0.0726 5.01 1.50 27.92 18.74
GBW04105 0.425 56.84 17.00 4.86 1.18

Table 2. Mixing ratio and uranium content of mixed samples
View table
Table 2. Mixing ratio and uranium content of mixed samples
Number Mass fraction of uranium /% Mass fraction of GBW04101 /% Mass fraction of GBW04105 /%
1 2.6197 79.17 20.83
2 2.0164 60.42 39.58
3 1.6813 50.00 50.00
4 1.3462 39.58 60.42
5 0.7429 20.83 79.17

Table 3. Information of element spectral lines used in multiple linear regression model

View table

Table 3. Information of element spectral lines used in multiple linear regression model

Element	Wavelength /nm	Lower energy level transition	Upper energy level transition	Upper energy level /cm^-1
Si I	298.7645	3s²3p²	3s²3p4s	39760.285
Fe I	370.9246	3d²（⁴F）4s	3d²（⁴F）4p	34328.752
Ca I	422.673	3p⁶4s²	3p⁶4s4p	23652.304

Table 4. Calibration indices under three regression methods
View table
Table 4. Calibration indices under three regression methods
Method R² RMSEC /% RMSECV /% RSD /%
Calibration LOOCV
Spectral information calibration 0.9711 0.9685 0.200 0.401 18.70
PLSR 0.9984 0.9983 0.0404 0.0441 22.24
GA 0.9907 0.9919 0.0895 0.0953 19.65

Table 5. Comparison of experimental parameters and calibration results between this study and other studies

View table

Table 5. Comparison of experimental parameters and calibration results between this study and other studies

Year	LIBS setup	Spectral line	Sample	LOD /（mg·kg^-1）
2009^［15］	Focus directly，Ar	U II 409.013 nm	Soil	2600
2011^［28］	Focus directly，10 mJ，air	U I 358.49 nm	SiO₂	150
2012^［16］	Focus directly，10 mJ，air	U I 356.66 nm	Ore	158
2016^［9］	Focus directly，10 mJ，CO₂	U II 409.013 nm	SiO₂	272
2021^［21］	Focus directly，11.5 mJ，air	U II 304.41 nm	Soil	38
2022^［20］	Focus directly，160 mJ，air	U II 409.013 nm	Ore	21
Ours	Focus after 5 m fiber，30 mJ，He	U II 409.013 nm	Ore	142

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Xinyu Guo, Jian Wu, Mingxin Shi, Xinxin Zhu, Yan Qiu, Jinghui Li, Di Wu, Ziyuan Song. Quantitative Measurement of Uranium in Ore Using Fiber‑Optic Laser‑Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy and Multivariate Calibration[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2024, 51(8): 0811001

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: spectroscopy

Received: Jul. 4, 2023

Accepted: Sep. 5, 2023

Published Online: Mar. 29, 2024

The Author Email: Wu Jian (jxjawj@mail.xjtu.edu.cn)

DOI:10.3788/CJL230993

CSTR:32183.14.CJL230993

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Mass fraction of uranium element and other components in standard samples

Table 1. Mass fraction of uranium element and other components in standard samples

Table 2. Mixing ratio and uranium content of mixed samples

Table 2. Mixing ratio and uranium content of mixed samples

Table 3. Information of element spectral lines used in multiple linear regression model

Table 3. Information of element spectral lines used in multiple linear regression model

Table 4. Calibration indices under three regression methods

Table 4. Calibration indices under three regression methods

Table 5. Comparison of experimental parameters and calibration results between this study and other studies

Table 5. Comparison of experimental parameters and calibration results between this study and other studies