稻田土壤中K元素激光诱导击穿光谱定量分析偏振优化研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2025)11-3105-08

摘要
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (11045 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要：结合偏振分辨优化方法，实现了水稻田土壤中钾（K）元素含量的激光诱导击穿光谱（LIBS）检测精确度和稳定性的提升。通过搭建偏振分辨分光系统，在不同激光诱导能量条件下，对稻田土壤样品的LIBS和偏振分辨激光诱导击穿光谱（PRLIBS）数据进行了采集。对比分析了LIBS和PRLIBS全谱，突出PRLIBS优势。在744～775 nm波长范围内，绘制了LIBS和PRLIBS的三维光谱强度图，并选定特征峰信号强度最为显著的KI 766.49 nm特征谱线作为研究对象展开分析。对比结果显示，PRLIBS与LIBS光谱随激发能量增加呈现出相同的变化趋势，这一现象表明运用偏振分辨技术对LIBS系统进行优化具备可行性。进一步分析了N2K1、N2K2、N2K3、N2K4样品在PRLIBS和LIBS信号中K元素光谱信号强度与激发能量的线性相关性，其中PRLIBS的决定系数R²为0.995 86、0.979 51、0.996 11和0.993 57，高于LIBS的0.970 16、0.944 98、0.991 53和0.989 24。结果表明，PRLIBS技术通过格兰-汤普森棱镜的双折射作用，过滤掉偏振度较高的寻常光（o光），透射出偏振度较低的非常光（e光），有效降低了背景噪声对等离子体信号特征光谱峰的干扰，显著提高水稻土壤中K元素检测的稳定性。对比PRLIBS和LIBS信号强度分布特征图及相对标准偏差（RSD）值发现，PRLIBS系统在激发能量为35、55和75 mJ条件下，信号稳定性优于LIBS，表明检偏棱镜在低激发能量下具有较强的特征谱线分辨能力。比较激发能量35和55 mJ下的LIBS和PRLIBS系统定标曲线图拟合效果，PRLIBS的决定系数R²分别为0.944 82和0.958 32，明显高于LIBS的0.150 69和0.473 95，进一步证实了PRLIBS可有效地增强特征信号的稳定性。建立PRLIBS定量分析模型，55 mJ激发条件的预测模型均方根误差（RMSE）优于35 mJ激发条件。PRLIBS技术显著提升了光谱信号的稳定性与准确度，特别是在较低激发能量下优势突出，为稻田土壤养分的快速检测提供了极具价值的参考依据。

关键词：激光诱导击穿光谱；偏振分辨；水稻田土壤；钾元素；稳定性

Abstract：This study demonstrates enhanced precision and stability in laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) for determining potassium (K) content in paddy soil via polarization-resolved optimization. A polarization-resolved spectroscopic system was built to collect LIBS and polarization-resolved LIBS (PRLIBS) data of paddy soil samples under varying laser excitation energies. A comparative analysis of full spectra highlighted the advantages of PRLIBS. Within 744～775 nm, 3D spectral intensity maps of LIBS and PRLIBS were generated, with the K I 766.49 nm line (most intense characteristic peak) selected for analysis. Both techniques showed consistent spectral trends with increasing excitation energy, validating polarization-resolved optimization for LIBS. Linear correlation analysis between K signal intensity and excitation energy for samples N2K1—N2K4 revealed higher R² values for PRLIBS (0.995 86, 0.979 51, 0.996 11, 0.993 57) than LIBS (0.970 16, 0.944 98, 0.991 53, 0.989 24). PRLIBS, via Glan-Thompson prism birefringence, filters high-polarization ordinary light (o-ray) and transmits low-polarization extraordinary (e-ray), reducing background noise interference on plasma characteristic peaks and improving K detection stability in paddy soil. Comparison of signal intensity distributions and relative standard deviations (RSD) showed superior PRLIBS stability at 35, 55, and 75 mJ, indicating strong characteristic line resolution by the polarizing prism under low excitation energy. Calibration curve fitting at 35 and 55 mJ yielded higher R² for PRLIBS (0.944 82, 0.958 32) than LIBS (0.150 69, 0.473 95), confirming enhanced characteristic signal stability. A PRLIBS quantitative model was established, with the 55 mJ excitation prediction model showing lower root mean square error (RMSE) than 35 mJ. PRLIBS significantly improves spectral stability and accuracy, particularly under low excitation energy, providing a valuable reference for rapid paddy soil nutrient detection.

Key words：Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy; Polarization resolution; Paddy soil; Potassium; Stability

收稿日期: 2025-07-09 修订日期: 2025-09-11

中图分类号:

O439

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金项目（32460441）资助

通讯作者: 徐将 E-mail: xujiangstart@163.com

作者简介: 梁佳琪，2001年生，江西农业大学工学院硕士研究生 e-mail: 2757663917@qq.com

引用本文:

梁佳琪，姚明印，刘木华，罗子灵，魏海波，徐将. 稻田土壤中K元素激光诱导击穿光谱定量分析偏振优化研究[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2025, 45(11): 3105-3112.
LIANG Jia-qi, YAO Ming-yin, LIU Mu-hua, LUO Zi-ling, WEI Hai-bo, XU Jiang. Polarization Optimization of Quantitative Analysis of K Element in Paddy Field Soil by Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2025, 45(11): 3105-3112.

链接本文:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2025)11-3105-08 或 https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/Y2025/V45/I11/3105

[1] LIU Shu-jun, LI Dong-chu, HAN Tian-fu, et al(刘淑军, 李冬初, 韩天富, 等). Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers(植物营养与肥料学报), 2024, 30(3): 482.
[2] LI Zhi-xin, HU Ming-ming, TANG Yuan, et al(李志欣, 胡明明, 唐源, 等). Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers(植物营养与肥料学报), 2025, 31(2): 267.
[3] Lau C, Lu X F, Hoy K S, et al. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2025, 153(1): 302.
[4] WAN Xi, LIU Yong, ZHENG Yu-ting, et al(万曦, 刘涌, 郑玉婷, 等). Chinese Journal of Analysis Laboratory(分析试验室), 2024, 43(3): 420.
[5] Barla A, Triantafyllou A, McClelland W, et al. Chemical Geology, 2023, 636: 121635.
[6] Xu Y J, Zhang W P, Yue X P, et al. Bioresources, 2016, 11(2): 3964.
[7] LI Fan, YANG Chun-sheng, DING Yan, et al(李帆, 杨春晟, 丁妍, 等). Chinese Journal of Analysis Laboratory(分析试验室), 2019, 38(5): 542.
[8] Hassan J, Karbasi M H. Current Analytical Chemistry, 2022, 18(9): 999.
[9] Soomro W A, Khuhawar M Y, Jahangir T M, et al. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2025, 197(3): 235.
[10] Dobrzyńska J, Dbrowska M, Dobrowolski R, et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2023, 205: 106706.
[11] Béni Á, Nagy D, Kapitány S, et al. Microchemical Journal, 2019, 150: 104077.
[12] Asch J, Johnson K, Mondal S, et al. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2022, 185(2): 308.
[13] Singh M, Yadav P, Garg V K, et al. Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze Fisiche e Naturali, 2022, 33(4): 823.
[14] Ullaha R, Abbas Z, Bila M, et al. Journal of King Saud University—Science, 2022, 34(5): 102070.
[15] Sirven J B, Quéré C, Maisonneuve J, et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2025, 225: 107123.
[16] Lin X M, Zhang Z J, Lin J J, et al. Analytical Letters, 2024, 57(12): 1829.
[17] Xie W P, Xu J, Huang L, et al. Agriculture, 2024, 14(11): 2053.
[18] Pan T T, Dai X R, Wang W, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2025, 231: 110029.
[19] Wubetu G A, Costello J T, Kelly T J, et al. Journal of Applied Spectorscopy. 2023, 90(1): 116.
[20] Lu C X, Jiang X P, Zhang J N, et al. Plasma Science and Technology, 2019, 21(3): 034014.
[21] CHENG De-wei, LU Jing-qi, JIA Xin-ting, et al(程德伟, 卢景琦, 贾信庭, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2020, 40(1): 277.
[22] Yao M Y, Wan Q, Liu M H, et al. Applied Optics, 2024, 63(32): 8442.