Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:40:17.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automated Determination of Optimum Excitation Conditions for Single and Multielement Analysis with Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Wolfhard Wegscheider ,
Bruce B. Jablonski  and
Donald E. Leyden
Wolfhard Wegscheider
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80208
Bruce B. Jablonski
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80208
Donald E. Leyden
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80208
Get access

Abstract

The determination of optimal excitation conditions for energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence is particularly critical for multielement analysis covering a wide range (viz. 10 or 20 keV) of the spectrum. Functions that quantitatively describe the spectral quality are used as objective functions in pattern search algorithms. It is shown that the filters can be arranged in a definite order, at least with respect to the energy of the K-absorption edge of the tube and can therefore be employed as a dimension in the optimization process. Of the algorithms that were compared, the Nelder-Mead and Routh-Swartz-Denton versions of the sequential simplex search gave the best results if the excitation voltage and the current could be controlled in small increments. If the optimization includes dimensions with a few discrete stages (e.g. filters) the fixed size simplex proved to be of greatest value. The functions can be weighted to reflect special interest in one or more elements. Conditions for increasing the counting time and terminating the search are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 22: Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 1-4, 1978 , 1978 , pp. 433 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Morgan, S.L. and Deming, S.N., “Simplex Optimization of Analyti¬cal Chemical Methods”, Anal. Chem., 46, 1170 (1974).Google Scholar
2. Long, D.E., “Simplex Optimization of the Response from Chemical Systems”, Anal. Chim. Acta, 46, 193 (1969).Google Scholar
3. Deming, S.N. and Morgan, S.L., “Simplex Optimization of Variables in Analytical Chemistry”, Anal. Chem., 46, 278A (1973).Google Scholar
4. King, P.G. and Deming, S.N., “Uniplex: Single-Factor Optimization of Response in the Presence of Error”, Anal. Chem., 46, 1476, (1974).Google Scholar
5. Yarbro, L.A. and Deming, S.N., “Selection and Preprocessing of Factors for Simplex Optimization”, Anal. Chim. Acta, 73, 39 (1974).Google Scholar
6. Morgan, S.L. and Deming, S.N., “Optimization Strategies for the Development of Gas-Liquid Chromatographic Methods”, J. Chromat., 112, 267 (1975).Google Scholar
7. King, P.G., Deming, S.N. and Morgan, S.L., “Difficulties in the Application of Simplex Optimization to Analytical Chemistry”, Anal. Lett., 8, 369 (1975).Google Scholar
8. Parker, L.R. Jr., Morgan, S.L. and Deming, S.N., “Simplex Opti¬mization of Experimental Factors in Atomic Absorption Spec-troraetry”, Appl. Spectr., 29, 429 (1975).Google Scholar
9. Cooper, L. and Steinberg, D., Introduction to Methods of Opti¬mization, p. 134 (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia-London-Toronto: 1970).Google Scholar
10. Box, G.E.P., “The Exploration and Exploitation of Response Surfaces: Some General Considerations and Examples”, Biometrics, 10, 16 (1954).Google Scholar
11. Wernimont, G., “Statistical Control of Measurement Process”, in Validation of the_ Measurement Process, Vol. 63, ACS Symposium Series, DeVoe, J.R., Editor, p. 1, American Chemical Society (1977).Google Scholar
12. Spendley, W., Hext, G.R. and Himsworth, F.R., “Sequential Application of Simplex Designs in Optimization and Evolution¬ary Operation”, Technometrics, 4, 441 (1962).Google Scholar
13. Nelder, J.A. and Mead, R., “A Simplex Method for Function Minimi¬zation”, Comput. J.,7 303 (1965).Google Scholar
14. Routh, M.W., Swartz, P.A. and Denton, M.B., “Performance of the Super Modified Simplex”, Anal. Chem., 49, 1422 (1977).Google Scholar
15. Parkinson, J.M. and Hutchinson, D., “An Investigation into the Efficiency of Variants on the Simplex Method”, in Numerical Methods for Non-Linear Optimization, Lootsma, F.A., Editor, p. 115 (Academic Press, London-New York: 1972).Google Scholar
16. Cooper, L. and Steinberg, D., Introduction to Methods of Opti¬mization, p. 156 (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia-London-Toronto: 1970).Google Scholar
17. Box, M.J., “A Comparison of Several Current Optimization Methods and the Use of Transformations in Constraint Problems”, Comput. J., 9, 67 (1966)Google Scholar
19. Olansky, A.S. and Doming, S.N., “Optimization and Interpreta¬tion of Response in the Chromotropic Acid Determination of Formaldehyde”, Anal. Chim. Acta, 83, 241 (1976).Google Scholar
20. Deming, S.N. and Morgan, S.L., “Advances in the Application of Optimization Methodology in Chemistry”, in Chemometrics: Theory and Application, Vol. 52, ACS Symposium Series, Kowalski, B.R., Editor, p. 1, American Chemical Society (1977).Google Scholar
21. Wegscheider, W., Jablonski, B.B. and Leyden, D.E., “Development of an Automated Procedure for the Optimization of Multielement Analysis with Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectro-scopy”, Anal. Lett., All, 27 (1978).Google Scholar
22. Wegscheider, W., Oablonski, B.B. and Leyden, D.E., “Response Functions for the Quantitative Evaluation of Compromise Conditions for Energy Dispersive X-ray” Fluorescence, in preparation.Google Scholar
23. Currie, L.A., “Limits of Qualitative Detection and Quantitative Determination”, Anal. Chem., 40, 586 (1968).Google Scholar
24. Eckschlager, K., “Informationsgehalt analytischer Ergebnisse”, Z. Anal. Chem., 277, 1 (1975).Google Scholar
25. Brost, D.F., Malloy, B. and Busch, K.W., “Determination of Optimum Compromise Flame Conditions in Simultaneous Multielement Flame Spectrometry”, Anal. Chem., 49, 2280 (1977).Google Scholar
26. Wegscheider, W., Acree, H.C. and Leyden, D.E., “Evaluation of a Pulsed Tube for Tube Excited X-ray” Fluorescence Analysis, in preparation.Google Scholar
27. Jenkins, R., An Introduction to X-ray Spectrometry, p. 112 (Heyden, New York: 1974).Google Scholar
28. Wegscheider, W., Oablonski, B.B. and Leyden, D.E., “Evaluation of Function Derived Optimization for Energy Dispersive X-ray” Fluorescence Analysis, in preparation.Google Scholar
29. Wegscheider, W., Oablonski, B.B. and Leyden, D.E., “Signal-Hyperflächen für die Multielement Analyse metallischer Proben mit energie-dispersiver Roentgenfluoreszenspektrometrie”. Hikrochim. Acta, in press.Google Scholar