Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy analysis of solids using a long-pulse (150 ns) Q-switched Nd:YAG laser.

Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) measurements are typically carried out using pulses (<20 ns, >50 mJ) from a flashlamp-pumped electro-optically Q-switched Nd:YAG laser (EO-laser) or excimer laser. Here we report LIBS analyses of solids using an acousto-optically Q-switched Nd:YAG laser (AO-laser) producing 150 ns pulses of lower energy (10 mJ) at repetition rates up to 6 kHz. The high repetition rate allows increased spatial or depth sampling over a given time period compared to the EO-laser. Results of AO-laser based LIBS analysis of (1) steels, (2) soils, and (3) surface stains and dusts are described. Detection limits for Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, and Si in steel ranged from 0.11 to 0.24% using a commercial polychromator-based detection system with limits 4--30 times lower achieved using a laboratory-based detection system. The minimum detectable masses of Ba, Cr, Mn, and Sr on a metal surface were estimated with 1.2 pg/shot achieved for Sr. Detection limits for Ba and Sr in soil were 296 and 52 ppm, respectively. The temperatures, spectra, and emission decay curves from plasmas generated by the AO- and EO-lasers are compared and some characteristics of particles ablated by the AO-laser are described.

Determination of nitrogen in sand using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy.

The use of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) to detect a variety of elements in soils has been demonstrated and instruments have been developed to facilitate these measurements. The ability to determine nitrogen in soil is also important for applications ranging from precision farming to space exploration. For terrestrial use, the ideal situation is for measurements to be conducted in the ambient air, thereby simplifying equipment requirements and speeding the analysis. The high concentration of nitrogen in air, however, is a complicating factor for soil nitrogen measurements. Here we present the results of a study of LIBS detection of nitrogen in sand at atmospheric and reduced pressures to evaluate the method for future applications. Results presented include a survey of the nitrogen spectrum to determine strong N emission lines and determination of measurement precision and a detection limit for N in sand (0.8% by weight). Our findings are significantly different from those of a similar study recently published regarding the detection of nitrogen in soil.

Evaluation of three field-based methods for quantifying soil carbon.

Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C m(-2)) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maíz y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Batán, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0-5, 5-15, and 15-30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg m(-3)), C concentration (g kg(-1)) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg m(-2)). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions.