/
advanced.Rmd
193 lines (157 loc) · 9.01 KB
/
advanced.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
---
title: "Spectroscopy Advanced"
author: >
Jessica Meyers, Jeremy Conkle, Win Cowger, Zacharias Steinmetz,
Andrew Gray, Chelsea Rochman, Sebastian Primpke, Jennifer Lynch,
Hannah Hapich, Hannah De Frond, Keenan Munno, Bridget O’Donnell
date: "`r Sys.Date()`"
output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
vignette: >
%\VignetteIndexEntry{Spectroscopy Advanced}
%\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
%\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
---
```{r, include = FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(
collapse = TRUE,
comment = "#>",
warning = FALSE
)
```
# How to Interpret the Reported Matches
There are several important things to consider when interpreting a spectral
match including the library source, the Pearson's r, and other metrics.
# The Library Source
When you click on a spectrum, all of the metadata that we have in Open Specy
about that source will be displayed in a metadata window below to the matches
table. Each library has different methodologies used to develop it. It is useful
to read up on the library sources from the literature that they came from. E.g.
Chabuka et al. 2020 focuses on weathered plastics, so matching to it may suggest
that your spectrum is of a weathered polymer. Primpke et al. 2018 only has a
spectral range up to 2000, so some polymers may be difficult to differentiate
with it. Make sure to cite the libraries that you use during your search when
you publish your results. The authors were kind enough to make their data open
access so that it could be used in Open Specy and we should return the favor by
citing them.
# Pearson's **r**
Correlation values are used to identify the closest matches available in the
current Open Specy spectral libraries to improve material identification and
reduce sample processing times. Pearson's r values range from 0 - 1 with 0 being
a completely different spectrum and 1 being an exact match. Some general
guidelines that we have observed from using Open Specy. If no matches are \>
\~0.6 the material may require additional processing or may not exist in the
Open Specy library. Correlation values are not the only metric you should use to
assess your spectra's match to a material in the library, matches need to make
sense.
# Things to Consider beyond Correlation
Peak position and height similarities are more important than correlation and
need to be assessed manually. Peak position correlates with specific bond types.
Peak height correlates to the concentration of a compound. Therefore, peak
height and peak position should match as closely as possible to the matched
spectrum. When there are peaks that exist in the spectra you are trying to
interpret that do not exist in the match, there may be additional materials to
identify. In this case, restrict the processing range to just the
unidentified peak and try to identify it as an additional component (see also
[https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/02/05/irspectroscopy/](https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/02/05/irspectroscopy/)).
Also, check the match metadata to see if the match makes sense. Example: A
single fiber cannot be a "cotton blend" since there would be no other fibers to
make up the rest of the blend. Example: Cellophane does not degrade into fibers,
so a match for a fiber to cellophane wouldn't make sense. Example: You are
analyzing a particle at room temperature, but the matched material is liquid at
room temperature. The material may be a component of the particle but it cannot
be the whole particle.
# How Specific Do You Need to be in the Material Type of the Match?
You can choose to be specific about how you classify a substance (e.g.
polyester, cellophane) or more general (e.g. synthetic, semi-synthetic, natural,
etc.). The choice depends on your research question. Using more general groups
can speed up analysis time but will decrease the information you have for
interpretation. To identify materials more generally, you can often clump the
identities provided by Open Specy to suit your needs. For example, matches to
"polyester" and "polypropylene" could be clumped to the category "plastic".
# How to Differentiate Between Similar Spectra?
One common challenge is differentiating between LDPE and HDPE. But, even with a
low resolution instrument (MacroRAM, 2 cm^-1^ pixel^-1^), you can still see some
differences. From a wide view, these low, medium, and high density PE samples
all look relatively similar (figures courtesy of Bridget O\'Donnell, Horiba
Scientific):
```{r, fig.align="center", echo=FALSE}
knitr::include_graphics("advanced/horiba-1.png")
```
But, a closer look at the 1450 cm^-1^ band reveals clear differences:
```{r, fig.align="center", echo=FALSE}
knitr::include_graphics("advanced/horiba-2.png")
```
When you overlay them, you start to see differences in other spectral regions
too:
```{r, fig.align="center", echo=FALSE}
knitr::include_graphics("advanced/horiba-3.png")
```
So, the question is, how do we deal with samples that are very similar with only
subtle differences? Usually, researchers will use MVA techniques after they've
collected multiple reference spectra of known samples (LDPE and HDPE in this
case). They can then develop models and apply them to distinguish between
different types of PE. With a reference database like Open Specy, this is
complicated by the fact that researchers are measuring samples on different
instruments with correspondingly different spectral responses and spectral
resolutions. That makes it even more difficult to accurately match definitively
to LDPE and HDPE as opposed to generic 'PE'.
One possibility is to place more emphasis (from a computational perspective) on
the bands that show the most difference (the triplet at 1450 cm^-1^) by
restricting the range used to match in Open Specy.
The other, much simpler option is to just match any PE hit to generic 'PE' and
not specifically HDPE or LDPE.
Another challenge is in differentiating between types of nylons. But, Raman has
a pretty easy time distinguishing nylons. These spectra were recorded of a
series of nylons and the differences are much more distinguishable compared to
the PE results above (nylon 6, 6-6, 6-9, 6-10, and 6-12 top to bottom):
```{r, fig.align="center", echo=FALSE}
knitr::include_graphics("advanced/horiba-4.png")
```
The differences are even more pronounced when you overlay the
spectra:
```{r, fig.align="center", echo=FALSE}
knitr::include_graphics("advanced/horiba-5.png")
```
# What to Do When Matches Aren't Making Sense
1. Double check that the baseline correction and smoothing parameters
result in the best processing of the data.
2. Try reprocessing your spectrum, but limit it to specific peak
regions with a higher signal to noise ratio.
3. Restrict the spectral range to include or exclude questionable
peaks or peaks that were not present in the previous matches.
4. Restrict the spectral range to exclude things like CO~2~ (2200 cm^-1^)
or H~2~O (\~1600 cm^-1^) in spikes in the IR spectrum.
5. If nothing above works to determine a quality match, you may need
to measure the spectrum of your material again or use another
spectral analysis tool.
# References
Chabuka BK, Kalivas JH (2020). “Application of a Hybrid Fusion Classification
Process for Identification of Microplastics Based on Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy.” *Applied Spectroscopy*, **74**(9), 1167–1183. doi:
[10.1177/0003702820923993](https://doi.org/10.1177/0003702820923993).
Cowger W, Gray A, Christiansen SH, De Frond H, Deshpande AD, Hemabessiere L, Lee
E, Mill L, et al. (2020). “Critical Review of Processing and Classification
Techniques for Images and Spectra in Microplastic Research.” *Applied
Spectroscopy*, **74**(9), 989–1010. doi:
[10.1177/0003702820929064](https://doi.org/10.1177/0003702820929064).
Cowger W, Steinmetz Z, Gray A, Munno K, Lynch J, Hapich H, Primpke S,
De Frond H, Rochman C, Herodotou O (2021). “Microplastic Spectral Classification
Needs an Open Source Community: Open Specy to the Rescue!”
*Analytical Chemistry*, **93**(21), 7543–7548. doi:
[10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00123](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00123).
Primpke S, Wirth M, Lorenz C, Gerdts G (2018). “Reference Database Design for
the Automated Analysis of Microplastic Samples Based on Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy.” *Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry*,
**410**(21), 5131–5141. doi:
[10.1007/s00216-018-1156-x](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1156-x).
Renner G, Schmidt TC, Schram J (2017). “A New Chemometric Approach for Automatic
Identification of Microplastics from Environmental Compartments Based on FT-IR
Spectroscopy.” *Analytical Chemistry*, **89**(22), 12045–12053. doi:
[10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02472](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02472).
Savitzky A, Golay MJ (1964). “Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by
Simplified Least Squares Procedures.” *Analytical Chemistry*, **36**(8),
1627–1639.
Zhao J, Lui H, McLean DI, Zeng H (2007). “Automated Autofluorescence Background
Subtraction Algorithm for Biomedical Raman Spectroscopy.”
*Applied Spectroscopy*, **61**(11), 1225–1232. doi:
[10.1366/000370207782597003](https://doi.org/10.1366/000370207782597003).