Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 405, Issue 25, pp 8223–8232 | Cite as

Improving the performance of hollow waveguide-based infrared gas sensors via tailored chemometrics

  • David Perez-Guaita
  • Andreas Wilk
  • Julia Kuligowski
  • Guillermo Quintás
  • Miguel de la Guardia
  • Boris MizaikoffEmail author
Research Paper


The use of chemometrics in order to improve the molecular selectivity of infrared (IR) spectra has been evaluated using classic least squares (CLS), partial least squares (PLS), science-based calibration (SBC), and multivariate curve resolution-alternate least squares (MCR-ALS) techniques for improving the discriminatory and quantitative performance of infrared hollow waveguide gas sensors. Spectra of mixtures of isobutylene, methane, carbon dioxide, butane, and cyclopropane were recorded, analyzed, and validated for optimizing the prediction of associated concentrations. PLS, CLS, and SBC provided equivalent results in the absence of interferences. After addition of the spectral characteristics of water by humidifying the sample mixtures, CLS and SBC results were similar to those obtained by PLS only if the water spectrum was included in the calibration model. In the presence of an unknown interferant, CLS revealed errors up to six times higher than those obtained by PLS. However, SBC provided similar results compared to PLS by adding a measured noise matrix to the model. Using MCR-ALS provided an excellent estimation of the spectra of the unknown interference. Furthermore, this method also provided a qualitative and quantitative estimation of the components of an unknown set of samples. In summary, using the most suitable chemometrics approach could improve the selectivity and quality of the calibration model derived for a sensor system, and may avoid the need to analyze expensive calibration data sets. The results obtained in the present study demonstrated that (1) if all sample components of the system are known, CLS provides a sufficiently accurate solution; (2) the selection between PLS and SBC methods depends on whether it is easier to measure a calibration data set or a noise matrix; and (3) MCR-ALS appears to be the most suitable method for detecting interferences within a sample. However, the latter approach requires the most extensive calculations and may thus result in limited temporal resolution, if the concentration of a component should be continuously monitored.


Hollow waveguide Infrared sensor Gas sensing Chemometrics PLS SBC CLS MCR-ALS 



DPG acknowledges financial support by the grant “Segles V” provided by the University of Valencia, the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (CTQ2011-25743) and the Generalitat Valenciana (PROMETEO 2010–055), enabling a research stay at the Institute of Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Univ. Ulm. JK acknowledges her grant (Sara Borrell CD12/00667) from the Instituto Carlos III (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness). This work was performed in part under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under contract no. W-7405-Eng-48. This project was funded in part by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at LLNL under subcontract nos. B565491, B594450, B590992, B598643, and B603018.


  1. 1.
    Nordberg A, Hansson M, Sundh I, Nordkvist E, Carisson H, Mathisen B (2000) Monitoring of a biogas process using electronic gas sensors and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR). Water Sci Technol 41:1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grutter M (2003) Multi-gas analysis of ambient air using FTIR spectroscopy over Mexico City. Atmosfera 16:1–13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilk A, Seichter F, Kim S-S, Tuetuencue E, Mizaikoff B, Vogt JA, Wachter U, Radermacher P (2012) Toward the quantification of the (CO2)-C-13/(CO2)-C-12 ratio in exhaled mouse breath with mid-infrared hollow waveguide gas sensors. Anal Bioanal Chem 402:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wörle K, Seichter F, Wilk A, Armacost C, Day T, Godejohann M, Wachter U, Vogt J, Radermacher P, Mizaikoff B (2013) Breath analysis with broadly tunable quantum cascade lasers. Anal Chem 85:2697–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saito M, Kikuchi K (1997) Infrared optical fiber sensors. Opt Rev 4:527–538Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrington JA (2000) A review of IR transmitting, hollow waveguides. Fiber Integr Opt 19:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young CR, Menegazzo N, Riley AE, Brons CH, DiSanzo FP, Givens JL, Martin JL, Disko MM, Mizaikoff B (2011) Infrared hollow waveguide sensors for simultaneous gas phase detection of benzene, toluene, and xylenes in field environments. Anal Chem 83:6141–6147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fortes PR, Wilk A, Seichter F, Cajlakovic M, Koestler S, Ribitsch V, Wachter U, Vogt J, Radermacher P, Carter C, Raimundo IC, Mizaikoff B (2013) Combined sensing platform for advanced diagnostics in exhaled mouse breath. Proc SPIE 8570:85700QGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seichter F, Wilk A, Wörle K, Kim S-S, Vogt JA, Wachter U, Radermacher P, Mizaikoff B (2013) Multivariate determination of 13CO2/12CO2 ratios in exhaled mouse breath with mid—infrared hollow waveguide gas sensors. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:4945–4951Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thompson BT, Inberg A, Croitoru N, Mizaikoff B (2006) Characterization of a mid-infrared hollow waveguide gas cell for the analysis of carbon monoxide and nitric oxide. Appl Spectrosc 60:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu S, Deev A, Tang Y (2011) Quantum cascade laser sensors for online gas chromatography. Quantum Sensing and Nanophotonic Devices VIII, 794506, doi: 10.1117/12.871398
  12. 12.
    Lehmann H, Bartelt H, Willsch R, Amezcua-Correa R, Knight JC (2011) In-line gas sensor based on a photonic bandgap fiber with laser-drilled lateral microchannels. IEEE Sens J 11:2926–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nikiforova OY, Kapitanov VA, Ponomarev YN (2008) Influence of ethylene spectral lines on methane concentration measurements with a diode laser methane sensor in the 1.65 μm region. Appl Phys B 90:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bacsik Z, Gyivicsan A, Horvath K, Mink J (2006) Determination of carbon monoxide concentration and total pressure in gas cavities in the silica glass body of light bulbs by FT-IR spectrometry. Anal Chem 78:2382–2387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Villar A, Gorritxategi E, Otaduy D, Ciria JI, Fernandez LA (2011) Chemometric methods applied to the calibration of a Vis-NIR sensor for gas engine's condition monitoring. Anal Chim Acta 705:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang G, Li Y, Li Q (2010) A miniaturized carbon dioxide gas sensor based on infrared absorption. Opt Lasers Eng 48:1206–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young C, Kim S-S, Luzinova Y, Weida M, Arnone D, Takeuchi E, Day T, Mizaikoff B (2009) External cavity widely tunable quantum cascade laser based hollow waveguide gas sensors for multianalyte detection. Sensors Actuators B: Chem 140:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L (2001) PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 58:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roggo Y, Chalus P, Maurer L, Lema-Martinez C, Edmond A, Jent N (2007) A review of near infrared spectroscopy and chemometrics in pharmaceutical technologies. J Pharm Biomed Anal 44:683–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trygg J, Lundstedt T (2007) Chapter 6—chemometrics techniques for metabonomics. In: Lindon JC, Nicholson JK, Holmes E (eds) The handbook of metabonomics and metabolomics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 171–199Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franke JE (2006) Inverse least squares and classical least squares methods for quantitative vibrational spectroscopy. In: Chalmers JM, Griffiths PR (eds) Handbook of vibrational spectroscopy. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vajna B, Patyi G, Nagy Z, Bódis A, Farkas A, Marosi G (2011) Comparison of chemometric methods in the analysis of pharmaceuticals with hyperspectral Raman imaging. J Raman Spectrosc 42:1977–1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marbach R (2005) A new method for multivariate calibration. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 13:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuligowski J, Galera MM, García MDG, Culzoni MJ, Goicoechea HC, Garrigues S, Quintás G, de la Guardia M (2011) Science based calibration for the extraction of “analyte-specific” HPLC-DAD chromatograms in environmental analysis. Talanta 83:1158–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jaumot J, Gargallo R, de Juan A, Tauler R (2005) A graphical user-friendly interface for MCR-ALS: a new tool for multivariate curve resolution in MATLAB. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 76:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brereton RG (1997) Multilevel multifactor designs for multivariate calibration. Analyst 122:1521–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Perez-Guaita
    • 1
  • Andreas Wilk
    • 2
  • Julia Kuligowski
    • 3
  • Guillermo Quintás
    • 4
  • Miguel de la Guardia
    • 1
  • Boris Mizaikoff
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Analytical Chemistry DepartmentUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Analytical and Bioanalytical ChemistryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Division of NeonatologyUniversity Hospital Materno-Infantil La FeValenciaSpain
  4. 4.Leitat Technological CenterBio In Vitro Division, Health Research Institute La FeValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations