Optical Emission Spectroscopy, sometimes known as the OES, remains the most widely used and trusted analytical technique. As a tool used in determining the basic structure of a broader metal range, regular recalibration is necessary.
Indeed, if you rely only on your brand new instrument’s adjustment, its reliability would be compromised. One reason is that spark spectrometers’ design makes it extremely sensitive in elemental detection at the lowest limits.
The shortcoming of this sensitivity is that the instrument is subject to other environmental parameters. Over time, the results drift, thereby reducing its accuracy levels. Regular recalibration is the standard practice for bringing the outcomes back in line. Here is how to make sure that your instrument retains the capability to detect the elements accurately.
-
Why calibrate your OES?
At the most basic level, the device, rather than making absolute measurements, provides the relative ones. Of course, your instrument’s sensor takes measurements of different light intensities. The embedded software at that time compares the spectral lines’ amounts against the known elemental applications. In the end, it returns relevant concentration details to the users. Therefore, initial fine-tuning is indispensable to make this instrument more convenient. Get more information about how to get this reliable result from https://www.agilent.com/en/product/atomic-spectroscopy.
- When should you recalibrate?
One single most reliable way of telling when you should recalibrate your OES instrument entails measuring the control samples being used. The samples have recognized elemental composition that you can utilize in confirming whether your analyzer gives accurate results. Recently set control testers must be measured close to ten times as the standard and average deviations are noted. Remember that the control samples’ composition should be the same as the materials you will analyze routinely during your production process.
- What if accuracy deviations are still evident?
Type standardization remains to be valid only for unidentified materials having a similar composition as the calibration samples. Never apply this technique in correcting infrequent high systematic deviances in your outcomes for diverse materials or samples. Keep in mind that type of standardization can never serve as a replacement for essential standardization. Of course, running a recalibration will be imperative just before you perform the type standardization process. Consider this to be an additional and alternative step in this process.
Again, similar to the standard adjustment, type calibration depends on utilizing confirmed reliable specimen and reference materials. Conversely, in this situation, the reference materials should have a closer composition than the sample you will be measuring. In the end, the resultant type standardization would be fit for the specific sample type alone. You must, however, run different type standardization for each elemental composition or alloy you should measure.
Conclusion
In comparison to new analytical methods, OES brings multiple advantages. The instrument is low-cost, fast, and reasonably easier to use. When measuring a range of concentrations and elements in different materials, the tool will be reliable. Besides, the analysis is incredibly accurate on lower levels of tramp and trace elements.
Sometimes, regardless of the constant sample analysis, you may still have accuracy deviations. This problem is attributable to various reasons, including when you work on exotic alloys. In this instance, you can improve your results by running standardization.
Find out more information about OES as the preferred analysis method and calibration or measurement accuracy on agilent.com/en/product/atomic-spectroscopy.
