2007
DOI: 10.1366/000370207781393235
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Requirements for Relative Intensity Correction of Raman Spectra Obtained by Column-Summing Charge-Coupled Device Data

Abstract: The relative intensity correction of Raman spectra requires the measurement of a source of known relative irradiance. Raman spectrometers that employ two-dimensional charge-coupled device (CCD) array detectors may be operated in two distinct modes. One mode directly measures the counts in each CCD pixel, but more commonly for the collection of spectra, the counts in the CCD row pixels are summed for a given column. If distortions in the corrected spectral shapes are to be avoided, operation in the mode where r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
(6 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The instrumental transfer function, or the wavelength dependent intensity sensitivity of the detector in the spectrograph, represents a source of uncertainty in these experiments. The transfer function can be estimated experimentally by exposing the spectrograph to a black-body source or spontaneous emission from luminescent glasses [39]. These systems are often expensive, difficult to implement properly, and correction calibrations need to be performed often.…”
Section: Additional Sources Of Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The instrumental transfer function, or the wavelength dependent intensity sensitivity of the detector in the spectrograph, represents a source of uncertainty in these experiments. The transfer function can be estimated experimentally by exposing the spectrograph to a black-body source or spontaneous emission from luminescent glasses [39]. These systems are often expensive, difficult to implement properly, and correction calibrations need to be performed often.…”
Section: Additional Sources Of Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This stochastic intensity error may be intrinsic to uncontrolled factors in the data collection. These uncontrolled factors include variable polarization cross sections in a solid sample that can change the intensity when the sample is reoriented; 8 laser heating that can affect the scattering cross section and is a possible issue with spectra collected with different wavelength lasers; 12,31 changes in Raman cross sections that occur with absorption in nonheterogeneous samples; pixel-to-pixel sensitivities across a two-dimensional CCD that add to the signal noise; 16 and differences in the instrument response relating to sample alignment, laser focus, and depth of focus. 8,15 Baseline correction methods, if they are used, may add to the stochastic error (e.g., see the discussion of Fig.…”
Section: Spectral Mappingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In principle, Raman reference spectra can be acquired with calibration of the wavenumber axis and either absolute-response or relative-response calibration on the intensity axis so as to make spectra entirely portable between any system. 8,10,17 Considerable work on spectral standardization has been applied to improve long-term data archiving of reference libraries. 9 However, although long-term data archiving of Raman spectra is making progress toward developing transferable Raman spectral libraries, 6,9,10 these libraries are only now being adapted to handheld systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The merits of FT-spectrometers versus dispersive-instruments for specific applications can be deliberated elsewhere; this paper focuses only on the portability of the data. For both FT instruments [29] and for the dispersive instruments (especially smaller units) frequent and accurate wavelength calibration is paramount [30,31]. For this study, it is important to note that while both are FT instruments from the same manufacturer, the instruments are of different wavelength (785 and 1064 nm) and have differentétendues (numerical aperture), different interferometers (linear air-bearing versus mechanical flex-pivot), different detectors (though both are of the same type, power detection as opposed to photon counting), and differing optical components [7,22].…”
Section: Experimental and Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%