Cited by 25Ion-surface interactions and analysisMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses

Distinguishing Chemically Similar Polyamide Materials with ToF-SIMS Using Self-Organizing Maps and a Universal Data Matrix

Madiona, Robert M. T., Bamford, Sarah E., Winkler, David A., Muir, Benjamin W., Pigram, Paul J.·2018·Analytical Chemistry

Abstract

Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) is advancing rapidly, providing instruments with growing capabilities and resolution. The data sets generated by these instruments are likewise increasing dramatically in size and complexity. Paradoxically, methods for efficient analysis of these large, rich data sets have not improved at the same rate. Clearly, more effective computational methods for analysis of ToF-SIMS data are becoming essential. Several research groups are customizing standard multivariate analytical tools to decrease computational demands, provide user-friendly interfaces, and simplify identification of trends and features in large ToF-SIMS data sets. We previously applied mass segmented peak lists to data from PMMA, PTFE, PET, and LDPE. Self-organizing maps (SOMs), a type of artificial neural network (ANN), classified the polymers based on their molecular composition and primary ion probe type more effectively than simple PCA. The effectiveness of this approach led us to question whether it would be useful in distinguishing polymers that were very similar. How sensitive is the technique to changes in polymer chemical structure and composition? To address this question, we generated ToF-SIMS ion peak signatures for seven nylon polymers with similar chemistries and used our up-binning and SOM approach to classify and cluster the polymers. The widely used linear PCA method failed to separate the samples. Supervised and unsupervised training of SOMs using positive or negative ion mass spectra resulted in effective classification and separation of the seven nylon polymers. Our SOM classification method has proven to be tolerant of minor sample irregularities, sample-to-sample variations, and inherent data limitations including spectral resolution and noise. We have demonstrated the potential of machine learning methods to analyze ToF-SIMS data more effectively than traditional methods. Such methods are critically important for future complex data analysis and provide a pipeline for rapid classification and identification of features and similarities in large data sets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b01951

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madiona, R. M. T., Bamford, S. E., Winkler, D. A., Muir, B. W., & Pigram, P. J.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • CSIRO Manufacturing (AU)
Corresponding author
Pigram, Paul J.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
90
Issue
21
Pages
12475-12484
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
OpenAlex
W2894119179
Cited by
25
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Analytical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Ion-surface interactions and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Keywords
time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, self-organizing maps, polymer classification, multivariate analysis, machine learning, sample-to-sample variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review