Skip to main content
Mathematica

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • $\begingroup$ MarcoB thank you so much for always helping me!. I really apreciate it. This is a fantastic answer!. This is also similar to the answer I posted above, which I still do not have very clear why my arealeft is so high. Could you check that so that this post can have two good answers for me and for other people?. Thank you ! $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2020 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcoB I certainly can't think of anything better. But it sure does seem awfully arbitrary. Do machines that spit out hydrocarbon profiles, for example, have fancier algorithms built in? (I vaguely remember those providing areas for peaks.) $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2020 at 22:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JimB Not much more refined than this, no. This is not too far from typical in the analysis of e.g. nuclear magnetic resonance data, in which case peak integration is very important, but peak shape can be any old blob because of superposition. Then a reasonably well-behaved global baseline (often linear, in some cases polynomial) is found, often with user input and then numerical integration is carried out not very differently than here. $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2020 at 22:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JimB Spectroscopic results (light absorption, emission, scattering, etc) are very different: in those case the underlying physics dictate the shape of the baseline (and sometimes of the peaks as well). For instance, in light absorption measurements, one expects a flat baseline, as close to zero as possible after appropriate allowances have been made (the predictable absorption of the sample container, of the air the light goes through, the unavoidable scattering at interfaces...). Then, great deviations from the expected shape are typically a clear sign of experimental trouble. $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2020 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcoB Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2020 at 22:56