• Login
    About WHOAS
    View Item 
    •   WHOAS Home
    • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    • Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry (MC&G)
    • View Item
    •   WHOAS Home
    • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    • Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry (MC&G)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of WHOASCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesKeywordsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesKeywords

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Blank assessment for ultra-small radiocarbon samples : chemical extraction and separation versus AMS

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    _1322-1335.pdf (321.0Kb)
    Date
    2010-08
    Author
    Santos, Guaciara M.  Concept link
    Southon, John R.  Concept link
    Drenzek, Nicholas J.  Concept link
    Ziolkowski, Lori A.  Concept link
    Druffel, Ellen R. M.  Concept link
    Xu, Xiaomei  Concept link
    Zhang, Dachun  Concept link
    Trumbore, Susan E.  Concept link
    Eglinton, Timothy I.  Concept link
    Hughen, Konrad A.  Concept link
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citable URI
    https://hdl.handle.net/1912/4377
    As published
    https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3631
    Abstract
    The Keck Carbon Cycle AMS facility at the University of California, Irvine (KCCAMS/UCI) has developed protocols for analyzing radiocarbon in samples as small as ~0.001 mg of carbon (C). Mass-balance background corrections for modern and 14C-dead carbon contamination (MC and DC, respectively) can be assessed by measuring 14C-free and modern standards, respectively, using the same sample processing techniques that are applied to unknown samples. This approach can be validated by measuring secondary standards of similar size and 14C composition to the unknown samples. Ordinary sample processing (such as ABA or leaching pretreatment, combustion/graphitization, and handling) introduces MC contamination of ~0.6 ± 0.3 μg C, while DC is ~0.3 ± 0.15 μg C. Today, the laboratory routinely analyzes graphite samples as small as 0.015 mg C for external submissions and ≅0.001 mg C for internal research activities with a precision of ~1% for ~0.010 mg C. However, when analyzing ultra-small samples isolated by a series of complex chemical and chromatographic methods (such as individual compounds), integrated procedural blanks may be far larger and more variable than those associated with combustion/graphitization alone. In some instances, the mass ratio of these blanks to the compounds of interest may be so high that the reported 14C results are meaningless. Thus, the abundance and variability of both MC and DC contamination encountered during ultra-small sample analysis must be carefully and thoroughly evaluated. Four case studies are presented to illustrate how extraction chemistry blanks are determined.
    Description
    Author Posting. © Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona, 2010. This article is posted here by permission of Dept. of Geosciences, University of Arizona for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Radiocarbon 52 (2010): 1322-1335.
    Collections
    • Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry (MC&G)
    Suggested Citation
    Radiocarbon 52 (2010): 1322-1335
     
    All Items in WHOAS are protected by original copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. WHOAS also supports the use of the Creative Commons licenses for original content.
    A service of the MBLWHOI Library | About WHOAS
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Privacy Policy
    Core Trust Logo