• 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

    GEOTRACES radium isotopes interlaboratory comparison experiment

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    0451.pdf (1.080Mb)
    Date
    2012-06
    Author
    Charette, Matthew A.  Concept link
    Dulaiova, Henrieta  Concept link
    Gonneea, Meagan E.  Concept link
    Henderson, Paul B.  Concept link
    Moore, Willard S.  Concept link
    Scholten, Jan C.  Concept link
    Pham, Mai Khanh  Concept link
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citable URI
    https://hdl.handle.net/1912/6627
    As published
    https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2012.10.451
    Related Material/Data
    https://hdl.handle.net/1912/6630
    DOI
    10.4319/lom.2012.10.451
    Abstract
    In anticipation of the international GEOTRACES program, which will study the global marine biogeochemistry of trace elements and isotopes, we conducted a multi-lab intercomparison for radium isotopes. The intercomparison was in two parts involving the distribution of: (1) samples collected from four marine environments (open ocean, continental slope, shelf, and estuary) and (2) a suite of four reference materials prepared with isotopic standards (circulated to participants as 'unknowns'). Most labs performed well with 228Ra and 224Ra determination, however, there were a number of participants that reported 226Ra, 223Ra, and 228Th (supported 224Ra) well outside the 95% confidence interval. Many outliers were suspected to be a result of poorly calibrated detectors, though other method specific factors likely played a role (e.g., detector leakage, insufficient equilibration). Most methods for radium analysis in seawater involve a MnO2 fiber column preconcentration step; as such, we evaluated the extraction efficiency of this procedure and found that it ranged from an average of 87% to 94% for the four stations. Hence, nonquantitative radium recovery from seawater samples may also have played a role in lab-to-lab variability.
    Description
    Author Posting. © Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, 2012. This article is posted here by permission of Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 10 (2012): 451-463, doi:10.4319/lom.2012.10.451.
    Collections
    • Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry (MC&G)
    Suggested Citation
    Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 10 (2012): 451-463
     
    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