Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry – comparison of Dual-Inlet, Elemental-Analysis and Continuous-Flow techniques

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00025798%3A_____%2F19%3A00000018" target="_blank" >RIV/00025798:_____/19:00000018 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rcm.8482" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rcm.8482</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rcm.8482" target="_blank" >10.1002/rcm.8482</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry – comparison of Dual-Inlet, Elemental-Analysis and Continuous-Flow techniques

Original language description

Rationale: Applications where stable C and O isotope compositions are useful require routine instrumental techniques with a fast sample throughput which should also produce accurate and precise results. We present a comparison of three different instrumental isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) approaches (Dual Inlet ‐ DI; Elemental Analyzer ‐ EA; Continuous Flow ‐ CF) to determine the stable isotope composition of carbon in carbonate matrices, with a focus on evaluating the optimum approach for less complex instrumental techniques.Methods: The DI‐IRMS method is taken as an absolute method for obtaining accurate and precise 13C/12C ratios with internal errors usually < ±0.01 per mil (2SD) and long‐term reproducibility better than ±0.03 per mil (2SD). The drawbacks of DI-IRMS are that it requires extensive offline sample preparation, rather large sample sizes (commonly >20 mg) and extended analysis times.Results: EA‐IRMS provides rapidity of analysis, relatively non‐complex technique optimization and large sample throughput sufficient to distinguish natural trends although the larger internal errors and poorer reproducibility must be considered. The major disadvantage of EA‐IRMS lies in a constant offset of the 13C/12C ratios against DI‐IRMS, large internal errors (±0.2 per mil, 2SD) and the worst reproducibility (±0.3 per mil, 2SD) of all the explored methods. The results acquired using CF‐IRMS are comparable with those obtained by employing DI‐IRMS with an external reproducibility better than ±0.2 per mil (2SD). Compared with EA‐IRMS, however, this technique requires more elaborate sample preparation – more akin to DI‐IRMS. None of these two latter techniques can provide C isotope results for coexisting phases such as calcite, dolomite and ankerite unless they are physically separated and analyzed independently.Conclusions: All methods are appropriate for 13C/12C determinations with CF-IRMS and EA‐IRMS less applicable to high‐precision measurements but relevant for studies requiring high sample throughput. Periodical analysis of matrix‐matched reference materials during the analytical sequence is warranted for both EA‐IRMS and CF‐IRMS.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

10505 - Geology

Project

Result was created during the realization of more than one project. More information in the Projects tab.

Continuities

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Publication year

2019

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry

ISSN

0951-4198

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

33

Issue of the periodical within the volume

16

Country of publishing house

US - UNITED STATES

Number of pages

8

Pages from-to

1355-1362

UT code for WoS article

000476751300008

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85069756862