Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry - Comparison of dual-inlet, elemental-analyzer and continuous-flow techniques

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11310%2F19%3A10397575" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11310/19:10397575 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=rhsh5Jjns9" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=rhsh5Jjns9</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

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

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry - Comparison of dual-inlet, elemental-analyzer and continuous-flow techniques

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 C-13/C-12 ratios with internal errors usually &lt; +/- 0.01 parts per thousand (2SD) and long-term reproducibility better than +/- 0.03 parts per thousand (2SD). The drawbacks of DI-IRMS are that it requires extensive offline sample preparation, rather large sample sizes (commonly &gt;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 C-13/C-12 ratios against DI-IRMS, large internal errors (+/- 0.2 parts per thousand, 2SD) and the worst reproducibility (+/- 0.3 parts per thousand, 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 parts per thousand (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 C-13/C-12 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry - Comparison of dual-inlet, elemental-analyzer and continuous-flow techniques

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 C-13/C-12 ratios with internal errors usually &lt; +/- 0.01 parts per thousand (2SD) and long-term reproducibility better than +/- 0.03 parts per thousand (2SD). The drawbacks of DI-IRMS are that it requires extensive offline sample preparation, rather large sample sizes (commonly &gt;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 C-13/C-12 ratios against DI-IRMS, large internal errors (+/- 0.2 parts per thousand, 2SD) and the worst reproducibility (+/- 0.3 parts per thousand, 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 parts per thousand (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 C-13/C-12 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10505 - Geology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry

ISSN

0951-4198

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

33

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

16

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

1355-1362

Kód UT WoS článku

000476751300008

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85069756862