-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry - Comparison of dual-inlet, elemental-analyzer and continuous-flow techniques
J. Trubač, T. Magna, B. Čejková, L. Vondrovicová, V. Rapprich,
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
UNCE/SCI/006
Center for Geosphere Dynamics
15-08583S
Grantová Agentura České Republiky
19-29124X
Grantová Agentura České Republiky
CZ.2.16/3.1.00/21516
Operational Programme Prague - Competitiveness
PubMed
31074549
DOI
10.1002/rcm.8482
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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 13 C/12 C ratios with internal errors usually < ±0.01‰ (2SD) and long-term reproducibility better than ±0.03‰ (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 13 C/12 C ratios against DI-IRMS, large internal errors (±0.2‰, 2SD) and the worst reproducibility (±0.3‰, 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‰ (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 13 C/12 C 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.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19029029
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190823113422.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190813s2019 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/rcm.8482 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31074549
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Trubač, Jakub $u Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral Resources, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, CZ-12843, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Rapid determination of carbon isotope composition in carbonatites using isotope ratio mass spectrometry - Comparison of dual-inlet, elemental-analyzer and continuous-flow techniques / $c J. Trubač, T. Magna, B. Čejková, L. Vondrovicová, V. Rapprich,
- 520 9_
- $a 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 13 C/12 C ratios with internal errors usually < ±0.01‰ (2SD) and long-term reproducibility better than ±0.03‰ (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 13 C/12 C ratios against DI-IRMS, large internal errors (±0.2‰, 2SD) and the worst reproducibility (±0.3‰, 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‰ (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 13 C/12 C 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.
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Magna, Tomáš $u Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, CZ-11821, Prague 1, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Čejková, Bohuslava $u Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, CZ-11821, Prague 1, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Vondrovicová, Lenka $u Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral Resources, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, CZ-12843, Prague 2, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Rapprich, Vladislav $u Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, CZ-11821, Prague 1, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004050 $t Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM $x 1097-0231 $g Roč. 33, č. 16 (2019), s. 1355-1362
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31074549 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190813 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190823113637 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ind $b bmc $g 1434178 $s 1067489
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2019 $b 33 $c 16 $d 1355-1362 $e 2019Aug30 $i 1097-0231 $m Rapid communications in mass spectrometry $n Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom $x MED00004050
- GRA __
- $a UNCE/SCI/006 $p Center for Geosphere Dynamics
- GRA __
- $a 15-08583S $p Grantová Agentura České Republiky
- GRA __
- $a 19-29124X $p Grantová Agentura České Republiky
- GRA __
- $a CZ.2.16/3.1.00/21516 $p Operational Programme Prague - Competitiveness
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190813