• 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,

. 2019 ; 33 (16) : 1355-1362. [pub] 2019Aug30

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19029029

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

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...