 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| TO: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:19:05 -0500 |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Received: |
from mailrvares.er.usgs.gov (srv1rvares.er.usgs.gov [130.11.51.209]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id JAA21206 for < [log in to unmask]>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:15:16 -0500 (EST)
from 5b212 (coplen-pc.er.usgs.gov [130.11.51.111]) by mailrvares.er.usgs.gov (Geomail 1.2.3) with SMTP id JAA09846 for < [log in to unmask]>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:19:05 -0500 |
| X-Sender: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
DIC 13C extraction methodolgies were studies by
Hassan, A. A., Methodologies for extraction of dissolved inorganic carbon
for stable carbon isotope studies: Evaluation and Alternatives, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 82-6, 51 p., 1982.
>Dear Isogeochemers,
>I was wondering if I could obtain a survey of the relative merits of sampling
>ground water for the del-13C of inorganic carbon with either of these two
>
>methods:
>1. Collecting water poisoned by HgCl2 and then acidified by phosphoric acid in
>the lab.
>2. Collecting water with BaCl2 or SrCl2 allowing BaCO3 or SrCO3 to form.
>Filtering the precipitate and then acidifying with phosphoric acid in the lab.
>
>Are there any publications that compare the accuracies of each approach?
>Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, T.C. Onstott
>
|
|
|
