LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for ISOGEOCHEM Archives


ISOGEOCHEM Archives

ISOGEOCHEM Archives


ISOGEOCHEM@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOGEOCHEM Home

ISOGEOCHEM Home

ISOGEOCHEM  December 2015

ISOGEOCHEM December 2015

Subject:

Re: slop of two-point normalization for cellulose analysis

From:

"Wolfram Meier-Augenstein (aps)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stable Isotope Geochemistry <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:00:35 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

Dear Wei,


I was worried you might have been trying to measure d13C on your TC/EA and your latest e-mail seems to confirm this.

Your TC/EA reactor contains glassy carbon chips, a glass carbon tube and a graphite crucible, all in all 3 major sources of carbon (alien to sample C) besides the carbon your samples are comprised of. So, in the same way one cannot determine d18O values of samples on an EA-IRMs due to the oxygen contribution /mixing from O2 and chromium oxide one cannot determine d13C of samples on a TC/EA due carbon contribution /mixing from the carbon present in the reactor.

You are right, in theory stable isotopic composition of your cylinder gases should not matter if results are properly scale normalized.  However, in practice it does if, as in your case, stable isotopic composition is miles away from what one could consider normal (i.e. way outside the ballpark as our international reference materials (and samples)).  We made a similarly bad experience once with an H2 cylinder that was about -780 o/oo, i.e. more than 300 o/oo more negative than SLAP.  We changed supplier until we found one that supplied H2 with a d2H value of about -180 o/oo.

In short, try to source a CO cylinder with abundance values between -50 and +50 o/oo.

Regards,

Wolfram


******************************************************
Prof. Dr W Meier-Augenstein, CChem, FRSC
Stable Isotope Forensics & Analytical Sciences

Robert Gordon University
School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences
The Ian Wood Building
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen
AB10 7GJ

E-mail:   [log in to unmask]

http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=ty6c5IMAAAAJ

________________________________________
From: Stable Isotope Geochemistry [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wei Huang [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 December 2015 21:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ISOGEOCHEM] slop of two-point normalization for cellulose analysis

Dear Tom, Gerry and Wolfram,

Thank you very much for the detailed information. We do have thermo TCEA with zero blank auto-sampler. I had carefully packed the combustion tube with little funnel on top of the crucible. But the glassy carbon could be compressed when it was heated up, so that the samples did not fall into the hot zone. I need to double check with it. I did monitor background before I started the samples. it looked good. I also did CO on/off and linearity. They all looked fine, too.

I also ran C3, CH6 and CH7 on EA-IRMS, and got good correlation with slope ~1. Does it mean samples were not fully combusted at TCEA?

Another thing other colleague mentioned to me is that our reference CO has too negative isotopic values with d13C ~ -500 per mil and d18O ~ -300 per mil. Even though I think two-point normalization should not be affected too much by reference gas isotopic value, could the too negative reference gas cause the calculation error?

We plan to use IAEA C3 and IAEA CH6 (-24.91 -  -10.45 per mil) to anchor d13C of cellulose, and IAEA 601 and 602 (23.3 - 71.4 per mil) to anchor d18O. I guess they are the common standards that most people are using for cellulose analysis. However, some cellulose samples I am going to analyze has d13C ~ -26 per mil and d18O ~20 per mil. Could anybody suggest any other standard with more negative d13C or d18O? Or they (C3/CH3, CH6, 601 and 602) are the best choice so far.

Sorry for so many questions. As always, I appreciate any information or suggestion.

Best,

Wei

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Wolfram Meier-Augenstein (aps) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Wei Huang,

While seeing occasionally a slope of <1 is not unusual, even on these occasions slopes are generally >0.9.  In line with Tom’s and Gerry’s comments I too think the slopes you are calculating are outside the ball park.

I am not sure what exactly may be the root cause of your unusual results but reading your e-mail prompted several questions.

How were d13C values measured, i.e. what working conditions did you use for your EA-IRMS runs?  Why chose IAEA-CH-3 and IAEA-CH-6 as 13C scale anchors?  Their d13C values are only 14.32 ‰ apart.

Similarly, setting aside the fact neither CIAAW nor IAEA have published internationally accepted d18O values for either IAEA-CH-3 or IAEA-CH-6 which in itself suggests they should not be used for scale normalization, their unofficial d18O values are only 4.2 ‰ apart, i.e. less than a 1/10 of the d18O range as defined by the VSMOW/SLAP scale.

Choice of scale anchors is not a trivial matter. For scale normalization to work as intended scale anchors used must cover a delta value range that is equal or close to the range covered by the scale defining reference materials.

International reference material pairs for scale normalization of d18O values to VSMOW on the VSMOW/SLAP scale cover a range of >45 ‰: e.g. 48.14 ‰ (IAEA-601/IAEA-602); 53.18 ‰ (USGS32/USGS34); 55.5 ‰ (VSMOW/SLAP).

My suggestion would be to run a sample sequence on your TC/EA-IRMS comprised of IAEA-601 and IAEA-602 (to use as scale anchors) together with IAEA-CH-3 and IAEA-CH-6 as “unknowns” to see if scale normalization of the latter two will yield expected d18O values.  Also bear in mind both IAEA-CH-3 and IAEA-CH-6 are hygroscopic and should be vacuum dried for several days prior to analysis.

Similarly, on your EA-IRMS run a sample sequence comprised of IAEA-CH-7 and IAEA-CH-6 (to use as scale anchors) together with IAEA-CH-3 as “unknown”.  Alternatively, run USGS40 and USGS41 as scale anchors and include both IAEA-CH-3 and IAEA-CH-6 as “unknowns”.

The results of these two experiments should provide you with solid framework for any troubleshooting (if required).


Best,

Wolfram



From: Stable Isotope Geochemistry [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Wei Huang
Sent: 30 November 2015 22:47
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [ISOGEOCHEM] slop of two-point normalization for cellulose analysis

Dear all,

I was wondering what is the slop (delta true vs. delta measured) between IAEA C3 and IAEA CH6 for two-point normalization. Should it be close to 1? My results showed 0.6 for d13C normalization slop and 0.8 for d18O slop, based on four IAEA-C3 samples and four IAEA-CH6 samples. The precision was not bad: 0.2 per mil for d13C and 0.1 per mil for d18O respectively for both IAEA-C3 and IAEA-CH6, based on four samples each. Does anybody have any idea what could cause the normalization slope<1?

Basic information: This was my first time to run cellulose samples on TC/EA (brand new TC/EA). Gradually increased reactor temperature to 600 degree C and kept it overnight, then gradually increased it to 1400 C for analysis; carrier gas flow 90 ml/min; GC column pre-bake at 300 degree C for 14h, then back to 70 C; no leaks.

I appreciate any information or suggestion.



Wei Huang, Ph.D.



Stable Isotope Lab Manager

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

61 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10964

Lab: 845-365-8143<tel:845-365-8143>

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




________________________________

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials cloud email security - click here<https://eu1.proofpointessentials.com/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=pTe3uUmET6dm&rid=22280648&report=1> to report this email as spam.


________________________________
Robert Gordon University is the top university for graduate jobs in the UK HESA July 2015

Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC 013781.

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Robert Gordon University. Thank you.





________________________________

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials cloud email security - click here<https://eu1.proofpointessentials.com/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=NE9PJ62zGF13&rid=22280648&report=1> to report this email as spam.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager