 |
 |
On 22.07.2010 18:31, Daniel H Doctor wrote: > Finally, there are those among us who run hundreds > if not thousands of samples with unknown yields in an automated CF mode, > creating a very complex situation when dealing with the simultaneous > correction of both linearity and drift, over and above considering > chromatography and possible memory effects. We run a couple of standards in every seqence to deal with this. (1) a set of 5 to 10 standards with increasing signal for correction of the linearity of the source. (2) a drift standard measured at every 8th oder 10th position with identical peak heights (or areas) (3) 2 reference materials (or lab standards) for normalization (4) a quality control standard treated as a sample. Memory effects can be either removed by mathematical calculations (by using the results of multiple analysis of the 2 reference materials) or by ignoring the first (or more) analysis after a large change in delta values. This depends on your peripheral (e.g. Gasbench memory effect is small, H-Device is large). Make sure to calculate the corrections in a logical sense of order, otherwise you will not know what effect has already been corrected for: (1) linearity (2) drift (3) normalization (e.g. to VSMOW) (4) check your control standard if it is within your analytical limit. No. (4) will also give you the standard deviation over time and therfore your external (includes the effect of sample preparation and so on) reproducibility. > My question is this: would it be better to calculate and correct isotope > ratios for samples run in CF mode using the peak height (or maximum > voltage response) rather than the peak area? Of course, this would only > apply to the standards and the samples in the run that result in > chromatographic peaks, not the reference gas peaks, which are flat-topped. Wolfram already explained why the isotope ratio should be calculated from the area. However, for any correction of the final delta isotope value (e.g. linearity: delta value vs. signal) we use the intensity since the correlation area:height usually is 1:1 in 99% of the cases. For other things, eg. concentrations it should be better to use the area instead of the maximum signal height to account for possible GC effects. Isotope people who started with dual inlet analysis tend to think in "intensities" (mV) - and we still do in the CF era whereas people from organic geochemistry using GC/MS analysis always think in areas. :-) regards, Robert -- Dr. Robert van Geldern GeoZentrum Nordbayern / Applied Geosciences University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Schlossgarten 5 91054 Erlangen, Germany mailto:[log in to unmask] www.gzn.uni-erlangen.de fon: +49(0)9131-85-24780 (office) fax: +49(0)9131-85-29294 Room: O 0.106 (office)