Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access
  • Open access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        14C BLANK CORRECTIONS FOR 25–100 μG SAMPLES AT THE NATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCES AMS LABORATORY
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        14C BLANK CORRECTIONS FOR 25–100 μG SAMPLES AT THE NATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCES AMS LABORATORY
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        14C BLANK CORRECTIONS FOR 25–100 μG SAMPLES AT THE NATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCES AMS LABORATORY
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Abstract

Replicate radiocarbon (14C) measurements of organic and inorganic control samples, with known Fraction Modern values in the range Fm = 0–1.5 and mass range 6 μg–2 mg carbon, are used to determine both the mass and radiocarbon content of the blank carbon introduced during sample processing and measurement in our laboratory. These data are used to model, separately for organic and inorganic samples, the blank contribution and subsequently “blank correct” measured unknowns in the mass range 25–100 μg. Data, formulas, and an assessment of the precision and accuracy of the blank correction are presented.

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 23rd International Radiocarbon Conference, Trondheim, Norway, 17–22 June, 2018

INTRODUCTION

At the National Ocean Sciences AMS Laboratory (NOSAMS), the 14C concentration of a sample is determined by measuring its carbon isotope abundance ratio with accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The Fraction Modern (Fm) of a sample is determined by calculating the deviation of this ratio from that of normalizing standards. In our case, the primary standard is NBS Oxalic Acid I (NIST-SRM-4990) and Modern is defined as 95% of the radiocarbon concentration of NBS Oxalic Acid I normalized to δ13CVPDB = –19‰ (Olsson 1970). Per convention, a correction is made to correct for isotopic fractionation. As such, sample results are corrected to a δ13CVPDB value of –25‰, assuming a quadratic mass fractionation dependency (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). This correction is made using the AMS measured 13C/12C ratio values of the sample and normalizing standards.

At NOSAMS, inorganic samples (e.g., coral, foraminifera, mollusc, sediment [carbonate]) are typically acidified with 100% H3PO4, to convert the carbon in the sample to CO2. Organic samples (e.g., charcoal, plant/wood, sediment [organic]) are typically pretreated and then combusted at high temperature to produce CO2. Pretreatment of organic samples is usually a series of heated acid-base-acid leaches to remove inorganic carbon and base-soluble organic acids (Gagnon 2000). Regardless of sample type, converted CO2 is quantified and transferred to a reaction tube for reduction to carbon. Samples having a carbon mass of between 25 and 100 μg are typically reduced on a dedicated “small-sample line” having a reactor volume of 3.92 mL. However, samples as large as 1 mg can be reduced to graphite on this line. CO2 is reduced using Fe catalyst in the presence of excess hydrogen (Vogel 1987). The majority of our “small samples” are analyzed on the CFAMS system (Roberts 2010) because that system has a higher source-to-detector efficiency than our USAMS system.

Every group of samples analyzed includes concurrently measured secondary standards with consensus Fm values (Fmconsensus) and appropriate process blanks. Secondary standards include the IAEA C-series reference materials (IAEA 2014) and various materials from the Third, Fourth, and Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI, FIRI, and VIRI) exercises (Scott 2003, 2010). Process blank materials include Carrara marble (IAEA C-1) and Icelandic Doublespar (TIRI F) for inorganic carbon samples and acetanilide (CE Elantech, Product # 338.367.00) for organic carbon samples.

For these secondary standards and blanks, our measured Fm values deviate from expected Fm values as demonstrated in Figure 1. This deviation is most pronounced for small mass samples (m < 100 μg) but is present for all sample masses and Fm values. This deviation can be explained by two processes: (1) a “large-mass” blank and (2) a “mass-balance” blank. In the following sections, we present the formulas we use to model these two blank types, details on how we determine the values of the blank contribution (separately for organic and inorganic samples), and subsequently “blank correct” measured unknowns.

Figure 1 Uncorrected Fm values of FIRI H wood (Panel A, upper plot) and a “radiocarbon-free” acetanilide (Panel B, lower plot) versus manometrically determined sample mass. For the acetanilide, the solid line represents the “large-mass” blank. The dashed lines represent the “mass-balance” blank.

BLANK MODEL

The “large-mass” blank manifests itself most clearly for low Fm samples (see Figure 1, Panel B, “radiocarbon-free” sample). The large-mass blank can typically be explained by a combination of one or more of the following: sample pretreatment, carbon contamination in the Fe catalyst used in the reduction step, adsorption of atmospheric CO2 on to the graphite before it is put under the vacuum of the ion source, ion source memory, or background in the energy spectrum of the AMS 14C detector. The effect of the “large-mass” blank on the Fm of an unknown sample (Fmunknown) can be expressed as:

(1) $$F{m_{measured}} = F{m_{unknown}}{\rm{}} + F{m_{large - blank}}\left( {1 - {{F{m_{unknown}}} \over {F{m_{standard}}}}} \right)$$

where Fmmeasured is the measured AMS Fm, and Fmlarge-blank and Fmstandard, are the Fm of the “large-mass” blank and primary standard respectively. Equation (1) is effectively the same as Equation (26) in Donahue et al. (Donahue 1990). Conceptually, Equation (1) can be explained as follows: a sample that has the same measured Fm as that of the standard must have an actual Fm equal to that of the standard (Fmmeasured = Fmstandard ⇔ Fmunknown = Fmstandard), while a sample that has the same measured Fm as that of the blank must have an actual Fm equal to that of the blank (Fmmeasured = Fmlarge-blank ⇔ Fmunknown = 0).

A “mass-balance” blank reflects the addition of a constant mass contaminant to the sample during sample processing/handling. The modelling of this blank can take the form of a contaminant with a certain mass and Fm (Brown 1997; Hanke 2017) or as a combination of modern and 14C-dead carbon contaminant (Santos 2010; Welte 2018). Both approaches are functionally equivalent. In general, the mass-balance measured Fm (Fmmeasured) of an unknown sample can be expressed as:

(2) $$F{m_{measured}} = {{F{m_{unknown}} \cdot {m_{unknown}} + F{m_{cont}} \cdot {m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}} + {m_{cont}}}}$$

where Fmunknown and Fmcont are the Fm of the unknown sample and the contaminant, and munknown and mcont are the mass of the unknown and the contaminant. The form of the “mass balance” blank is represented by dashed lines in Figure 1.

Our procedure to derive a Fmunknown that is corrected for both types of blank is as follows: First, Fmmeasured values are large-blank corrected by substituting Fmlarge-blank corrected for Fmunknown into Equation (1):

(3) $$F{m_{large - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}} = F{m_{standard}}{{F{m_{measured}} - F{m_{large - blank}}} \over {F{m_{standard}} - F{m_{large - blank}}}}$$

with a corresponding uncertainty of:

(4) $$\delta _{F{m_{large - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}}}^2 = {\left( {{{F{m_{standard}}} \over {F{m_{standard}} - F{m_{large - blank}}}}} \right)^2}\delta _{F{m_{measured}}}^2{\rm{}} + {\left( {{{F{m_{standard}}F{m_{measured}} - F{m_{standard}}^2} \over {{{(F{m_{standard}} - F{m_{large - blank}})}^2}}}} \right)^2}\delta _{F{m_{large - blank}}}^2$$

where δFmmeasured , and δFmlarge-blank are the uncertainties in the measured and large-blank Fm.

Subsequently, Fmlarge-blankcorrected is corrected for mass balance blank by substituting Fmlarge-blankcorrected for Fmmeasured in Equation (2):

(5) $$F{m_{unknown}} = {{F{m_{large - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}}({m_{unknown}} + {m_{cont}}) - F{m_{cont}} \cdot {m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}}}}$$

with a corresponding uncertainty of:

(6) $$\delta _{F{m_{unknown}}}^2 = {\left( {{{{m_{unknown}} + {m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}}}}} \right)^2}\delta _{F{m_{large - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}}}^2{\rm{}} + {\left( {{{{m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}}}}} \right)^2}\delta _{F{m_{cont}}}^2{\rm{}} + {\left( {{{F{m_{cont}}{m_{cont}} - F{m_{large - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}}{m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}}^2}}} \right)^2}\delta _{{m_{unknown}}}^2{\rm{}} + {\left( {{{F{m_{larg - blank{\rm{}}\ corrected}} - F{m_{cont}}} \over {{m_{unknown}}}}} \right)^2}\delta _{{m_{cont}}}^2$$

where δFmlarge-blank corrected , δFmcont , δmunknown , and δmcont are the uncertainties in the large-blank corrected Fm, contaminant Fm, sample mass, and contaminant mass, respectively.

To determine the values of Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont, we measure and blank correct secondary standards as if they were unknowns. These values are then used to define a total chi-squared statistic:

(7) $${\chi ^2} = {1 \over N}\sum _{j = 1}^N\left\{ {{1 \over n}\sum _{i = 1}^n{{{{(F{m_{unknow{n_{ji}}}} - F{m_c}_{onsensu{s_j}})}^2}} \over {{\sigma _u}{{_{nknow{n_{ji}}}}^2}}}} \right\}$$

where Fmconsensus if the consensus value of the secondary standard, N is the number of unique secondary standards, each having a different consensus value Fmconsensus, and n is the number of individual measurements of that unique secondary. The χ2 statistic is initially calculated using starting values of Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont. Then, using the Solver program in Microsoft Excel (2018), we minimize the χ2 statistic by allowing Fmlarge--blank, Fmcont, and mcont to vary, subject to certain constraints (e.g., Fmcont ≤ 1, mcont > 0, etc.). In practice, Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont values are different for different samples process types (e.g., organic versus inorganic).

DATA

Figures 2 and 3 show a subset of inorganic and organic secondary standards processed on our small-sample graphitization-line over the past 5 years (2013–2018). Using the measured and consensus Fm values of these secondary standards, we determined Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont, and for inorganic and organic samples by minimizing χ2 (Equation 7). Resulting Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont, values for inorganic and organic secondary standards are listed in Table 1. No long-term time dependency in the values was observed. The black lines in Figures 2 and 3 show expected Fmmeasured results using Table 1 blank and mass balance values.

Table 1 Calculated mass balance and large mass blank values for samples processed on NOSAMS’s “small-sample” graphitization line.

Figure 2 A subset of inorganic secondary standards processed on NOSAMS’s “small-sample” line. The black lines are expected results using the blank and mass-balance values listed in Table 1. The gray lines show model sensitivity to the contaminant Fm (dark gray, ±0.41) and mass (light gray, ±0.42 μg).

Figure 3 A subset of organic secondary standards processed on NOSAMS’s “small-sample” line. The black lines are expected results using the blank and mass balance values listed in Table 1. The gray lines show model sensitivity to the contaminant Fm (dark gray, ±0.18) and mass (light gray, ±0.84 μg).

Uncertainty in the Fmlarge-blank, Fmcont, and mcont values cannot be uniquely determined. In our case, the uncertainty in Fmlarge-blank was taken to be:

(8) $$\delta _{F{m_{large - blank}}}^{} = {1 \over 2}F{m_{large - blank}}$$

This value encompasses about two-thirds of the variation seen in individual Fm values of large-mass “radiocarbon-free” samples.

For the error in Fmcont, and mcont, an error was assigned to each value such that, after propagation, approximately 68% of the corrected Fm (i.e., Fmunkown) values were within 1 standard deviation of the consensus value resulting in a normal distribution of results. This error determination was done after χ2 minimization. The darker gray lines in Figures 2 and 3 show the sensitivity of expected Fmmeasured to uncertainty in the Fm of the contaminant. Light gray lines show the sensitivity of expected Fmmeasured to uncertainty in the mass of the contaminant.

Figure 4 Uncorrected and corrected data from TIRI K and FIRI C (Turbidite Carbonate). The solid line is the consensus value of Fm = 0.1043.

Figure 4 shows uncorrected and corrected data from measurements of the inorganic TIRI K / FIRI C (Turbidite Carbonate) sample material using the Fmlarge-blank , Fmcont , and mcont values for inorganic samples listed in Table 1. Likewise,

Figure 5 Corrected and uncorrected data from the organic sample C-8 (Oxalic Acid). The solid line is the consensus value of Fm = 0.1503.

Figure 5 shows uncorrected and corrected data from measurements of the C-8 (Oxalic Acid) sample materials using the Fmlarge-blank , Fmcont , and mcont values for organic samples listed in Table 1. Error bars for corrected Fm values (i.e., Fmunknown) are much larger than the original Fmmeasured error bars due mainly to the uncertainty of both Fmcont and mcont . To assess the quality of the blank values, Table 2 lists χ2’s of two indicative sub-samples calculated before and after blank correction. These χ2’s are not the same as those used to derive the three-parameter model (i.e., Equation 7). This is a separate calculation and these χ2 values should be judged quantitatively only in relative sense in that the corrected values listed in Table 2 are artificially reduced by the boost in the uncertainties of Fmlarge-blank , Fmcont , and mcont .

Table 2 Reduced chi-squared statistics calculated before and after blank and mass balance blank correction. See text.

While the model works to the extent that broad bias in reported Fmunknown values at low sample mass is removed, it fails to describe the substantial variability observed in the raw (i.e., Fmmeasured) data. While this variability is not totally understood, the assigned uncertainties in the blank values (i.e., δFmlarge-blank , δFmcont , and δmcont ) significantly increases the reported uncertainties on unknowns (i.e., δFmunknown ) and compensates for the variability observed in the raw data.

For samples with masses >100 μg carbon we do not apply a mass balance correction. For those samples the mass dependent correction is relatively small, and we find that more accurate results are obtained by applying only a blank that is measured concurrently with the unknown sample as opposed to a long-term average blank. Additionally, the values listed in Table 1 are not valid for all sample types. For example, 14C analysis of tree rings involves cellulose extraction chemistry, and would require a process specific determination of the associated blank.

NOSAMS also measures “ultra-small” samples. Ultra-small samples are typically defined as those samples having a carbon mass less than ~25 μg carbon. A similar exercise for estimating Fmcont , mcont , and Fmblank for these mass samples was conducted. Although not presented here, results similar to those listed in Table 1 were obtained. (Shah-Walter 2015).

SUMMARY

We have developed a formula that fits the observed mass dependency in measured Fm values. Using long-term measurements of quality control samples, we have modeled the Fm and mass of the blank added during sample processing and AMS measurement. Long term measurements also incorporate short term (wheel-to-wheel) variability in the blank. Different sample types were used to assess the blank added for different sample preparation methods. Applying the mass dependent and mass independent blank values, we have corrected measured Fm values of secondary standards to significantly improve their agreement with consensus values in the mass range 25 μg < mass < 100 μg.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by a Cooperative Agreement (OCE-1755125) with the U.S. National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES

Brown, TA, Southon, JR. 1997. Corrections for contamination background in AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123:208213.
Donahue, DJ, Linick, TW, Jull, AJT. 1990. Isotope-ratio and background corrections for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Measurements. Radiocarbon 32(2):135142.
Gagnon, AR, McNichol, AP, Donoghue, JC, Stuart, DR, von Reden, K, NOSAMS. 2000. The NOSAMS sample preparation laboratory in the next millenium: progress after the WOCE program. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172:409415.
Hanke, UM, Wacker, L, Haghipour, N, Schmidt, MWI, Eglinton, TI, McIntyre, CP. 2017. Comprehensive radiocarbon analysis of benzene polycarboxylic acids (BPCAs) derived from pyrogenic carbon in environmental samples. Radiocarbon 59(4):11031116. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2017.44.
IAEA. 2014. Reference sheet for Quality Control Materials. RS IAEA-C1 to IAEA-C9, Rev. 01 / 2014-03-24. Available at: http://nucleus.iaea.org/rpst/ReferenceProducts/ReferenceMaterials/Radionuclides.
Olsson, IU. 1970. The use of Oxalic Acid as a standard. In: Olsson, IU, editor. Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Nobel Symposium. 12th Proceedings. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 17.
Roberts, ML, Burton, JR, Elder, KL, Longworth, BE, McIntyre, CP, von Reden, KF, Han, BX, Rosenheim, BE, Jenkins, WJ, Galutschek, E, McNichol, AP. 2010. Radiocarbon 52(3):228235.
Santos, GM, Southon, JR, Drenzek, NJ, Ziolkowski, LA, Druffel, E, Xu, X, Trumbore, S, Eglinton, TI, and Hughen, KA. 2010. Blank assessment for ultra-small radiocarbon samples: chemical extraction and separation versus AMS. Radiocarbon 52(3):13221335. doi: 10.1017/S0033822200046415.
Scott, EM. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):135408.
Scott, EM. 2010. The Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in Stage 3. Radiocarbon 45(2–3):859865.
Shah-Walter, SR, Gagnon, AR, Roberts, ML, McNichol, AP, Lardie-Gaylord, MC, Klein, E. 2015. Ultra-small graphitization reactors for ultra-microscale radiocarbon analysis at the National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (NOSAMS) Facility. Radiocarbon 57(1):114.
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(2–3):355363.
Vogel, JS, Nelson, DE, Southon, JS. 1987. 14C background levels in an accelerator mass spectrometry system. Radiocarbon 29(3):323333. doi: 10.1017/S0033822200043733.
Welte, C, Hendriks, L, Wacker, L, Haghipour, N, Eglinton, TI, Gunther, D, Synal, HA. 2018. Towards the limits: analysis of microscale 14C samples using EA-AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123:208213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2018.09.046.