Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-18T04:00:13.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sealed Tube Combustion Method with MnO2 for AMS 14C Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2018

Róbert Janovics ,
István Futó  and
Mihály Molnár
Róbert Janovics*
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre, Institute for Nuclear Research Debrecen, Hungary
István Futó
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre, Institute for Nuclear Research Debrecen, Hungary
Mihály Molnár
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre, Institute for Nuclear Research Debrecen, Hungary
*
*Corresponding author. Email: janovics@atomki.hu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An effective sealed tube combustion method was designed with an MnO2 oxidant for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (AMS 14C) measurements. Different types of materials (oxalic acid, cellulose, sucrose, wood, collagen, graphite, and humic acid) were used to test the method. A normal borosilicate glass tube was used instead of quartz and the combustion was done at 550ºC. The yield of the combustion is above 98% even in the case of the less combustible material such as graphite. The MnO2 reagent does not introduce detectable carbon contamination. The typical background is 0.29±0.20 pMC in the case of 200 µg carbon, measured as solid graphite target. With direct measurement of the CO2 by gas ion source AMS, the method is applicable up to 50 µg of carbon with an acceptable (~1 pMC) 14C background. A new type of tube cracker was developed for a quick chipless method of tube cracking and sample changing. In this way, the gas handling process takes only 5–6 min/sample.

Keywords

14CAMScombustionMnO2

Information

Type
Instrumentation and Calibration
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 60 , Special Issue 5: 2nd Radiocarbon in the Environment Conference, Debrecen, Hungary, July 3–7, 2017 Part 2 of 2 and Radiocarbon & Diet 2 International Conference Aarhus, Denmark, June 20–23, 2017 , October 2018 , pp. 1347 - 1355
Copyright
© 2018 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 2nd Radiocarbon in the Environment Conference, Debrecen, Hungary, 3–7 July 2017

References

REFERENCES

Aerts-Bijma, A, van der Plicht, J, Meijer, H. 2001. Automatic AMS sample combustion and CO2 collection. Radiocarbon 43(2A):293–298.Google Scholar
Boutton, TW. et al. 1983. Comparison of quartz and Pyrex tubes for combustion of organic-samples for stable carbon isotope analysis. Analytical Chemistry 55:1832–1833.Google Scholar
Brock, F, Froese, DG, Roberts, RG. 2010. Low temperature (LT) combustion of sediments does not necessarily provide accurate radiocarbon ages for site chronology. Quaternary Geochronology 5:625–630.Google Scholar
Burr, GS. et al. 2001. Sample preparation of dissolved organic carbon in groundwater for AMS 14C analysis. Radiocarbon 43(2A):183–190.Google Scholar
Fung, K. 1990. Particulate carbon speciation by MnO2 oxidant. Aerosol Science and Technology 12:122–127.Google Scholar
Fung, K, Chow, JC, Watson, JG. 2002. Evaluation of OC/EC speciation by thermal manganese dioxide oxidation and the improve method. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52:1333–1341.Google Scholar
Genberg, J, Perron, N, Olsson, M, Stenström, K. 2013. Sealed glass tube combustion of μg-sized aerosol samples. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):617–623.Google Scholar
Gonfiantini, R, Stichler, W, Rozanski, K. 1995. Standards and intercomparison materials distributed by the International Atomic Energy Agency for stable isotope measurements. IAEA-TECDOC-825. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Gröning, M. 2007. Reference Sheet for Quality Control Materials. Vienna.Google Scholar
Jull, AJT et al. 2000. Radiocarbon beyond this world. Radiocarbon 42(1):151–172.Google Scholar
Kato, K et al. 2014. Automated sample combustion and CO2 collection system with IRMS for 14C AMS in Yamagata University, Japan. Radiocarbon 56(1):327–331.Google Scholar
Leonard, A et al. 2013. A wet oxidation method for AMS radiocarbon analysis of dissolved organic carbon in water. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):545–552.Google Scholar
McGeehin, J et al. 2004. Stepped-combustion 14C dating of bomb carbon in lake sediment. Radiocarbon 46(2):893–900.Google Scholar
Minami, M et al. 2009. Comparison of δ13C and 14C activities of CO2 samples combusted in closed-tube and elemental-analyzer systems. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268:914–918.Google Scholar
Molnár, M et al. 2013. Status report of the new AMS 14C sample preparation lab of the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (Debrecen, Hungary). Radiocarbon 55(2–3):665–676.Google Scholar
Ramsey, CB, Humm, M. 2000. On-line combustion of samples for AMS and ion source developments at ORAU. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172:242–246.Google Scholar
Rinyu, L et al. 2013. Optimised of sealed tube graphitisation method for environmental C-14 studies using MICADAS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 1:270–275.Google Scholar
Santos, GM. 2008. KCCAMS facility combustion protocol. California: KCCAMS.Google Scholar
Schuur, EAG, Druffel, ERM, Trumbore, SE. 2016. Radiocarbon and Climate Change; Mechanics, Application and Laboratory Techniques. Irvine (CA): University of California Department of Earth System Science.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010. The fifth international radiocarbon intercomparison (VIRI): An assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):859–865.Google Scholar
Steier, P et al. 2013. A new UV oxidation setup for small radiocarbon samples in solution. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):373–382.Google Scholar
Stenström, KE et al. 2011. A guide to radiocarbon units and calculations. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Stuvier, M, Polach, H. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–363.Google Scholar
Synal, HA, Stocker, M, Suter, M. 2007. MICADS: A new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:7–13.Google Scholar
Vandeputte, K, Moens, L, Dams, R. 1996. Improved sealed-tube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for stable carbon isotope analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29(15):2761–2773.Google Scholar
Wacker, L, Němec, M, Bourquin, J. 2010a. A revolutionary graphitisation system: fully automated, compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):931–934.Google Scholar
Wacker, L, Christl, M, Synal, H. 2010b. Bats: A new tool for AMS data reduction. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):976–979.Google Scholar