Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T00:48:31.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SQUEAKY CLEAN CELLULOSE: COMPARING PRETREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS ON SINGLE TREE RINGS AND WOODEN LATHS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2024

Wendy Hlengiwe Khumalo*
Affiliation:
National Laboratory for Age Determination, NTNU University Museum, Trondheim, Norway
Helene Løvstrand Svarva
Affiliation:
National Laboratory for Age Determination, NTNU University Museum, Trondheim, Norway
Damaris Zurbach
Affiliation:
National Laboratory for Age Determination, NTNU University Museum, Trondheim, Norway
Marie-Josée Nadeau
Affiliation:
National Laboratory for Age Determination, NTNU University Museum, Trondheim, Norway André E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Emails: wendy.khumalo@ntnu.no, wendykhumalo@icloud.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Obtaining accurate radiocarbon (14C) results from wood samples requires the extraction of cellulose. In the past, this has been done using different combinations of methods including acidified bleaching, acid-base-acid, and strong bases. This often becomes a time-consuming task in most analyses, especially when single ring isotope chronologies are needed from wood samples. Using 14C and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), we tested four different pretreatment methods to determine their ability to produce high quality cellulose. We then adjusted the best methods to determine a method for pretreating wood laths of multiple rings. A sequence of base-acid-base-acid-bleach + strong base (BABAB+) and BABAB produced the most accurate results when compared to the Bomb20 Northern Hemisphere Zone 1 curve with an average difference in Δ14C of 1.3‰ and 5.8‰ respectively. These methods were adjusted to pretreat an entire wood lath and a comparison of the FTIR results suggest that our adjusted BABAB+ and BABAB produced high quality cellulose comparable to that of an individually pretreated ring. The possibility to pretreat wood lath samples has the potential to more than double the number of tree rings which can be pretreated in a week. This is a significant reduction in time when creating long tree ring chronologies.

Information

Type
Conference Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona
Figure 0

Figure 1 Intcal20 (1850–1941; Reimer et al. 2020) and Bomb calibration curve NH1 (1942–2019; Hua et al. 2022) plotted in gray against the Δ14C results of untreated tree rings from 1925 to 1950 (black).

Figure 1

Table 1 Outline of the four pretreatment methods tested: 17.5% NaOH (Rowell et al. 2005), Solvent extraction (Bruhn et al. 2001), BABAB (Němec et al. 2010), and BABAB+. The amounts and times indicated are those used for individual samples. These were increased for the pretreatment of laths.

Figure 2

Figure 2 FTIR spectra of the different pretreatment methods: No pretreatment (black), 17.5% NaOH (red), solvent extraction (yellow), BABAB (green), and BABAB+ (purple). (Please see online version for color figures.)

Figure 3

Figure 3 A. FTIR spectra of a BABAB lath pretreated ring, an individually pretreated ring and untreated wood sample. B. FTIR spectra of a BABAB+ lath pretreated ring, an individually pretreated ring, and an untreated wood sample.

Figure 4

Table 2 Radiocarbon results of untreated wood samples and the four different pretreatment methods for the years 1933–1937.

Figure 5

Figure 4 Difference in radiocarbon results of pretreated samples from 1933–1937 compared to the Intcal20 calibration curve.

Supplementary material: File

Khumalo et al. supplementary material

Khumalo et al. supplementary material
Download Khumalo et al. supplementary material(File)
File 440.4 KB