Evaluation and Optimization of Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes Experimental Conditions Determinated by GasBenchⅡ-IRMS Method

ZHU Yuan-yuan; QIU Hai-ou; DU Yong; TANG Zhi-yong; SHUAI Qin; SONG Hu-yue

2014 Vol. 33, No. 6

Article Contents

Article navigation > Rock and Mineral Analysis > 2014 > 33(6): 789-794

Next Article Previous Article

ZHU Yuan-yuan, QIU Hai-ou, DU Yong, TANG Zhi-yong, SHUAI Qin, SONG Hu-yue. Evaluation and Optimization of Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes Experimental Conditions Determinated by GasBenchⅡ-IRMS Method[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2014, 33(6): 789-794.

Citation:

Evaluation and Optimization of Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes Experimental Conditions Determinated by GasBenchⅡ-IRMS Method

1.
Wuhan Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, Wuhan 430205, China
2.
School of Material and Chemistry, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China
3.
Environmental Protection Monitoring Station of Shiyan, Shiyan 442000, China
4.
State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China

Received Date: 10 June 2014

Revised Date: 25 October 2014

Accepted Date: 15 November 2014

Publish Date: 25 June 2014

Abstract

Abstract

The continuous flow technique coupled with GasBenchⅡ-Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) became the routine method to analyse the stable carbon and oxygen isotope compositions of carbonate. Previous studies revealed that the isotope results were influenced by the varied experimental conditions. However, rare studies have assessed the influences of multiple experimental conditions on the isotope results. Here, all reaction conditions including flushing time, reaction temperature, reaction time and chromatographic separation temperature have been evaluated systematically. Flushing time longer than 9 minutes can eliminate the interference of air. Different reaction temperatures and time have distinct influences on the isotope values. 72℃, 60 minutes and 60℃ have been chosen for the reaction temperature, reaction time and chromatographic separation temperature respectively. The analytical precisions are better than 0.03‰ (for δ¹³C) and 0.05 (for δ¹⁸O) under the optimized conditions. In addition, different isotope normalization methods would affect the isotope results. Two isotope normalization methods have been compared, based on about 4000 samples of isotope data. The calculated results from two standard samples are much more precise and reliable than from single standard samples. The study provides a reference for experimental conditions in GasBench Ⅱ-IRMS technology, ensuring the accuracy and reliability for carbon and oxygen isotope analysis. At the same time, the experimental conditions should be further investigated in real samples analysis due to the inhomogeneous and complex sample compositions.
- GasBenchⅡ-IRMS /
- carbon isotope /
- oxygen isotope /
- flushing time, reaction temperature, reaction time /
- chromatographic separation temperature /
- isotope normalization method /
- /

FullText(HTML)

References

[1]	doi: 10.1016/S0009-2541(99)00086-8
[2]	doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.10.023
[3]	doi: 10.1126/science.1097023
[4]	doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.03.023
[5]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZZK200501009.htm
[6]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1034
[7]	doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.06.021
[8]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZDQ200303005.htm
[9]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQYD201006013.htm
[10]	doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2011.07.019
[11]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CJXB201704014.htm
[12]
[13]	Grossman E. Oxygen Isotope Stratigraphy[M]//Ogg G, Ogg S, eds. The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Elsevier Press, 2012: 181-206. Google Scholar
[14]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZLP199905014.htm
[15]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0231
[16]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNSY200301003.htm
[17]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DQHX200603014.htm
[18]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZLP200801017.htm
[19]	doi: 10.1063/1.1747785
[20]	doi: 10.1002/rcm.v17:9
[21]
[22]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YKCS201006002.htm
[23]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0231
[24]	doi: 10.1002/rcm.5052
[25]	doi: 10.1016/j.ijms.2006.11.006
[26]	Finnigan GasBenchⅡ Operating Manual[M]. Revision A, 2004. Google Scholar
[27]	郑永飞, 陈江峰. 稳定同位素地球化学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000. Google Scholar
[28]	程红光. 四川龙门山地区泥盆纪腕足化石碳、氧同位素研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学院研究生院, 2006. Google Scholar
[29]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0231
[30]
[31]	武汉大学化学系. 仪器分析[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2005. Google Scholar
[32]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0231
[33]	http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJHX201103032.htm
[34]	doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0231
[35]