| Literature DB >> 26379472 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the biogeochemical fractionation of isotopes, organic material can be heterogeneous at the microscale. Because this heterogentiy preserves in the rock record, the microscale measurement of carbon isotopes is an important frontier of geobiology. Such analyses via secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) have been, however, held back by the lack of an appropriate homogeneous synthetic standard that can be shared between laboratories. Such a standard would need to yield a carbon signal intensity within the same instrument dynamic range as that found for typical rocks, exhibit minimal matrix effects under typical SIMS conditions, and be widely available. In this work, five possible standards were tested with repeated δ(13)C ion microprobe measurements against the PPRG #215-1 Precambrian chert that has been used as a working standard for these types of analyses by several laboratories.Entities:
Keywords: Carbon isotopes; Matrix effect; SIMS; Standardization
Year: 2015 PMID: 26379472 PMCID: PMC4569672 DOI: 10.1186/s12932-015-0029-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geochem Trans ISSN: 1467-4866 Impact factor: 4.737
Observed carbon ion yields for different materials
| Possible standard material | Approx. C2 yield (106 cps per nA) |
|---|---|
| PPRG #215-1 | 0.1a |
| PEEK GF30 + silica | 75 |
| Ceramacast 905 + silica | 1.5 |
| Aremco-Bond 526N + silica | 1.5 |
| ADVANCER CN703 (bonded SiC) | 35 |
| CARBOFRAX A (bonded SiC) | 50 |
aSignal varies between different spots by about an order of magnitude on this natural rock chip
Fig. 1Observed matrix effect during ion microprobe carbon isotopic analyses between three synthetic materials and the PPRG #215-1 Precambrian chert that has been used as a working standard previously
Fig. 2Observed matrix effect during ion microprobe carbon isotopic analyses between a hydrated material (the 526N sample) and the PPRG #215-1 Precambrian chert shown as a function of the total intensity of the pre-sputter. The larger diamonds had an additional 20 s pre-sputter using a 2 nA beam. Grey diamonds using an analysis primary beam of 0.4 nA, while the black diamonds are cases were the analysis primary ion beam was ~1 nA. The results suggest the stronger additional pre-sputter (at 2 nA) and a more intense analysis primary ion beam (at 1 nA) both reduce the observed matrix effect
Fig. 3Images showing the syntheses of three of the materials used in this study. a A PEEK GF30 disk surrounded by silica nanopowder and covered by a layer of copper filings, in an oven to be heated to 345 °C under a nitrogen flow. b PEEK GF30 disk after removal from the oven showing silica nanopowder adhered to the surface. The red circle shows the approximate piece cut out and used for the test. c Silica nanopower in an aluminum ring being pressed at 25 MPa. d Pressed silica nanopowder with Ceramacast 905 added. e Same sample as D turned over to show side that will be polished after the packing tape is removed. f Pressed silica nanopowder with Aremco-Bond 526N added. g Same sample as F turned over to show side that will be polished after the packing tape is removed. h SEM image of the surface of the polished Ceramacast 905 + silica sample used for SIMS. Scale bar is 20 μm
Carbon isotope analyses by ion microprobe of possible synthetic standards
| Sample material | Primary Cs+ intensity | Pre sputter (s) | C2 − intensity (cps) | Observed δ13C ± σ | PPRG #215-1 Instrument mass fractionation factor α | Corrected δ13C | True δ13C | Observed matrix effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 905 | 6.7E−10 | 15 | 1.7E+05 | −33.1 ± 1.1 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −33.7 | −27.9 | −6.0 |
| 905 | 6.7E−10 | 15 | 3.4E+05 | −34.5 ± 0.7 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −35.1 | −27.9 | −7.4 |
| 905 | 2.2E−10 | 15 | 3.7E+05 | −35.9 ± 0.7 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −36.5 | −27.9 | −8.9 |
| 905 | 2.2E−10 | 45 | 2.6E+05 | −35.5 ± 0.7 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −36.1 | −27.9 | −8.4 |
| 905 | 2.2E−10 | 45 | 2.3E+05 | −35.4 ± 1.1 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −36.0 | −27.9 | −8.4 |
| Weighted mean |
|
| ||||||
| Weighted standard deviation |
| |||||||
| 526N | 8.30E−11 | 45 | 1.3E+05 | −41.9 ± 0.7 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −41.9 | −27.7 | −14.7 |
| 526N | 8.40E−11 | 45 | 7.6E+05 | −40.0 ± 1.1 | 1.0006 (0.6 ‰) | −40.0 | −27.7 | −12.7 |
| Weighted mean |
|
| ||||||
| Weighted standard deviation |
|
Instrument mass factionation (IMF) factor α = (δ13Cobs + 1000)/(δ13CExp + 1000)
IMF in ‰ = 1000 * Ln (α). Corrected δ13C = ((δ13Cobs + 1000/α) − 1000
True δ13C is that measured by conventional elemental analyzer-isotope ratio mass spectrometry (EA-IRMS). apparent matrix effect (AS) = Corrected δ13C − True δ13C
The last two 526N samples add the following additional pre-sputter respectively: 20 seconds of an ~2 nA beam and 60 s of an ~0.4 nA beam; 20 s of an ~2 nA beam