Earth-prints repository, logo   DSpace

About DSpace Software
|earth-prints home page | roma library | bologna library | catania library | milano library | napoli library | palermo library
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Authors: van Geldern, R.*
Verma, M. P.*
Carvalho, M. C.*
Grassa, F.*
Delgado-Huertas, A.*
Monvoisin, G.*
Barth, J. A. C.*
Title: Stable carbon isotope analysis of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in natural waters – Results from a worldwide pro!ciency test
Title of journal: Rapid Communication in Mass Spectrometry
Series/Report no.: /27 (2013)
Publisher: Wiley Online Library
Issue Date: 21-Jun-2013
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.6665
Keywords: proficiency test
Abstract: RATIONALE: Stable carbon isotope ratios of dissolved inorganic (DIC) and organic carbon (DOC) are of particular interest in aquatic geochemistry. The precision for this type of analysis is typically reported in the range of 0.1‰ to 0.5‰. However, there is no published attempt that compares !13C measurements of DIC and DOC among different laboratories for natural water samples. METHODS: Five natural water samples (lake water, seawater, two geothermal waters, and petroleum well water) were analyzed for !13CDIC and !13CDOC values by !ve laboratories with isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) in an international pro!ciency test. RESULTS: The reported !13CDIC values for lake water and seawater showed fairly good agreement within a range of about 1‰, whereas geothermal and petroleum waters were characterized by much larger differences (up to 6.6‰ between laboratories). !13CDOC values were only comparable for seawater and showed differences of 10 to 21‰for other samples. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that scatter in !13CDIC isotope data can be in the range of several per mil for samples from extreme environments (geothermal waters) and may not yield reliable information with respect to dissolved carbon (petroleum wells). The analyses of lake water and seawater also revealed a larger than expected difference and researchers from various disciplines should be aware of this. Evaluation of analytical procedures of the participating laboratories indicated that the differences cannot be explained by analytical errors or different data normalization procedures and must be related to speci!c sample characteristics or secondary effects during sample storage and handling. Our results reveal the need for further research on sources of error and on method standardization.
Appears in Collections:05.04.99. General or miscellaneous
Papers Published / Papers in press

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormatVisibility
vanGeldern et al 2013.pdfMain article463.61 kBAdobe PDFonly authorized users View/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share this record




Stumble it!



Valid XHTML 1.0! ICT Support, development & maintenance are provided by CINECA. Powered on DSpace Software. CINECA