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
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
Subject Classification05. General::05.04. Instrumentation and techniques of general interest::05.04.99. General or miscellaneous 
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:Article published / in press

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
vanGeldern et al 2013.pdfMain article463.61 kBAdobe PDF
Show full item record

Citations 50

checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s) 20

checked on Nov 28, 2022


checked on Nov 28, 2022

Google ScholarTM