Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:36:50.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humics—Their History in the Radiocarbon Intercomparison Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2019

Philip Naysmith ,
E Marian Scott Open the ORCID record for E Marian Scott [Opens in a new window] ,
Elaine Dunbar  and
Gordon T Cook
Philip Naysmith*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK
E Marian Scott
Affiliation:
School of Maths and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Elaine Dunbar
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK
Gordon T Cook
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, Scotland, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, the format of the radiocarbon (14C) intercomparison studies has changed, however, the selection of sample types used in these studies has remained constant—namely, natural and routinely dated materials that could subsequently be used as in-house reference materials. One such material is peat which has been used 12 times, starting with the ICS in 1988. Peat from Iceland (TIRI), Ellanmore (TIRI), Letham Moss (ICS, VIRI, and SIRI), and St Bees, UK (FIRI and VIRI) have been used, as well as a near-background peat from Siberia. In the main, these peat samples have been provided as the humic acid fraction, with the main advantage being that the humic acid is extracted in solution and then precipitated (the solution phase providing the homogenisation) which is a key requirement for a reference material. In this paper, we will revisit the peat results and explore their findings. In addition, for the last 8 years, the Letham Moss sample has been used in the SUERC 14C laboratory as an in-house standard or reference material. This has resulted in several thousand measurements. Such a rich data set is explored to illustrate the benefits arising from the intercomparison program.

Keywords

humic acidintercomparisonreference material
Type
Conference Paper
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 61 , Issue 5: Radiocarbon 2018 Conference Proceedings Trondheim, Norway, June 17–22, 2018 Part 1 of 2 , October 2019 , pp. 1413 - 1422
Copyright
© 2019 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 23rd International Radiocarbon Conference, Trondheim, Norway, 17–22 June, 2018

References

REFERENCES

Aitchison, TC, Scott, EM, Harkness, DD, Baxter, MS, Cook, GT. 1990. Report on Stage 3 of the International Collaborative Program. Radiocarbon 32(3):271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, GT, Harkness, DD, Miller, BF, Scott, EM, Baxter, MS, Aitchison, TC. 1990. International collaborative study: structuring and sample preparation. Radiocarbon 32(3):267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Miller, BF, Scott, EM, Baxter, MS. 1989. Design and preparation of samples for the international collaborative study. Radiocarbon 31(3):407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A, Kalin, RM. 1990. A suggested quality assurance protocol for radiocarbon dating laboratories. Radiocarbon 32(3):329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozanski, K, Stichler, W, Gonfiantini, R, Scott, EM, Beukens, RP, Kromer, B, van der Plicht, J. 1992. The IAEA 14C intercomparison exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34(3):506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Baxter, MS, Cook, GT. 1989. An interim progress report on stages 1 and 2 of the international collaborative programs. Radiocarbon 31(3):414–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Baxter, MS. 1990. An overview of all three stages of the international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon 32(3):309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Aitchison, TC, Baxter, MS. 1991. Future quality assurance in 14C dating. Quaternary Proceedings 1:1–4.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Harkness, DD, Miller, BF, Cook, GT, Baxter, MS. 1992. Announcement of a further international intercomparison exercise. Radiocarbon 34(3):528–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, editor. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Inter-Comparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Inter-Comparison (FIRI) 1990–2002: results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):135–408.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT. 2018. Why do we need 14C inter-comparisons? The Glasgow 14C inter-comparison series, a reflection over 30 years. Quaternary Geochronology 43:72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT. 2019. Life after SIRI, where next? Radiocarbon, this volume.10.1017/RDC.2019.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M, Ellison, SR, Wood, R. 2006. The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories. Pure and Applied Chemistry 78(1):145–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar