Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:08:55.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of the Analytical F14C Bone Background Value at SUERC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

E Dunbar ,
P Naysmith ,
G T Cook ,
E M Scott ,
S Xu  and
B G Tripney
E Dunbar*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
P Naysmith
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
G T Cook
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
E M Scott
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom
S Xu
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
B G Tripney
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride G75 0QF, Scotland, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory employs a one-step “background subtraction” method when calculating 14C ages. An interglacial wood (VIRI Sample K) is employed as the non-bone organic background standard, while a mammoth bone (LQH12) from Latton Quarry is used as the bone background standard. Results over several years demonstrate that the bone background is consistently around a factor of two higher and more variable than the wood background. As a result, the uncertainty on routine bone measurements is higher than for other sample types. This study investigates the factors that may contribute to the difference in F14C values and the higher variability. Preparations of collagen using modified Longin or ultrafiltration methods show no significant difference, nor does eliminating the collagen dissolution step. Two bone samples of known infinite age with respect to radiocarbon are compared and again no significant difference is observed. Finally, the quantity and age of the organic matter in the water used during the pretreatment is investigated and it is shown that there is insufficient organic matter in the reverse osmosis water to influence background values significantly. The attention is now on determining if incomplete demineralization could lead to contaminants being retained by the phosphate in the hydroxyapatite.

Keywords

background subtractionHeidelberg woodmammoth bonequality assuranceultrafiltration
Type
Method Development
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 59 , Special Issue 5: 8th International Symposium, Edinburgh, 27 June – 1 July, 2016 Part 1 of 2 , October 2017 , pp. 1463 - 1473
Copyright
© 2017 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 8th Radiocarbon & Archaeology Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 27 June–1 July 2016

References

REFERENCES

Brock, F, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. Comments on the use of EZEE-Filters TM and ultrafilters at ORAU. Radiocarbon 55(1):211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–163.Google Scholar
Burr, GS, Thomas, JM, Reines, D, Jeffery, D, Courtney, C, Jull, AJT, Lange, T. 2001. Sample preparation of dissolved organic carbon in groundwater for AMS 14C analysis. Radiocarbon 43(2A):183–190.Google Scholar
Cook, GT, Higham, TFG, Naysmith, P, Brock, F, Freeman, SPHT, Bayliss, A. 2012. Assessment of infinite-age bones from the Upper Thames Valley, UK, as 14C background standards. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):845–853.Google Scholar
Dunbar, E, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Tripney, B, Xu, S. 2016. AMS 14C Dating at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. Radiocarbon 58(1):9–23.Google Scholar
Healy, F, Marshall, P, Bayliss, A, Cook, GT, Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J, Dunbar, E. 2014. Grime’s Graves, Weeting-With-Broomhill, Norfolk Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling. Research Report Series no. 27-2014.Google Scholar
Higham, TFG, Jacobi, RM, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS Radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48(2):179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoper, ST, McCormac, FG, Hogg, AG, Higham, TFG, Head, MJ. 1998. Evaluation of wood pretreatments on oak and cedar. Radiocarbon 40(1):45–50.Google Scholar
Lewis, SG, Maddy, D, Buckingham, C, Coope, GR, Field, MH, Keen, DH, Pike, AWG, Roe, DA, Scaife, RG, Scott, K. 2006. Pleistocene fluvial sediments, palaeontology and archaeology of the upper River Thames at Latton, Wiltshire, England. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(2):181–205.Google Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230:241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naysmith, P, Cook, GT, Freeman, SPHT, Scott, EM, Anderson, R, Xu, S, Dunbar, E, Muir, GKP, Dougans, A, Wilcken, K, Schnabel, C, Russell, N, Ascough, PL, Maden, C. 2010. 14C AMS at SUERC: improving QA data with the 5 MV tandem AMS and 250 kV SSAMS. Radiocarbon 52(2):263–271.Google Scholar
Naysmith, P, Dunbar, E, Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Tripney, BG, Brown, R. 2017. Preliminary results for estimating the bone background uncertainties at SUERC using statistical analysis. Radiocarbon, this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Bryant, C, O’Donnell, D. 2007. A report on phase 1 of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 49(2):409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010a. The Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(3):859–865.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010b. A report on phase 2 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 52(3):846–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT. 2017. A report on the Sixth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (SIRI). Radiocarbon, this volume.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Buckingham, CM. 2001. Preliminary report on the excavation of late Middle Pleistocene deposits at Latton, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Quaternary Newsletter 94:24–29.Google Scholar
Tisnérat-Laborde, N, Valladas, H, Kaltnecker, E, Arnold, M. 2003. AMS radiocarbon dating of bones at LSCE. Radiocarbon 45(3):409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, JS, Nelson, DE, Southon, J. 1987. 14C background levels in an AMS system. Radiocarbon 29(3):323–333.Google Scholar
Wood, RE, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG. 2010. Refining background corrections for radiocarbon dating of bone collagen at ORAU. Radiocarbon 52(2):600–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, S, Anderson, R, Bryant, C, Cook, GT, Dougans, A, Freeman, S, Naysmith, P, Schnabel, C, Scott, EM. 2004. Capabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS Facility for 14C dating. Radiocarbon 46(1):59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar