Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T20:03:47.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods for High-Precision 14C AMS Measurement of Atmospheric CO2 at LLNL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Heather D Graven ,
Thomas P Guilderson  and
Ralph F Keeling
Heather D Graven*
Affiliation:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
Thomas P Guilderson
Affiliation:
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94551, USA; also Department of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 94056, USA
Ralph F Keeling
Affiliation:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Development of radiocarbon analysis with precision better than 2% has the potential to expand the utility of 14CO2 measurements for carbon cycle investigations as atmospheric gradients currently approach the typical measurement precision of 2–5%. The accelerator mass spectrometer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) produces high and stable beam currents that enable efficient acquisition times for large numbers of 14C counts. One million 14C atoms can be detected in approximately 25 min, suggesting that near 1% counting precision is economically feasible at LLNL. The overall uncertainty in measured values is ultimately determined by the variation between measured ratios in several sputtering periods of the same sample and by the reproducibility of replicate samples. Experiments on the collection of 1 million counts on replicate samples of CO2 extracted from a whole air cylinder show a standard deviation of 1.7% in 36 samples measured over several wheels. This precision may be limited by the reproducibility of oxalic acid I standard samples, which is considerably poorer. We outline the procedures for high-precision sample handling and analysis that have enabled reproducibility in the cylinder extraction samples at the <2% level and describe future directions to continue increasing measurement precision at LLNL.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 349 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Leach, P. 2004. Towards high-precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46(1):17–24.Google Scholar
Davis, JC. 1989. The LLNL multi-user tandem laboratory. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 40–41(2):705–8.Google Scholar
Davis, JC, Proctor, ID, Southon, JR, Caffee, MW, Heikkinen, DW, Roberts, ML, Moore, TL, Turteltaub, KW, Nelson, DE, Loyd, DH, Vogel, JS. 1990. LLNL/UC AMS facility and research program. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research B 52(3–4):269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, SLR, Rosslein, M, Williams, A, editors. 2000. Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement [WWW document]. Eurachem/CITAC Guide, CG 4. QUAM:2000.P1. 2nd edition. London: Eurachem Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Available at http://www.eurachem.org/guides/QUAM2000-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Fallon, SJ, Guilderson, TP, Brown, TA. 2006. CAMS/LLNL ion source efficiency revisited. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):106–10.Google Scholar
Guenther, PR, Bollenbacher, AF, Keeling, CD, Stewart, EF, Wahlen, M. 2001. Calibration methodology for the Scripps 13C/12C and 18O/16O stable isotope program, 1996–2000. 118 p. Available at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/calmeth96-2000.pdf.Google Scholar
Guilderson, TP, Roark, EB, Quay, PD, Flood Page, SR, Moy, C. 2006. Seawater radiocarbon evolution in the Gulf of Alaska: 2002 observations. Radiocarbon 48(1):1–15.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Hesshaimer, V. 2000. Radiocarbon—a unique tracer of global carbon cycle dynamics. Radiocarbon 42(1):69–80.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B. 2004. The tropospheric 14CO2 level in mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (1959–2003). Radiocarbon 46(3):1261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Schoch-Fischer, H, Bruns, M, Münnich, M, Berdau, B, Vogel, JC, Münnich, KO. 1985. 25 years of tropospheric 14C observations in Central Europe. Radiocarbon 27(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Manning, MR, Lowe, DC, Melhuish, WH, Sparks, RJ, Wallace, G, Brenninkmeijer, CAM, McGill, RC. 1990. The use of radiocarbon measurements in atmospheric studies. Radiocarbon 32(1):37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, HAJ, Pertuisot, MH, van der Plicht, J. 2006. High-accuracy 14C measurements for atmospheric CO2 samples by AMS. Radiocarbon 48(3):355–72.Google Scholar
Naegler, T, Ciais, P, Rodgers, K, Levin, I. 2006. Excess radiocarbon constraints on air-sea gas exchange and the uptake of CO2 by the oceans. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L11802, doi:10.1029/2005GL025408.Google Scholar
Nydal, R. 1968. Further investigation on the transfer of radiocarbon in nature. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(12):3617–35.Google Scholar
Nydal, R, Lovseth, K. 1983. Tracing bomb 14C in the atmosphere 1962–1980. Journal of Geophysical Research—Oceans and Atmospheres 88(C6):3621–42.Google Scholar
Santos, GM, Southon, JR, Druffel-Rodriguez, KC, Griffin, S, Mazon, M. 2004. Magnesium perchlorate as an alternative water trap in AMS graphite sample preparation: a report on sample preparation at KCCAMS at the University of California, Irvine. Radiocarbon 46(1):165–73.Google Scholar
Southon, J, Roberts, M. 2000. Ten years of sourcery at CAMS/LLNL—evolution of a Cs ion source. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.Google Scholar
Trumbore, S. 2000. Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: radiocarbon constraints on belowground C dynamics. Ecological Applications 10(2):399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, JC, Miller, JB, Lehman, SJ, Tans, PP, Sparks, RJ, Southon, J. 2006. Comparison of 14CO2, CO, and SF6 as tracers for recently added fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere and implications for biological CO2 exchange. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L01817, doi: 10.1029/2005GL024213.Google Scholar
Vogel, JS, Southon, JR, Nelson, DE. 1987. Catalyst and binder effects in the use of filamentous graphite for AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 29(1–2):50–6.Google Scholar