Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Leonard I. Wassenaar

Publications and source records attributed to Leonard I. Wassenaar.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Stable isotope reference materials and scale definitions – Outcomes of the 2024 IAEA experts meeting

The participants of the 12 th International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting on stable isotope reference materials reached a consensus, acknowledging the existence and use of two carbon isotope delta scales: the VPDB (Vienna Peedee belemnite) scale and the VPDB-LSVEC (LSVEC - lithium carbonate prepared by H. J. Svec). Conversion models between the two scales can be established and used but introduce uncertainty. A format for isotope delta scale definition was agreed upon and was used to define the two carbon isotope delta scales and the two main oxygen isotope delta scales, VSMOW-SLAP (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water–Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation) and VPDB. Confirmation or identification of a second-scale–defining point is still necessary for the nitrogen and sulfur isotope delta scales. Efforts are encouraged to improve consistency among laboratories in the isotopic analysis of “non-exchangeable hydrogen” in bulk organic materials and oxygen in carbonates using the phosphoric acid reaction. Additional topics discussed include (1) need for improvement in reference materials for accurate greenhouse gas isotopic analyses; (2) reference materials under production by the IAEA, the US Geological Survey (USGS), and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); (3) methods for value and uncertainty assignment of reference materials; and (4) calculation of carbon-13 isotope delta and oxygen-18 isotope delta of CO 2 measured by dual-inlet isotope ratio mass spectrometry.

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry

Seeking excellence: An evaluation of 235 international laboratories conducting water isotope analyses by isotope-ratio and laser-absorption spectrometry

Rationale Water stable isotope ratios ( δ 2 H and δ 18 O values) are widely used tracers in environmental studies; hence, accurate and precise assays are required for providing sound scientific information. We tested the analytical performance of 235 international laboratories conducting water isotope analyses using dual-inlet and continuous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometers and laser spectrometers through a water isotope inter-comparison test. Methods Eight test water samples were distributed by the IAEA to international stable isotope laboratories. These consisted of a core set of five samples spanning the common δ -range of natural waters, and three optional samples (highly depleted, enriched, and saline). The fifth core sample contained unrevealed trace methanol to assess analyst vigilance to the impact of organic contamination on water isotopic measurements made by all instrument technologies. Results For the core and optional samples ~73 % of laboratories gave acceptable results within 0.2 ‰ and 1.5 ‰ of the reference values for δ 18 O and δ 2 H, respectively; ~27 % produced unacceptable results. Top performance for δ 18 O values was dominated by dual-inlet IRMS laboratories; top performance for δ 2 H values was led by laser spectrometer laboratories. Continuous-flow instruments yielded comparatively intermediate results. Trace methanol contamination of water resulted in extreme outlier δ -values for laser instruments, but also affected reactor-based continuous-flow IRMS systems; however, dual-inlet IRMS δ -values were unaffected. Conclusions Analysis of the laboratory results and their metadata suggested inaccurate or imprecise performance stemmed mainly from skill- and knowledge-based errors including: calculation mistakes, inappropriate or compromised laboratory calibration standards, poorly performing instrumentation, lack of vigilance to contamination, or inattention to unreasonable isotopic outcomes. To counteract common errors, we recommend that laboratories include 1–2 'known' control standards in all autoruns; laser laboratories should screen each autorun for spectral contamination; and all laboratories should evaluate whether derived d- excess values are realistic when both isotope ratios are measured. Combined, these data evaluation strategies should immediately inform the laboratory about fundamental mistakes or compromised samples.

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry