Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:02:10.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment and Development of Bone Preparation for Radiocarbon Dating at HEKAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

István Major ,
István Futó ,
János Dani ,
Orsolya Cserpák-Laczi ,
Mihály Gasparik ,
A J Timothy Jull Open the ORCID record for A J Timothy Jull [Opens in a new window]  and
Mihály Molnár
István Major*
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA ATOMKI), Bem tér 18/c. H-4026, Debrecen, Hungary
István Futó
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA ATOMKI), Bem tér 18/c. H-4026, Debrecen, Hungary
János Dani
Affiliation:
Déri Museum, Déri tér 1, H-4026 Debrecen, Hungary
Orsolya Cserpák-Laczi
Affiliation:
Déri Museum, Déri tér 1, H-4026 Debrecen, Hungary
Mihály Gasparik
Affiliation:
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Department of Paleontology and Geology, Pf. 137, H-1431 Budapest, Hungary
A J Timothy Jull
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA ATOMKI), Bem tér 18/c. H-4026, Debrecen, Hungary Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1118 E. Fourth St., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA AMS Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Mihály Molnár
Affiliation:
Isotope Climatology and Environmental Research Centre (ICER), Institute for Nuclear Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA ATOMKI), Bem tér 18/c. H-4026, Debrecen, Hungary
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bone is one of the most complex sample materials used for radiocarbon (14C) dating. The installation of the EnvironMICADAS AMS at HEKAL (department of ICER) in 2011 required the adoption of new sample preparation techniques for small bone samples. Since then, hundreds of procedural background and known-age bones have been processed using our modified Longin method (MLM) and dated along with unknown samples. Their results are used in this study to assess the reproducibility of our current bone preparation method and the real uncertainty of the final age result. In addition, using the background samples, which are included in each bone measurement batch, blank correction of the unknown samples could also be performed. The mean F14C value of our bone blanks is generally better than 0.005 (∼42,500 BP) alongside 0.0013 SD. Good reproducibility was confirmed by the results of the laboratory known-age bone as well, where the standard deviation of the mean is better than 0.0025. In addition, the results of the three bone samples used in an ultrafiltration (UF) test study did not show notable differences from the ones obtained by our current protocol in 1σ uncertainty range but more experiments will be performed in the near future.

Keywords

blank correctionbone preparationquality assuranceradiocarbonultrafiltration
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. 1551 - 1561
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

Brock, F, Ramsey, CB, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49(2):187–192.10.1017/S0033822200042107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T, Bowles, A, Hedges, R. 2004. Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46(1):155–163.10.1017/S0033822200039473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Nelson, DE, Vogel, JS, Southon, JR. 1988. Improved collagen extraction by modified Longin method. Radiocarbon 30(2):171–177.10.1017/S0033822200044118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNiro, MJ, Schoeninger, MJ, Hastorf, CA. 1985. Effect of heating on the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios of bone collagen. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, E, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT, Scott, EM, Xu, S, Tripney, BG. 2017. Investigation of the analytical F14 C bone background value at SUERC. Radiocarbon 59(5):1463–1473.10.1017/RDC.2017.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fülöp, RH, Heincze, S, John, S, Rethenmeyer, J. 2013. Ultrafiltration of bone samples is neither the problem nor the solution. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):491–500.10.1017/S0033822200057623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamba, C, Jones, ER, Teasdale, MD, McLaughlin, RL, Gonzalez-Fortes, G, Mattiangeli, V, Domboróczki, L, Kővári, I, Pap, I, Anders, A, Whittle, A, Dani, J, Raczky, P, Higham, TF, Hofreiter, M, Bradley, DG, Pinhasi, R. 2014. Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory. Nature Communications 5:5257.10.1038/ncomms6257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J. 2007. How clean is ultrafiltration cleaning of bone collagen? Radiocarbon 49(2):193–200.10.1017/S0033822200042119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J. 2009. Ultrafiltration: boon or bane? Radiocarbon 51(2):613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, TFG, Jacobi, RM, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48(2):179–195.10.1017/S0033822200066388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janovics, R, Futó, I, Molnár, M. 2018. Sealed tube combustion method with MnO2 for AMS 14C measurements. Radiocarbon 60(5):1347–1355.10.1017/RDC.2018.110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, HW. 1965. The preservation and dating of collagen in ancient bones. In: Chatters RM, Olson EA, editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating, Pullman, WA. Clearinghouse for Federal Science and Technology Information, National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC. p. 332–337.Google Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–242.10.1038/230241a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Major, I, Dani, J, Kiss, V, Melis, E, Patay, R, Szabó, G, Hubay, K, Túri, M, Futó, I, Huszánk, R, Jull, AJT, Molnár, M. 2019. Adoption and evaluation of a sample pretreatment protocol for radiocarbon dating of cremated bones at HEKAL. Radiocarbon 61(1):159–171.10.1017/RDC.2018.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, M, Rinyu, L, Janovics, R, Major, I, Veres, M. 2012. Introduction of the new AMS C-14 laboratory in Debrecen. Archeometriai Műhely 9(3):147–160.Google Scholar
Molnár, M, Janovics, R, Major, I, Orsovszki, J, Gönczi, R, Veres, M, Leonard, AG, Castle, SM, Lange, TE, Wacker, L, Hajdas, I, Jull, AJT. 2013a. Status report of the new AMS 14C sample preparation lab of the Hertelendi Laboratory of the Environmental Studies (Debrecen, Hungary). Radiocarbon 55(2–3):665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, M, Rinyu, L, Veres, M, Seiler, M, Wacker, L, Synal, H-A. 2013b. EnvironMICADAS: a mini 14C AMS with enhanced Gas Ion Source Interface in the Hertelendi Laboratory of Environmental Studies (HEKAL), Hungary. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):338–344.CrossRefGoogle 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 59(5):1579–1587.10.1017/RDC.2017.70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinyu, L, Molnár, M, Major, I, Nagy, T, Veres, M, Kimák, Á, Wacker, L, Synal, H-A. 2013. Optimization of sealed tube graphitization method for environmental 14C studies using MICADAS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 294(1):270–275.10.1016/j.nimb.2012.08.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saliège, J-F, Person, A, Paris, F. 1995. Preservation of 13C/12C original ratio and 14C dating of the mineral fraction of human bones from Saharan tombs, Niger. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(2):301–312.10.1006/jasc.1995.0032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–363.10.1017/S0033822200003672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Klinken, GJ, Hedges, REM. 1995. Experiments on collagen-humic interactions: speed of humic uptake, and effects of diverse chemical treatments. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(2):263–270.10.1006/jasc.1995.0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, JS, Nelson, DE, Southon, J. 1987. 14C background levels in an AMS system. Radiocarbon 29(3):323–333.10.1017/S0033822200043733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Christl, M, Synal, H-A. 2010. Bats: A new tool for AMS data reduction. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268:976–979.CrossRefGoogle 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