Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:42:57.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Life After SIRI—Where Next?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2019

E Marian Scott Open the ORCID record for E Marian Scott [Opens in a new window] ,
Philip Naysmith  and
Gordon Cook
E Marian Scott*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow - School of Maths and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom
Philip Naysmith
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom
Gordon Cook
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon (14C) dating is routinely used, yet occasionally, issues still arise surrounding laboratory offsets, and unexpected and unexplained variability. Quality assurance and quality control have long been recognized as important in addressing the two issues of comparability (or bias, accuracy) and uncertainty or variability (or precision) of measurements both within and between laboratories (Long and Kalin 1990). The 14C community and the wider user communities have supported interlaboratory comparisons as one of several strands to ensure the quality of measurements (Scott et al. 2018). The nature of the intercomparisons has evolved as the laboratory characteristics have changed s. The next intercomparison is currently being planned to take place in 2019–2020. The focus of our work in designing intercomparisons is to (1) assist laboratories by contributing to their QA/QC processes, (2) supplement and enhance our suite of reference materials that are available to laboratories, (3) provide consensus 14C values with associated (small) uncertainties for performance checking, and (4) provide estimates of laboratory offsets and error multipliers which can inform subsequent modeling and laboratory improvements.

Keywords

accuracyintercomparisonprecision
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. 1159 - 1168
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

Armbruster, DA, Pry, T. 2008. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. ClinBiochem Rev 29(1):S49–S52.Google ScholarPubMed
Boaretto, E, Bryant, C, Carmi, I, Cook, G, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, D, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, Scott, M, van der Plicht, J, van Strydonck, M. 2002. Summary findings of the Fourth international Radiocarbon Inter-comparisons (1998–2001). Journal of Quaternary Science 17(7):633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, C, Carmi, I, Cook, G, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, D, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, Scott, M, van der Plicht, J, van Strydonck, M. 2000. Sample requirements and design of an inter-laboratory trial for radiocarbon laboratories. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172:355.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
Dudley, WN, Wickham, R, Coombs, N. 2016. An introduction to survival statistics: Kaplan-Meier analysis. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology 7:91–100.Google ScholarPubMed
Gulliksen, S, Scott, EM. 1995. TIRI report. Radiocarbon 37(2):820–821.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
Naysmith, P, Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Heinemeier, J, van der Plicht, J, van Strydonck, M, Ramsey, C, Grootes, PM, Freeman, SPHT. 2007. A cremated bone intercomparison study. Radiocarbon 49(2):403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naysmith, P, Scott, EM, Dunbar, E, Cook, G. 2019. Humics—their history in the radiocarbon intercomparisons studies. Radiocarbon this volume. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2019.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIST. 2015. How do you harness the power of benchmarking? Available at https://www.nist.gov/blogs/blogrige/how-do-you-harness-power-benchmarking.Google Scholar
NIST. 2018. SRM definiitions. Available at https://www.nist.gov/srm/srm-definitions.Google Scholar
Otlet, RL, Walker, AJ, Hewson, AD, Burleigh, R. 1980. 14C interlaboratory comparison in the UK: experiment design, preparation and preliminary results. Radiocarbon 22(3):936–947.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, 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, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Baxter, MS, Cook, GT. 1989. An interim progress report on stages 1 and 2 of the international collaborative program. Radiocarbon 31(3):414–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Baxter, MS. 1990a. An overview of all three stages of the international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon 32(3):309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Baxter, MS, Harkness, DD, Aitchison, TC, Cook, GT. 1990b. Radiocarbon: present and future perspectives on quality assurance. Antiquity 64:319–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Boaretto, E, Bryant, C, Carmi, I, Cook, GT, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, DD, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, Scott, EM, van der Plicht, J, van Strydonck, M. 2004a. Future needs and requirements for AMS 14C standards and reference materials. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:382–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Bryant, C, Carmi, I, Cook, GT, Gulliksen, S, Harkness, DD, Heinemeier, J, McGee, E, Naysmith, P, Possnert, G, van der Plicht, J, van Strydonck, M. 2004b. Precision and accuracy in applied 14C dating: some findings from the Fourth International Radiocarbon Inter-comparison. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1209–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010a. A report on phase 2 of the 5th international radiocarbon inter-comparison. Radiocarbon 52(2):846–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010b. The 5th International Radiocarbon Inter-Comparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(2):859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT. 2010c. VIRI– summary results and overall assessment. Radiocarbon 52(3):859–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2017. Should archaeologists care about 14C intercomparisons? Why? A summary report on SIRI. Radiocarbon 59(5):1589–1596.10.1017/RDC.2017.12CrossRefGoogle 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):409–426.10.1017/S003382220004234XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Staff, R. 2019. Learning from the wood samples in ICS, TIRI, FIRI, VIRI, and SIRI. Radiocarbon this volume. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2019.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT. 1997. Analytical protocol and quality assurance for 14C analyses: proposal for a further intercomparison. Radiocarbon 39(3):347–350.10.1017/S0033822200053315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT. 1998. Interlaboratory comparisons: lessons learned. Radiocarbon 40(1):331–343.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, 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
Steele, AG, Douglas, RJ. 2006. Extending chi-squared statistics for key comparisons in metrology. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 192:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, BN, Kuyatt, CE. 2001. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. Available at: http://physics.nist.gov/TN1297 [last accessed 2018/8/31]. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
Thompson, M, Ellison, SR, Wood, R. 2006. The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories. Pure Applied Chemistry 78(1):145–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar