Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:39:41.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioral Variability in ABA Chemical Pretreatment Close to the 14C Age Limit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

Guaciara M Santos  and
Kaelyn Ormsby
Guaciara M Santos*
Affiliation:
Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, B321 Croul Hall, Irvine, California 92697-3100, USA
Kaelyn Ormsby
Affiliation:
Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, B321 Croul Hall, Irvine, California 92697-3100, USA
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acid-base-acid (ABA) procedure is a common chemical pretreatment used on most organic matter samples. Although this pretreatment is straightforward, there is no consensus among labs about the optimum strength of the chemicals, or even the temperature, to be used for digestions. Comparisons between 14C results obtained by samples undergoing ABA against other wet oxidations, such as acid-base oxidation followed by stepped-combustion (ABOX-SC) or α-cellulose on wood, have sometimes suggested that ABA does not always remove all contaminating carbon. In addition, if not all ABA protocols are the same, could it be said that one procedure is better than others or comparable to wet-oxidation pretreatments, if rigorously applied? To determine whether 14C-free samples showed any fraction modern carbon (FmC) deviations due to pretreatment strategies, 3 experiments were carried out. The first compared 14C results for wood samples at or near the limit of 14C dating, pretreated with a standard ABA protocol used at UC Irvine's Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (KCCAMS) facility, with those obtained from ABA- and ABOX-SC-prepared aliquots of the same samples performed at Australian National University (ANU) in 2001. The second experiment subjected wood samples, ranging from ∼12 ka BP to 14C-free, to 5 selected published ABA pretreatments. Third, we evaluated whether the ABA protocol needs a higher-strength final acid step (particularly important for removing CO2 absorption when samples are submerged in alkaline solutions). We are able to show that rigorous ABA treatments exist that can provide robust, reproducible results for many wood samples that are known to be >>50 ka BP, implying that a lack of control over the procedure's outcome might be sample-related, rather than due simply to inadequacies in the chemical pretreatment.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 55 , Issue 2: Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 2) , 2013 , pp. 534 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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.)

References

Alloway, BV, Westgate, JA, Pillans, B, Pearce, N, Newnham, R, Byrami, M, Aarburg, S. 2004. Stratigraphy, age and correlation of middle Pleistocene silicic tephras in the Auckland region, New Zealand: a prolific distal record of Taupo Volcanic Zone volcanism. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 47(3):447–79.Google Scholar
Ascough, PL, Bird, MI, Meredith, W, Snape, CE, Vane, C, Brock, F, Higham, T. 2009. Hydropyrolysis as a tool for enhanced 14C age measurement and quantification of black carbon in depositional environments. Quaternary Geochronology 4(2):140–7.Google Scholar
Bird, MI, Ayliffe, LK, Fifield, LK, Turney, CSM, Cresswell, RG, Barrows, TT, David, B. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation, stepped-combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41(2):127–40.Google Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, TFG. 2009. AMS radiocarbon dating of Paleolithic-aged charcoal from Europe and the Mediterranean Rim using ABOX-SC. Radiocarbon 51(2):839–46.Google Scholar
Catanzariti, G, McIntosh, G, Osete, ML, Nakamura, T, Rakowski, AZ, Ramírez González, I, Lanos, P. 2007. A comparison of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating from an archaeological site in Spain. Radiocarbon 49(2):543–50.Google Scholar
Hajdas, I, Bonani, G, Thut, J, Leone, G, Pfenninger, R, Maden, C. 2004. A report on sample preparation at the ETH/PSI AMS facility in Zurich. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:267–71.Google Scholar
Hatté, C, Morvan, J, Noury, C, Paterne, M. 2001. Is classical acid-alkali-acid treatment responsible for contamination? An alternative proposition. Radiocarbon 43(2):177–82.Google Scholar
Higham, T, Brock, F, Peresani, M, Broglio, A, Wood, R, Douka, K. 2009. Problems with radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 28(13–14):1257–67.Google Scholar
Hogg, AG. 2004. Towards achieving low background levels in routine dating by liquid scintillation spectrometry. Radiocarbon 46(1):123–31.Google Scholar
Kim, JC, Park, JH, Kim, IC, Lee, C, Cheoun, MK, Kang, J, Song, YM. 2001. Progress at the Seoul National University AMS Facility. Radiocarbon 43(2A):163–7.Google Scholar
Mayer, JH, Burr, GS, Holliday, VT. 2008. Comparisons and interpretations of charcoal and organic matter radiocarbon ages from buried soils in north-central Colorado, USA. Radiocarbon 50(3):331–46.Google Scholar
Newnham, R, Alloway, B. 2004. A terrestrial record of Last Interglacial climate preserved by voluminous debris avalanche inundation in Taranaki, New Zealand. Journal of Quaternary Science 19(3):299–314.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, M, Kodaira, A, Imamura, M. 2004. An automated AAA preparation system for AMS radiocarbon dating. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:298–301.Google Scholar
Santos, GM, Bird, MI, Pillans, B, Fifield, LK, Alloway, BV, Chappell, J, Hausladen, PA. 2001. Radiocarbon dating of wood using different pretreatment procedures: application to the chronology of Rotoehu Ash, New Zealand. Radiocarbon 43(2A):239–48.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
Santos, GM, Moore, RB, Southon, JR, Griffin, S, Hinger, E, Zhang, D. 2007. AMS 14C sample preparation at the KCCAMS/UCI Facility: status report and performance of small samples. Radiocarbon 49(2):255–69.Google Scholar
Southon, JR. 2007. Graphite reactor memory—Where is it from and how to minimize it? Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):288–92.Google Scholar
Southon, JR, Magana, AL. 2010. A comparison of cellulose extraction and ABA pretreatment methods for AMS 14C dating of ancient wood. Radiocarbon 52(3):1371–9.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M, Levson, V. 2008. Quaternary stratigraphy of the Prophet River, northeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 45:565–75.Google Scholar
Turney, CSM, Bird, MI, Fifield, LK, Kershaw, AP, Cresswell, RG, Santos, GM, di Tada, ML, Hausladen, PA, Youping, Z. 2001a. Development of a robust 14C chronology for Lynch's Crater (North Queensland, Australia) using different pretreatment strategies. Radiocarbon 43(1):45–54.Google Scholar
Turney, CSM, Kershaw, AP, Moss, P, Bird, MI, Fifield, LK, Cresswell, RG, Santos, GM, di Tada, ML, Hausladen, PA, Zhou, Y. 2001b. Redating the onset of burning at Lynch's Crater (North Queensland): implications for human settlement in Australia. Journal of Quaternary Science 16(8):767–71.Google Scholar
Turney, CSM, Fifield, LK, Palmer, JG, Hogg, AG, Baillie, MGL, Galbraith, R, Ogden, J, Lorrey, A, Tims, SG. 2007. Towards a radiocarbon calibration for Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 using New Zealand kauri (Agathis australis). Radiocarbon 49(2):447–57.Google Scholar