Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:42:02.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Consensus Value of ANU Sucrose (IAEA C-6) Too High?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Xiaomei Xu ,
Matthew S Khosh ,
Kevin C Druffel-Rodriguez ,
Susan E Trumbore  and
John R Southon
Xiaomei Xu*
Affiliation:
Keck AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
Matthew S Khosh
Affiliation:
Keck AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
Kevin C Druffel-Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Keck AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
Susan E Trumbore
Affiliation:
Keck AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA
John R Southon
Affiliation:
Keck AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, 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.

Primary and secondary standards are essential in radiocarbon analyses for the purpose of reporting and comparing data among laboratories, as well as for internal laboratory data quality control. ANU sucrose is one of the IAEA-certified 14C standards (C-6) with a consensus value of 1.5061 ± 0.0011 fraction modern (Fm). All of our measurements of ANU sucrose (n = 351) as a secondary standard over the last 7 yr result in an average value of 1.5016 ± 0.0005 Fm (2-σ standard error). After applying the same outlier tests used for IAEA reference standards, a weighted average value of 1.5016 ± 0.0002 Fm (n = 294) was calculated. This value is significantly lower than the IAEA C-6 consensus value (t test with unequal variance; p = 0.023). In contrast, our measurements of other secondary standards over the same time period are in excellent agreement with their respective consensus values. Since ANU is the only secondary standard measured in our lab that does not agree with the consensus values, and we have measured a larger number analyses compared to what went into the definition of the consensus value, we suggest that the consensus value of ANU sucrose might be too high by ∼0.0045 ± 0.0011 Fm. Given that some labs routinely use ANU sucrose as a primary standard, our results suggest that revisiting the consensus value of ANU sucrose may be necessary.

Type
Calibration, Data Analysis, and Statistical Methods
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 52 , Issue 3: 20th Int. Radiocarbon Conference Proceedings , 2010 , pp. 866 - 874
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Coplen, TB, Brand, WA, Gehre, M, Gröning, M, Meijer, HAJ, Toman, B, Verkouteren, RM. 2006. New guidelines for δ13C measurements. Analytical Chemistry 78(7):2439–41.Google Scholar
Currie, LA, Polach, HA. 1980. Exploratory analysis of the international radiocarbon cross-calibration data: consensus values and interlaboratory error. Radiocarbon 22(3):933–5.Google Scholar
Khosh, MS, Xu, X, Trumbore, SE. 2010. Small-mass graphite preparation by sealed tube zinc reduction method for AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):927–30.Google Scholar
Polach, HA. 1979. Correlation of 14C activity of NBS oxalic acid with Arizona 1850 wood and ANU sucrose standards. In: Berger, R, Suess, HE, editors. Radiocarbon Dating. Proceedings of the 9th International 14C Conference. Berkeley: University of California Press. p 115–24.Google Scholar
Rozanski, K. 1991. International Atomic Energy Agency Consultants' Group Meeting on C-14 Reference Materials for Radiocarbon Laboratories, 18–20 February 1991. Section of Isotope Hydrology, IAEA, Vienna.Google 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):506–19.Google Scholar
SScott, EM. 2003a. Section 4: Investigation of potential sources of variation. Radiocarbon 45(2):175–212.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003b. Section 6: Kauri wood, sample A and B. Radiocarbon 45(2):227–48.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003c. Section 7: Characterization of the reference materials by consensus values. Radiocarbon 45(2):249–67.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003d. Section 10: Summary and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):285–90.Google Scholar
Southon, JR, Santos, GM. 2004. Ion source development at KCCAMS, University of California, Irvine. Radiocarbon 46(1):33–9.Google Scholar
Southon, JR, Santos, GM. 2007. Life with MC-SNICS. Part II: further ion source development at the Keck Carbon Cycle AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):88–93.Google Scholar
Srdoc, D, Obelic, B, Horvatincic, N, Sliepcevic, A. 1979. Measurement of the 14C activity of the ANU sucrose secondary standard by means of the proportional counter technique. Radiocarbon 21(3):321–8.Google Scholar
Xu, S, Anderson, R, Bryant, C, Cook, GT, Dougans, A, Freeman, S, Naysmith, P, Schnabel, C, Scott, EM. 2004. Capabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS facility for 14C dating. Radiocarbon 46(1):59–64.Google Scholar
Xu, X, Trumbore, SE, Zheng, S, Southon, JR, McDuffee, KE, Luttgen, M, Liu, JC. 2007. Modifying a sealed tube zinc reduction method for preparation of AMS graphite targets: reducing background and attaining high precision. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):320–9.Google Scholar