Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:17:25.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SAMPLE SELECTION, CHARACTERIZATION AND CHOICE OF TREATMENT FOR ACCURATE RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS—INSIGHTS FROM THE ETH LABORATORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2024

Irka Hajdas Open the ORCID record for Irka Hajdas [Opens in a new window] ,
Giulia Guidobaldi ,
Negar Haghipour  and
Karin Wyss
Irka Hajdas*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETHZ, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Giulia Guidobaldi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETHZ, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Negar Haghipour
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETHZ, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland Earth Sciences Department, ETHZ Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Karin Wyss
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETHZ, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland Berner Fachhochschule BFH, Hochschule der Künste Bern HKB, 3027 Bern, Switzerland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurate radiocarbon (14C) analysis depends on a successful carbon separation relevant to the studied object. The process of 14C dating involves the following steps: characterization and sample choice, sample treatment, measurements, and evaluation of the results. Here, we provide an overview of conventional approaches to macromolecular samples and address specific issues such as detecting and removing contamination with roots, dolomite, and conservation products. We discuss the application of elemental analysis (%N, %C) in the preparation of bones and the infrared analysis in monitoring the contamination of samples. Our observations provide the basis for the discussions of the existing results and for planning the future sampling.

Keywords

contaminationFTIRradiocarbon AMS datingsample treatmentsieving
Type
Conference Paper
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 66 , Issue 5: 14C 24th Radiocarbon 10th 10C & Archaeology Zurich, Sept. 11–16, 2022 Proceedings Part 1 of 2 , October 2024 , pp. 1152 - 1165
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

INTRODUCTION

All laboratories strive to achieve the highest precision and accuracy when performing radiocarbon (14C) analysis. Although these two terms are often exchanged to express the desire for the best chronological estimates, they are not synonymous. Modern measurement techniques, certificates, and intercomparison studies provide quality assurance. However, the most precise ages can also be inaccurate (Geyh Reference Geyh2008).

The accuracy of radiocarbon ages is dependent on various factors. First is the source of carbon built into the sample at the time of its formation, i.e., 14C age or the isotopic signal of the reservoir. Other factors are the stage of preservation or degradation of the sample and contamination with allochthonous carbon, which might be related or amplified by the degradation (van Klinken and Hedges Reference van Klinken and Hedges1998; van Klinken Reference van Klinken1999). Last is the selection of the original sample and its purification before 14C analysis.

The wide range of materials and applications of radiocarbon analysis requires using protocols developed for different types of material (Hajdas Reference Hajdas2008; Wood Reference Wood2015; Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Ascough, Garnett, Fallon, Pearson, Quarta, Spalding, Yamaguchi and Yoneda2021a). In general, all laboratories follow standard procedures of ABA, cellulose separation, Longin method or Ultra Filtration for bones, but modifications of protocols are standard practice (Brock et al. Reference Brock, Ramsey and Higham2007; Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Bonani, Furrer, Mader and Schoch2007, Reference Hajdas, Michczynski, Bonani, Wacker and Furrer2009; Brock et al. Reference Brock, Higham, Ditchfield and Ramsey2010a, Reference Brock, Higham and Ramsey2010b, Reference Brock, Geoghegan, Thomas, Jurkschat and Higham2013, Reference Brock, Dee, Hughes, Snoeck, Staff and Ramsey2018; Rubinetti et al. Reference Rubinetti, Hajdas, Taricco, Alessio, Isella, Giustetto and Boano2020; Pawelczyk et al. Reference Pawelczyk, Hajdas, Sadykov, Blochin and Caspari2022). New opportunities for the separation of carbon suitable for radiocarbon dating arrived with the development of compund-specific radiocarbon analysis (CSRA) (Eglinton et al. Reference Eglinton, Aluwihare, Bauer, Druffel and McNichol1996; Ingalls and Pearson Reference Ingalls and Pearson2005). The range of applications of CSRA expanded the field of RA, especially in studies of sedimentary records (for example Blattmann et al. Reference Blattmann, Montluçon, Haghipour, Ishikawa and Eglinton2020; McNichol and Lindauer Reference McNichol and Lindauer2022), and archeology, including dating pottery (Casanova et al. Reference Casanova, Knowles, Bayliss, Walton-Doyle, Barclay and Evershed2022) and bones (Deviese et al. Reference Deviese, Comeskey, McCullagh, Bronk Ramsey and Higham2018). Our overview concentrates on the preparation of macromolecular type of samples and conventional pretreatment (van Klinken and Hedges Reference van Klinken and Hedges1998).

In addition to the sample treatment (purification), material selection is essential. The assignment occurs during the fieldwork. Later, the refined choice of material or separation of the suitable fraction is performed in the laboratory after a visual investigation using binoculars. Dependening on the type of material, the selection of datable carbon by wet or dry sieving, separation of macro and micro remains, drilling, and cutting suitable pieces is chosen.

Binocular observation is most effective and paramount to the understanding of the sample. For example, a mixture of anthracite and charcoal has been observed in the samples of rock varnish, which allowed us to scrutinize and question the validity of the radiocarbon dating of rock varnish (Beck et al. Reference Beck, Donahue, Jull, Burr, Broecker, Bonani, Hajdas and Malotki1998). Often, synthetic materials such as textiles can be easily identified. The most common problem detected using the microscope is contamination by roots (in situ) or anthropogenic contaminants such as dust, hair, and fiber. The latter, is somewhat random and difficult to deal with because there is no guarantee that all contaminants can be ever picked out of the samples. More common is contamination with roots observed in soils, peat, sediments, wood, and charcoal. Sieving removes roots from sediments and peat (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Sojc, Ivy-Ochs, Akçar and Deline2021b); however, the infested wood and charcoal used for radiocarbon analysis can be contaminated even if visible roots are removed from the sample. Sieving is also used when macro and micro remains are selected for radiocarbon analysis. Separation of terrestrial macrofossils assures that the material is free of reservoir effect (hard water effect) (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Ivy, Beer, Bonani, Imboden, Lotter, Sturm and Suter1993, Reference Hajdas, Bonani, Zolitschka, Brauer and Negendank1998, Reference Hajdas, Ascough, Garnett, Fallon, Pearson, Quarta, Spalding, Yamaguchi and Yoneda2021a).

Another material that requires sieving and selecting suitable carbon fraction (grain size) is lime mortar (Lindroos et al. Reference Lindroos, Heinemeier, Ringbom, Brasken and Sveinbjornsdottir2007). An alternative method is the cryo-breaking and ultrasonic separation (Nawrocka et al. Reference Nawrocka, Michniewicz, Pawlyta and Pazdur2005; Marzaioli et al. Reference Marzaioli, Lubritto, Nonni, Passariello, Capano, Ottaviano and Terrasi2014; Michalska et al. Reference Michalska, Czernik and Goslar2017).

Radiocarbon dating of bone, tooth and antler requires the separation and purification of collagen (Weiner and Bar-Yosef Reference Weiner and Bar-Yosef1990; Yizhaq et al. Reference Yizhaq, Mintz, Cohen, Khalaily, Weiner and Boaretto2005). A degree of preservation determines the success of radiocarbon analysis (van Klinken Reference van Klinken1999). Brock et al. (Reference Brock, Higham and Ramsey2010b) tested an assessment based on elemental analysis of %C and %N content, or C/N ratio of the original bone, and found that bones with %N< 0.76 are less promising. Another technique used by radiocarbon laboratories employs the infrared analysis to detect characteristic absorption lines of the bone to assess the preservation of collagen (D’Elia et al. Reference D’Elia, Gianfrate, Quarta, Giotta, Giancane and Calcagnile2007; Lebon et al. Reference Lebon, Reiche, Gallet, Bellot-Gurlet and Zazzo2016; Cersoy et al. Reference Cersoy, Zazzo, Rofes, Tresset, Zirah, Gauthier, Kaltnecker, Thil and Tisnerat-Laborde2017; France et al. Reference France, Sugiyama and Aguayo2020; Leskovar et al. Reference Leskovar, Zupanič Pajnič, Jerman and Črešnar2022).

More sophisticated methods of sample screening and preselection can be supported by the Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), scanning electron microscope (SEM), Raman, direct temperature-resolved mass spectrometry (DT-MS), Py-GC-MS, and other techniques. Identifying specific components using FTIR spectroscopy can be utilized in studies of bones, paintings, and charcoal (Alon et al. Reference Alon, Mintz, Cohen, Weiner and Boaretto2002). The infrared light absorbed (or transmitted) depends on the studied material’s molecular composition. Molecules with different types of vibration modes absorb characteristic wavelengths. The specific regions and peaks of absorption/transmission minima allow the identification of molecules/material, which is often supported by the existing databases of FTIR spectra (https://centers.weizmann.ac.il/kimmel-arch/infrared-spectra-library). In the preparation of radiocarbon samples, the detection of synthetic and conservation materials is critical. Most synthetic polymers, which are long-chain carbon molecules, are made of fossil carbon; therefore, the dead carbon contamination is significant. Often, such contamination requires modification of the standard treatment as well as additional control of the clean sample before combustion and AMS 14C analysis (Yizhaq et al. Reference Yizhaq, Mintz, Cohen, Khalaily, Weiner and Boaretto2005).

The use of FTIR in radiocarbon laboratories is not limited to the detection of synthetic contaminants added during the conservation and preservation process, including the use of pesticides (Tiilikkala et al. Reference Tiilikkala, Fagernäs and Tiilikkala2010). As mentioned above, FTIR is useful in screening for well-preserved bones and in the characterization of mortars (Paama et al. Reference Paama, Pitkänen, Rönkkömäki and Perämäki1998; Al Sekhaneh et al. Reference Al Sekhaneh, Shiyyab, Arinat and Gharaibeh2020; Calandra et al. Reference Calandra, Cantisani, Salvadori, Barone, Liccioli, Fedi and Garzonio2022). Moreover, the FTIR analysis of sediments can provide information about the carbonate content and, most importantly, indicate the presence of dolomite and other minerals. The standard treatment of acid-base-acid is insufficient to remove the dolomitic component. The effect of contamination with carbon-free dolomite is amplified by the fact that glacial and fluvial sediments have a very low organic %C, and dolomite is free of 14C. Also, organic carbon in soil and sediments might have old components trapped by minerals, such as clay (Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann Reference Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann1992), which requires a different approach such as a stepped-combustion or Ramped pyrolysis/oxidation (McGeehin et al. Reference McGeehin, Burr, Jull, Reines, Gosse, Davis, Muhs and Southon2001; Wang et al. Reference Wang, Burr, Wang, Lin and Nguyen2016; Hemingway et al. Reference Hemingway, Rothman, Grant, Rosengard, Eglinton, Derry and Galy2019).

This paper presents an overview of the most common methods used to characterize and select material suitable for radiocarbon dating. Establishing and monitoring treatment efficiency is the key to accurate radiocarbon dating.

METHODS

The spectrum of sample material submitted and processed at the ETH radiocarbon laboratory is wide. Thus, the overview of methods used to select and purify material for radiocarbon dating is based on our observations gained during a couple of decades. Table 1 shows methods applied in a pre-screening process followed by sample preparation (Table 1 Supplementary Material) before the AMS analysis.

Table 1 Sample types, pre-screening methods and preparation methods. Details of pretreatment methods are summarized in Table 1 of the Supplementary Material.

Microscope/Binocular (Magnification 10×–50×)

A visual investigation and documentation of suspicious contaminants is the first step before selection. Some samples, such as macrofossils, foraminifera, and sieved fractions of mortar, are selected and identified by the researchers before submission. The microscope is indispensable for determining macrofossils (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Ivy, Beer, Bonani, Imboden, Lotter, Sturm and Suter1993, Reference Hajdas, Bonani, Zolitschka, Brauer and Negendank1998) or foraminifera shells (Broecker et al. Reference Broecker, Klas, Clark, Trumbore, Bonani, Wolfli and Ivy1990) but also for removing contaminants such as exogenous fiber, roots, or remains of insects and hair.

Sieving

Sieves, mesh 125 μm (also 150 μm can be applied) are used to separate fine (roots-free) fractions from samples of sedimentary deposits (peat, soil, sediments). At ETH laboratory, we apply 100 mm diameter stainless steel sieves (Retsch) and a collection pan with a funnel to collect water and a fine fraction (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Setup for wet sieving of sediment and peat samples. The fine fraction (<125 μm or 150 μm) is collected in a glass beaker. The larger fraction (top sieve) can be investigated under binoculars.

It is essential to work on fresh or stored in a freezer (wet) material; samples should not be dried, crushed, or milled before the sieving and are soaked in MiliQ water to soften and disintegrate the bulk.

Stainless steel sieves (100 mm Retsch), mesh 45 μm and 63 μm, and a collection pan are placed on the Retsch dry-sieve shaker to sieve mortar. Before sieving, the sample is investigated, and if present, any lime lumps are collected from the bulk. Small sample fragments are then crushed, and if present, stones (aggregates of mortar) are removed, and the powder is sieved. The process is repeated to collect at least 100 mg of powder 45–63 μm. The smaller and larger fractions are also collected and archived.

Elemental Analysis

The carbon content of sedimentary deposits (TOC) varies greatly; therefore, %C analysis is performed on clean fractions before combustion and the AMS analysis. A few milligrams (5–10 mg) of pure material are weighed and packed in the aluminium (Al)Footnote 1 or tin (Sn) cups for analysis with an Elemental Analyzer (EA). The measured %C is used to calculate the mass of the sample material, which contains 1 mg of C. For example, 10 mg of material with a C content of 10% needs to be combusted for the graphite target to contain 1 mg of C. Samples with poor %C (less than 1%) are planned for analysis with gas ion source (GIS) (Ruff et al. Reference Ruff, Fahrni, Gaggeler, Hajdas, Suter, Synal, Szidat and Wacker2010; Haghipour et al. Reference Haghipour, Ausin, Usman, Ishikawa, Wacker, Welte, Ueda and Eglinton2019) and the equivalent of ca. 100 μg of carbon is packed in Al cups.

Nitrogen and carbon content of original bones (%N and %C) can be measured in an EA. A small portion of the cleaned original bone (5–10 mg) is weighed and packed in Al cups for EA analysis. The values of %N, %C, and C/N ratio are saved into the database. Currently, at the ETH laboratory, the preparation of samples with very low %N (<1%) is stopped.

The C/Nat ratio of gelatin is obtained during combustion and graphitization (Nemec et al. Reference Nemec, Wacker and Gaggeler2010). This value is stored in the database, and the yield (mass gelatin/mass bone sample) indicates the gelatin’s purity/quality.

The C/Nat ratio can also be used to identify the type of material (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Cristi, Bonani and Maurer2014) and purity (Boudin et al. Reference Boudin, Boeckx, Vandenabeele and van Strydonck2013).

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Characterization of sample material and detection of potential contamination is possible with the help of FTIR spectroscopy. No preparation is required for analysis using the ATR modus (for example, PerkinElmer Spotlight 200i used at the ETH laboratory), but multiple subsamples should be analyzed (heterogeneity of contamination). The transmission/absorption spectra are compared with the spectra of specific materials. Cross-check of clean samples is performed before combustion. Moreover, the FTIR can be applied to screen/assess the preservation of bones.

Sample Pretreatment

Different types of samples are treated differently after the characterization of the sample and selection of suitable fractions. For example, the methods described below are routinely applied at the ETH laboratory. The pretreatment details used at the ETH laboratory are summarized in Table 1 of the Supplementary Material.

Acid-Base-Acid (ABA)

The sequence of washes in acid and base is applied before the combustion of organic samples. The ABA procedure can be modified to adjust to sample contamination or preservation degree. Some steps, such as base, can be omitted (for example, when dating TOC of soils), or a stronger solution and longer treatment time is applied, for example, when dolomite is present and acid wash is extended to multiple days. Modifications are also applied in the case of a base step, which is destructive for wool and silk, therefore, such samples are subject to a short base step and performed at room temperature.

Poorly preserved charcoal can dissolve in the base, and only humic acid can be collected for radiocarbon analysis; however, one must be aware that it can be of mixed carbon sources. Also, peat and sediment fine fraction treatment can be modified to separate and date humin and humic fractions.

Solvents

A standard sequence of hexane, acetone and ethanol is applied when FTIR analysis indicates the presence of complex carbon molecules (oil, fat, waxes, conservation material). The Soxhlet apparatus is often applied to wash the sample in a clean solvent (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Bonani, Thut, Leone, Pfenninger and Maden2004; Hajdas Reference Hajdas2008). However, glass vials are used when chloroform treatment is necessary (Liccioli et al. Reference Liccioli, Fedi, Carraresi and Mando2017; Kessler et al. Reference Kessler, Hodgins, Butler, Kartha, Welch and Brennan2022) because samples float and might discharge via the siphon of the Soxhlet apparatus. The glass vials with samples and solvents are placed on a shaker for a few hours in the heated block (60ºC). The solvent is replaced, and the wash continues for one working day. The sample is left to dry overnight and checked with FTIR the next day. If required, the cleaning is repeated. It is worth noting that the use of glass vials and shaker tables is more sustainable and requires a lower quantity of solvents but more of pipetting out the liquid solvents, which must be done under the fume hood.

Ultra-Filtration of Gelatin

The treatment of bones and antlers requires the separation and purification of gelatin (Table 2). The main modification of the procedure (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Michczynski, Bonani, Wacker and Furrer2009) is a return to a dissolution of fragments of bones without crushing them (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Bonani, Furrer, Mader and Schoch2007). The modification was introduced following studies of Fewlass et al. (Reference Fewlass, Talamo, Tuna, Fagault, Kromer, Hoffmann, Pangrazzi, Hublin and Bard2017, Reference Fewlass, Tuna, Fagault, Hublin, Kromer, Bard and Talamo2019), who showed that demineralization of larger pieces of bones improves collagen recovery and allows radiocarbon analysis to be performed on much smaller samples of bone.

Table 2 Contamination (wavenumber cm-1 in bold Italics) detected with the help of FTIR and the results of radiocarbon dating after additional treatment.

Sequential Dissolution Mortar

Mortar powder (45–63 μm; ca. 100 mg) is dissolved in condensed phosphoric acid. The CO2 is collected and closed in a glass tube in four intervals, each 3 seconds long. Dependening on the amount of CO2, the sample is sealed in a glass tube for graphitization (>200 μg) or for GIS (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Maurer and Röttig2020a, 2020b).

Special Samples

Occasionally, unique samples such as paint (Hendriks et al. Reference Hendriks, Hajdas, Ferreira, Scherrer, Zumbuhl, Kuffner, Wacker, Synal and Gunther2018), lime lumps (Lindroos et al. Reference Lindroos, Ringbom, Heinemeier, Hodgins, Sonck-Koota, Sjöberg, Lancaster, Kaisti, Brock, Ranta, Caroselli and Lugli2018), cremated bones (Lanting et al. Reference Lanting, Aerts-Bijma and van der Plicht2001; Major et al. Reference Major, Dani, Kiss, Melis, Patay, Szabó, Hubay, Túri, Futó, Huszánk, Jull and Molnár2019), iron (Hüls et al. Reference Hüls, Grootes, Nadeau, Bruhn, Hasselberg and Erlenkeuser2004), wine (Quarta et al. Reference Quarta, Hajdas, Molnár, Varga, Calcagnile, D’Elia, Molnar, Dias and Jull2022) and other liquid samples can be subjects of radiocarbon analysis. Methods used to prepare such samples are summarized in Table 1 Supplementary material.

Dependening on C content, purified samples are graphitized (Nemec et al. Reference Nemec, Wacker and Gaggeler2010) or analyzed as gas samples (Ruff et al. Reference Ruff, Fahrni, Gaggeler, Hajdas, Suter, Synal, Szidat and Wacker2010) at MICADAS (Synal et al. Reference Synal, Stocker and Suter2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effects of the applied screening and sample treatment are illustrated by the example of various materials analyzed and sometimes re-analyzed after additional treatment. Evaluation of results for samples measured with GIS (minimal C mass) considers constant mass contamination (Welte et al. Reference Welte, Hendriks, Wacker, Haghipour, Eglinton, Günther and Synal2018; Haghipour et al. Reference Haghipour, Ausin, Usman, Ishikawa, Wacker, Welte, Ueda and Eglinton2019). The results reports include: Radiocarbon ages and F14C (Stuiver and Polach Reference Stuiver and Polach1977; Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, Brown and Reimer2004), δ13C measured during AMS analysis, C/Nat, (%C and %N from combustion prior graphitization), C mass of targets analyzed by AMS and, if available Yield=mass after treatment/mass start. The yield value provides information about sample conditions but sometimes cannot be provided (wet sample, small sample, missing notes).

In addition, for collagen samples, we might provide IRMS analysis C/Nat, δ13C, δ15N

Roots

Roots present in peat (Figure 2a) or sediment samples can be removed. Sieving was successfully applied in dating the sedimentary deposits in the Italian valley Val Ferret southeast of the Mont Blanc Massif (45°56′35″N 7°05′26″E) to clarify the controversial chronology of the 1717 avalanche (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Sojc, Ivy-Ochs, Akçar and Deline2021b). However, contamination of wood samples or charcoal is often impossible to remove. Roots are growing deep into the sample (Figure 2b), and a web of roots is hidden inside the pieces of charcoal or wood.

Figure 2 (a) Sample of peat VF-28 (Val Ferret) (Hajdas et al. Reference Hajdas, Sojc, Ivy-Ochs, Akçar and Deline2021b) was sieved to remove the visible roots (b) roots observed in the wood submitted to the laboratory could not be removed.

Dolomite

Contamination with calcium carbonates CaCO3 (limestone) is removed from samples (any material) in the acid step of ABA treatment. Most samples are sufficiently treated in this step, and radiocarbon analysis provides accurate ages. However, sediment or soil samples from the regions with dolomite require stronger treatment because dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 reacts slowly with HCl. Table 2 shows F14C measured on bulk sediment treated with standard ABA, which resulted in ages outside of the expected range. The FTIR investigation of the remaining clean sample has shown that the dolomitic component is still present in the sample, showing absorption lines 1436, 888, 730 cm–1 (Table 2).

Additional, extensive treatment lasting for a few days, with stronger HCl acid (1 M instead of 0.5 M) removed dolomite, and higher F14C values of the sample were measured. Higher F14C indicates the removal of contaminants such as dolomite and has values of F14C close to 0. The effect is also visible as a change in δ13C of the sample from ∼0 toward more negative values (Table 2).

Conservation Materials

Treatment of samples from heritage objects often depends on the contamination type. Table 2 shows examples of results obtained for a variety of samples. The radiocarbon age of the canvas, dated too old for the expected age, was treated with an additional solvent. The change in FTIR spectra of the clean sample was confirmed by radiocarbon analysis returning a higher F14C of the clean canvas, i.e., the contamination with fossil carbon was removed.

Results of radiocarbon analysis of wood treated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) is an example of difficulties in removing PEG. The FTIR absorption spectra of PEG-treated wood show strong absorption peaks of PEG (2888, 1467, 1367,1342,1147,1107,1058, 963, 842 cm–1). These peaks are still in the spectra even after additional solvent treatment with ethyl acetate. The measured F14C increased from 0.269 ± 0.001 to 0.614 after treatment with solvents, but it is still inaccurate due to the detected PEG. The contamination appears to be heterogenous, and mechanical scraping affected the measured F14C (Table 2).

Collagen Preservation

Prescreening of bones for collagen preservation was only introduced at the ETH laboratory after the Elemental Analyzer was installed in 2012. However, at that time, the practice of checking the %C, %N analysis of the original bone was yet to be part of the standard protocol. Nevertheless, the data collected for over 1000 bones prepared in the ETH laboratory during the last nine years (2013–2022) indicate a wide range of values: %N between 0.05 and 7 and %C values of 0.15 to 28.

The majority of successfully dated bones (N=880) had %N>1. From 150 bones with %N<1, 80 bones failed, most (N=57) of which had %N< 0.76 i.e., below limit proposed by (Brock et al. Reference Brock, Higham and Ramsey2010b). It is worth noting that some bones with %N>1 did not provide gelatin (Figure 3) showing limitations of this prescreening method thus a combination of methods can be of help (van Klinken Reference van Klinken1999; Brock et al. Reference Brock, Higham and Ramsey2010b). The poor preservation results in a very low yield but the low yield can also be due to sample handling, especially of fine grain samples. The quality of UF-purified gelatin is well illustrated by the C/Nat values of the graphitized sample (AGE system; Nemec et al. Reference Nemec, Wacker and Gaggeler2010) and the yield. Most samples with C/Nat between 3.1–3.4 show higher yield, while samples with C/Nat outside 3.0–3.5 range had very low yield (Figure 4). Evaluation of the success of sample decontamination remains difficult (van Klinken Reference van Klinken1999) however the observed abnormal C/Nat values require check and repeated analysis. Observations from the ETH laboratory suggest that often C/Nat values closer to 3.2–3.3, which is the range for modern bones (Ambrose Reference Ambrose1990), result in a better agreement with expected ages.

Figure 3 Results of elemental analysis %N and %C of 80 bones which gave no gelatin.

Figure 4 Correlation between the yield of gelatin and C/Nat ratio of the purified gelatin (%N and %C values from combustion prior to graphitization). The rectangle marks the samples with acceptable yield of >0.1% and C/Nat in the range 3.1–3.4.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The wide range of sample material submitted to research and service 14C laboratories requires the application of different protocols. Instrumental support is the key to monitoring visible and invisible contamination. The presented examples highlight some of the most frequent obstacles to accurate radiocarbon ages. Contamination with roots might be challenging to observe, and it is quite possible that samples of bulk measured in the past were contaminated by roots. Conservation can also be invisible; if undocumented, contamination with old carbon is inevitable. The FTIR spectra provide only qualitative information about the possible contamination, but the results obtained on clean material are satisfactory. Our application of elemental analysis (%N, %C) to access the preservation of bone collagen is possible because of the available equipment. However, using FTIR is an alternative method that can help save the time required to weigh the samples. Finally, all the observations and characterization results are crucial in evaluating the final results. Heterogeneous pieces of mortar and poorly preserved bones need careful evaluation of parameters such as C/Nat or the preparation yield. In conclusion, a holistic assessment of so-called “outliers” can help improve the accuracy of radiocarbon analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to all the colleagues who worked in the preparation laboratory during the last 20 years: Sandra Isteri, Carole Biechele, Mantana Maurer and Maria Belen Röttig for their dedicated work. Caroline Welte, Hans-Arno Synal, Lukas Wacker, and Urs Ramsperger for their support of the AMS analysis.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2024.12

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 24th Radiocarbon and 10th Radiocarbon & Archaeology International Conferences, Zurich, Switzerland, 11–16 Sept. 2022.

1 Al cups are used at the ETH laboratory due to simplicity of cups treatment (pre-cooking at 500ºC) and low blank values

References

REFERENCES

Al Sekhaneh, W, Shiyyab, A, Arinat, M, Gharaibeh, N. 2020. Use of FTIR and thermogravimetric analysis of ancient mortar from The Church of the Cross in Gerasa (Jordan) for conservation purposes. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20:159–174.Google Scholar
Alon, D, Mintz, G, Cohen, I, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2002. The use of Raman spectroscopy to monitor the removal of humic substances from charcoal: quality control for 14C dating of charcoal. Radiocarbon 44:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrose, SH. 1990. Preparation and characterization of bone and tooth collagen for isotopic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, W, Donahue, DJ, Jull, AJT, Burr, S, Broecker, WS, Bonani, G, Hajdas, I, Malotki, E. 1998. Ambiguities in direct dating of rock surfaces using radiocarbon measurements. Science 280:2132–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blattmann, TM, Montluçon, DB, Haghipour, N, Ishikawa, NF, Eglinton, TI. 2020. Liquid chromatographic isolation of individual amino acids extracted from sediments for radiocarbon analysis. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudin, M, Boeckx, P, Vandenabeele, P, van Strydonck, M. 2013. Improved radiocarbon dating for contaminated archaeological bone collagen, silk, wool and hair samples via cross-flow nanofiltrated amino acids. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 27:2039–2050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brock, F, Dee, M, Hughes, A, Snoeck, C, Staff, R, Ramsey, CB. 2018. Testing the effectiveness of protocols for removal of common conservation treatments for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 60:35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Geoghegan, V, Thomas, B, Jurkschat, K, Higham, TFG. 2013. Analysis of bone “collagen” extraction products for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 55:445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Ditchfield, P, Ramsey, CB. 2010a. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52:103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Ramsey, CB. 2010b. Pre-screening techniques for identification of samples suitable for radiocarbon dating of poorly preserved bones. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:855–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Ramsey, CB, Higham, T. 2007. Quality assurance of ultrafiltered bone dating. Radiocarbon 49:187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broecker, WS, Klas, M, Clark, E, Trumbore, S, Bonani, G, Wolfli, W, Ivy, S. 1990. Accelerator mass-spectrometric radiocarbon measurements on foraminifera shells from deep-sea cores. Radiocarbon 32:119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calandra, S, Cantisani, E, Salvadori, B, Barone, S, Liccioli, L, Fedi, M, Garzonio, CA. 2022. Evaluation of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy for distinguish anthropogenic and geogenic calcite. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2204:012048.Google Scholar
Casanova, E, Knowles, TDJ, Bayliss, A, Walton-Doyle, C, Barclay, A, Evershed, RP. 2022. Compound-specific radiocarbon dating of lipid residues in pottery vessels: a new approach for detecting the exploitation of marine resources. Journal of Archaeological Science 137:105528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cersoy, S, Zazzo, A, Rofes, J, Tresset, A, Zirah, S, Gauthier, C, Kaltnecker, E, Thil, F, Tisnerat-Laborde, N. 2017. Radiocarbon dating minute amounts of bone (3–60 mg) with ECHoMICADAS. Scientific reports 7:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Elia, M, Gianfrate, G, Quarta, G, Giotta, L, Giancane, G, Calcagnile, L. 2007. Evaluation of possible contamination sources in the 14C analysis of bone samples by FTIR spectroscopy. Radiocarbon 49:201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deviese, T, Comeskey, D, McCullagh, J, Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, T. 2018. New protocol for compound-specific radiocarbon analysis of archaeological bones. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 32:373–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eglinton, TI, Aluwihare, LI, Bauer, JE, Druffel, ER, McNichol, AP. 1996. Gas chromatographic isolation of individual compounds from complex matrices for radiocarbon dating. Analytical Chemistry 68:904–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fewlass, H, Talamo, S, Tuna, T, Fagault, Y, Kromer, B, Hoffmann, H, Pangrazzi, C, Hublin, J-J, Bard, E. 2017. Size matters: radiocarbon dates of < 200 µg ancient collagen samples with AixMICADAS and its gas ion source. Radiocarbon 60:425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fewlass, H, Tuna, T, Fagault, Y, Hublin, JJ, Kromer, B, Bard, E, Talamo, S. 2019. Pretreatment and gaseous radiocarbon dating of 40–100 mg archaeological bone. Scientific Reports 9:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, CAM, Sugiyama, N, Aguayo, E. 2020. Establishing a preservation index for bone, dentin, and enamel bioapatite mineral using ATR-FTIR. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33:102551.Google Scholar
Geyh, MA. 2008. The handling of numerical ages and their random uncertainties. E&G Quaternary Science Journal 57:239–252.Google Scholar
Haghipour, N, Ausin, B, Usman, MO, Ishikawa, N, Wacker, L, Welte, C, Ueda, K, Eglinton, TI. 2019. Compound-specific radiocarbon analysis by elemental analyzer-accelerator mass spectrometry: precision and limitations. Analytical Chemistry 91:2042–2049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajdas, I. 2008. The Radiocarbon dating method and its applications in Quaternary studies. Quaternary Science Journal – Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 57:2–24.Google Scholar
Hajdas, I, Ascough, P, Garnett, MH, Fallon, SJ, Pearson, CL, Quarta, G, Spalding, KL, Yamaguchi, H, Yoneda, M. 2021a. Radiocarbon dating. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1:62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Bonani, G, Furrer, H, Mader, A, Schoch, W. 2007. Radiocarbon chronology of the mammoth site at Niederweningen, Switzerland: Results from dating bones, teeth, wood, and peat. Quaternary International 164–65:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Bonani, G, Thut, H, Leone, G, Pfenninger, R, Maden, C. 2004. A report on sample preparation at the ETH/PSI AMS facility in Zurich. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions With Materials and Atoms 223:267–271.Google Scholar
Hajdas, I, Bonani, G, Zolitschka, B, Brauer, A, Negendank, J. 1998. C-14 ages of terrestrial macrofossils from Lago Grande di Monticchio (Italy). Radiocarbon 40:803–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Cristi, C, Bonani, G, Maurer, M. 2014. Textiles and radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 56:637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Ivy, SD, Beer, J, Bonani, G, Imboden, D, Lotter, AF, Sturm, M, Suter, M. 1993. AMS radiocarbon dating and varve chronology of Lake Soppensee – 6000 to 12000 C-14 Years BP. Climate Dynamics 9:107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Maurer, M, Röttig, MB. 2020a. 14C dating of mortar from ruins of an early medieval church Hohenrätien GR, Switzerland. Geochronometria 47:118–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Maurer, M, Röttig, MB. 2020b. Development of 14C dating of mortars at ETH Zurich. Radiocarbon 62:591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Michczynski, A, Bonani, G, Wacker, L, Furrer, H. 2009. Dating bones near the limit of the radiocarbon dating method: study case mammoth from Niederweningen, Zh Switzerland. Radiocarbon 51:675–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajdas, I, Sojc, U, Ivy-Ochs, S, Akçar, N, Deline, P. 2021b. Radiocarbon dating for the reconstruction of the 1717 CE Triolet Rock Avalanche in the Mont Blanc Massif, Italy. Frontiers in Earth Science 8.Google Scholar
Hemingway, JD, Rothman, DH, Grant, KE, Rosengard, SZ, Eglinton, TI, Derry, LA, Galy, VV. 2019. Mineral protection regulates long-term global preservation of natural organic carbon. Nature 570:228–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, L, Hajdas, I, Ferreira, ESB, Scherrer, NC, Zumbuhl, S, Kuffner, M, Wacker, L, Synal, HA, Gunther, D. 2018. Combined C-14 analysis of canvas and organic binder for dating a painting. Radiocarbon 60:207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüls, CM, Grootes, PM, Nadeau, M-J, Bruhn, F, Hasselberg, P, Erlenkeuser, H. 2004. AMS radiocarbon dating of iron artefacts. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 223–224:709–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingalls, AE, Pearson, A. 2005. Compound-specific radiocarbon analysis. Oceanography 18:18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, NV, Hodgins, GL, Butler, BM, Kartha, PS, Welch, PD, Brennan, TK. 2022. Tree-ring-radiocarbon dating paraffin-conserved charcoal at the Mississippian Center of Kincaid, Illinois, USA. Radiocarbon 65:173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanting, JN, Aerts-Bijma, AT, van der Plicht, J. 2001. Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 43:249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebon, M, Reiche, I, Gallet, X, Bellot-Gurlet, L, Zazzo, A. 2016. Rapid quantification of bone collagen content by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Radiocarbon 58:131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leskovar, T, Zupanič Pajnič, I, Jerman, I, Črešnar, M. 2022. ATR-FTIR spectroscopy as a pre-screening technique for the PMI assessment and DNA preservation in human skeletal remains – a review. Quaternary International.Google Scholar
Liccioli, L, Fedi, M, Carraresi, L, Mando, PA. 2017. Characterization of the chloroform-based pretreatment method for C-14 dating of restored wooden samples. Radiocarbon 59:757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Heinemeier, J, Ringbom, A, Brasken, M, Sveinbjornsdottir, A. 2007. Mortar dating using AMS C-14 and sequential dissolution: examples from medieval, non-hydraulic lime mortars from the Aland Islands, SW Finland. Radiocarbon 49:47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroos, A, Ringbom, Å, Heinemeier, J, Hodgins, G, Sonck-Koota, P, Sjöberg, P, Lancaster, L, Kaisti, R, Brock, F, Ranta, H, Caroselli, M, Lugli, S. 2018. Radiocarbon dating historical mortars: lime lumps and/or binder carbonate? Radiocarbon 60:875–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 61:159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzaioli, F, Lubritto, C, Nonni, S, Passariello, I, Capano, M, Ottaviano, L, Terrasi, F. 2014. Characterisation of a new protocol for mortar dating: 14C evidences. Open Journal of Archaeometry 2.Google Scholar
McGeehin, J, Burr, GS, Jull, AJT, Reines, D, Gosse, J, Davis, PT, Muhs, D, Southon, JR. 2001. Stepped-combustion C-14 dating of sediment: A comparison with established techniques. Radiocarbon 43:255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNichol, AP, Lindauer, S. 2022. Radiocarbon in the marine environment: an overview. Radiocarbon 64:673–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalska, D, Czernik, J, Goslar, T. 2017. Methodological aspect of mortars dating (Poznań, Poland, MODIS). Radiocarbon 59:1891–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawrocka, D, Michniewicz, J, Pawlyta, J, Pazdur, A. 2005. Application of radiocarbon method for dating of lime mortars. Geochronometria 24:109–115.Google Scholar
Nemec, M, Wacker, L, Gaggeler, H. 2010. Optimization of the graphitization process at Age-1. Radiocarbon 52:1380–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paama, L, Pitkänen, I, Rönkkömäki, H, Perämäki, P. 1998. Thermal and infrared spectroscopic characterization of historical mortars. Thermochimica Acta 320:127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawelczyk, F, Hajdas, I, Sadykov, T, Blochin, J, Caspari, G. 2022. Comparing analysis of pretreatment methods of wood and bone materials for the chronology of peripheral burials at Tunnug 1, Tuva Republic, Russia. Radiocarbon 64:171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quarta, G, Hajdas, I, Molnár, M, Varga, T, Calcagnile, L, D’Elia, M, Molnar, A, Dias, JF, Jull, AJT. 2022. The IAEA forensics program: results of the AMS 14C intercomparison exercise on contemporary wines and coffees. Radiocarbon 64:1513–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Brown, TA, Reimer, RW. 2004. Discussion: reporting and calibration of post-bomb C-14 data. Radiocarbon 46:1299–1304.Google Scholar
Rubinetti, S, Hajdas, I, Taricco, C, Alessio, S, Isella, LP, Giustetto, R, Boano, R. 2020. An atypical Medieval burial at the Monte Dei Cappuccini Monastery in Torino (Italy): a case study with high-precision radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 62:485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruff, M, Fahrni, S, Gaggeler, HW, Hajdas, I, Suter, M, Synal, HA, Szidat, S, Wacker, L. 2010. On-line radiocarbon measurements of small samples using elemental analyzer and MICADAS gas ion source. Radiocarbon 52:1645–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpenseel, H, Becker-Heidmann, P. 1992. Twenty-five years of radiocarbon dating soils: paradigm of erring and learning. Radiocarbon 34:541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, HA. 1977. Reporting of C-14 data: discussion. Radiocarbon 19:355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Synal, HA, Stocker, M, Suter, M. 2007. MICADAS: a new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 259:7–13.Google Scholar
Tiilikkala, K, Fagernäs, L, Tiilikkala, J. 2010. History and use of wood pyrolysis liquids as biocide and plant protection product.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Klinken, GJ. 1999. Bone collagen quality indicators for palaeodietary and radiocarbon measurements. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Klinken, GJ, Hedges, REM. 1998. Chemistry strategies for organic C-14 samples. Radiocarbon 40:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S-L, Burr, GS, Wang, P-L, Lin, L-H, Nguyen, V. 2016. Tracing the sources of carbon in clay minerals: an example from western Taiwan. Quaternary Geochronology 34:24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, S, Bar-Yosef, O. 1990. States of preservation of bones from prehistoric sites in the Near East: a survey. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welte, C, Hendriks, L, Wacker, L, Haghipour, N, Eglinton, TI, Günther, D, Synal, H-A. 2018. Towards the limits: analysis of microscale 14C samples using EA-AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 437:66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, R. 2015. From revolution to convention: the past, present and future of radiocarbon dating. Journal of Archaeological Science 56:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yizhaq, M, Mintz, G, Cohen, I, Khalaily, H, Weiner, S, Boaretto, E. 2005. Quality controlled radiocarbon dating of bones and charcoal from the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47:193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Sample types, pre-screening methods and preparation methods. Details of pretreatment methods are summarized in Table 1 of the Supplementary Material.

Figure 1

Figure 1 Setup for wet sieving of sediment and peat samples. The fine fraction (<125 μm or 150 μm) is collected in a glass beaker. The larger fraction (top sieve) can be investigated under binoculars.

Figure 2

Table 2 Contamination (wavenumber cm-1 in bold Italics) detected with the help of FTIR and the results of radiocarbon dating after additional treatment.

Figure 3

Figure 2 (a) Sample of peat VF-28 (Val Ferret) (Hajdas et al. 2021b) was sieved to remove the visible roots (b) roots observed in the wood submitted to the laboratory could not be removed.

Figure 4

Figure 3 Results of elemental analysis %N and %C of 80 bones which gave no gelatin.

Figure 5

Figure 4 Correlation between the yield of gelatin and C/Nat ratio of the purified gelatin (%N and %C values from combustion prior to graphitization). The rectangle marks the samples with acceptable yield of >0.1% and C/Nat in the range 3.1–3.4.

Supplementary material: File

Hajdas et al. supplementary material

Hajdas et al. supplementary material
Download Hajdas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB