4.4 Article

BATCH PROCESSING OF TREE-RING SAMPLES FOR RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS

Journal

RADIOCARBON
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 77-89

Publisher

UNIV ARIZONA DEPT GEOSCIENCES
DOI: 10.1017/RDC.2020.119

Keywords

AMS dating; carbon; pretreatment; radiocarbon; radiocarbon AMS dating

Funding

  1. Villum Foundation [VKR023114, VKR010116]
  2. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF106]
  3. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2014-327]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared two methods for extracting a-cellulose from wood and found the most optimal method for high-precision radiocarbon analysis. The use of HCl acid for delignification was determined to be the most effective for pretreatment of tree rings at AARAMS.
We here present a comparison of methods for the pretreatment of a batch of tree rings for high-precision measurement of radiocarbon at the Aarhus AMS Centre (AARAMS), Aarhus University, Denmark. The aim was to develop an efficient and high-throughput method able to pretreat ca. 50 samples at a time. We tested two methods for extracting a-cellulose from wood to find the most optimal for our use. One method used acetic acid, the other used HCl acid for the delignification. The testing was conducted on background C-14 samples, in order to assess the effect of the different pretreatment methods on low-activity samples. Furthermore, the extracted wood and cellulose fractions were analyzed using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, which showed a successful extraction of a-cellulose from the samples. Cellulose samples were pretreated at AARAMS, and the graphitization and radiocarbon analysis of these samples were done at both AARAMS and the radiocarbon dating laboratory at Lund University to compare the graphitization and AMS machine performance. No significant offset was found between the two sets of measurements. Based on these tests, the pretreatment of tree rings for high-precision radiocarbon analysis at AARAMS will henceforth use HCI for the delignification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available