4.4 Article

Mg Isotope Interlaboratory Comparison of Reference Materials from Earth-Surface Low-Temperature Environments

Journal

GEOSTANDARDS AND GEOANALYTICAL RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 205-221

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggr.12208

Keywords

Earth-surface; interlaboratory comparison; low-temperature; Mg isotopes; reference materials

Funding

  1. ERC [682760 - CONTROLPASTCO2]
  2. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme [643084]
  3. Czech Science Foundation (GACR) [17-18120S, P210/12/P631]
  4. Base-LiNE Earth
  5. ARC [LP160101353]
  6. DFG-trilateral project TRION [Ei272/30-1]
  7. Israeli Ministry of Science, Technology and Space (Eshkol scholarship)
  8. Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures, Energy and Water resources
  9. Dalia and Dan Maydan Fellowship
  10. ETH postdoctoral fellowship [FEL-14 16-1]
  11. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [643084] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To enable quality control of measurement procedures for determinations of Mg isotope amount ratios, expressed as Mg-26 and Mg-25 values, in Earth-surface studies, the Mg-26 and Mg-25 values of eight reference materials (RMs) were determined by interlaboratory comparison between five laboratories and considering published data, if available. These matrix RMs, including river water SLRS-5, spring water NIST SRM 1640a, Dead Sea brine DSW-1, dolomites JDo-1 and BCS-CRM 512, limestone BCS-CRM 513, soil NIST SRM 2709a and vegetation NIST SRM 1515, are representative of a wide range of Earth-surface materials from low-temperature environments. The interlaboratory variability, 2s (twice the standard deviation), of all eight RMs ranges from 0.05 to 0.17 parts per thousand in Mg-26. Thus, it is suggested that all these materials are suitable for validation of Mg-26 and Mg-25 determinations in Earth-surface geochemical studies.

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