4.7 Article

Accurate determinations of fifty-four major and trace elements in carbonate by LA-ICP-MS using normalization strategy of bulk components as 100%

Journal

CHEMICAL GEOLOGY
Volume 284, Issue 3-4, Pages 283-295

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.03.007

Keywords

LA-ICP-MS; Carbonate; Internal standard-independent analysis; Working value of Nb

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [90914007, 40821061, 40972003]
  2. State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs of China [B07039]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CUG090105]
  4. MOST [MSFGPMR201001]
  5. State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here we describe an internal standard-independent calibration strategy for LA-ICP-MS analysis of fifty-four major and trace elements in carbonate. Based on the normalization strategy of bulk components as 100%, the MRM-NoIS (calibrated against multiple silicate reference materials without using internal standard) was used to correct the matrix-dependent absolute amount of materials ablated during each run. Applying MRM-NoIS and using the MPI-DING reference glasses as reference materials for external calibration, analyses of carbonate standard MACS-3 generally agree with recommended values within 10% for most trace elements (better than 5% for REEs and major elements). Analyses of natural igneous calcite grains agree with the results of solution-ICP-MS values within 10% for Mg, Sc, Mn, Sr and REEs. The results indicate that, applying MRM-NoIS and using MPI-DING reference glasses as multiple reference materials for calibration, carbonate can be accurately analyzed in situ by LA-ICP-MS without applying internal standardization and matrix matching external standards. Our results also indicate that the working value of Nb in carbonate pellet MACS-3 could be 53.4 mu g/g rather than 35.2 mu g/g given in the test of G-Probe 4. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available