4.5 Article

New Quartz and Zircon Si Isotopic Reference Materials for Precise and Accurate SIMS Isotopic Microanalysis

期刊

ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 99-106

出版社

ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.46770/AS.2021.1110

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFA0702600]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [41890831]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports on the Si isotope compositions of four potential reference materials for in-situ Si isotopic microanalysis. The results show that these materials are more homogeneous in Si isotopes compared to the commonly used quartz standard. The study also suggests that synthetic quartz glass can be used as an alternative, more homogeneous standard.
Here we report the Si isotope compositions of four potential reference materials, including one fused quartz glass (Glass-Qtz), one natural quartz (Qinghu-Qtz), and two natural zircons (Qinghu-Zir and Penglai-Zir), suitable for in-situ Si isotopic microanalysis. Repeated SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry) analyses demonstrate that these materials are more homogeneous in Si isotopes (with the spot-to-spot uncertainty of 0.090-0.102 parts per thousand), compared with the widely used NIST RM 8546 (previously NBS-28) quartz standard (with the spot-to-spot uncertainty poorer than 0.16 parts per thousand). Based on the solution-MC-ICP-MS determination, the recommended delta Si-30 values are -0.10 +/- 0.04 parts per thousand (2SD), -0.03 +/- 0.05 parts per thousand (2SD), -0.45 +/- 0.06 parts per thousand (2SD), and -0.34 +/- 0.06 parts per thousand (2SD), for Glass-Qtz, Qinghu-Qtz, Qinghu-Zir, and Penglai-Zir, respectively. Our results reveal no detectable matrix effect on SIMS Si isotopic microanalysis between the fused quartz glass (Glass-Qtz) and natural quartz (Qinghu-Qtz) standards. Therefore, we propose that this synthetic quartz glass may be used as an alternative, more homogenous standard for SIMS Si isotopic microanalysis of natural quartz samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据