4.3 Article

Evaluation of the long-term fluctuation in isotope ratios measured by TIMS with the static, dynamic, and multistatic methods: A case study for Nd isotope measurements

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijms.2016.12.016

关键词

TIMS; Neodymium; Dynamic multi-collection method

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26220713]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26106002, 16H04081] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the long-term fluctuation in high-precision Nd isotope measurements by using a modern thermal ionization mass spectrometer (Triton plus) to evaluate the effect of Faraday cup deterioration caused by the accumulation of strong ion beams into the cups. A number of measurements (n = 76) were conducted by applying three distinct methods (static, dynamic, and multistatic) during an eight-month analytical period, which was further divided into seven short analytical campaigns. The reproducibilities of Nd-142/Nd-144 ratios for campaigns 1-4 were 23, 6.4, and 17 ppm (2 SD) for the static (Jump 1), dynamic, and multistatic methods, respectively. After the replacement of six out of nine Faraday cups (campaigns 5-7), the reproducibilities of Nd-142/Nd-144 ratios were improved to 18, 4.1, and 5.4 ppm (2 SD) for the static, dynamic, and multistatic methods, respectively. This implies that high-precision Nd isotope analysis with not only the static but also the multistatic method is susceptible to the deterioration of Faraday cups. Consequently, the dynamic method is the most effective to minimize the influence of Faraday cup degradation, although it is recommended to ensure that Faraday cups are as fresh as possible to avoid small, but resolvable, shifts in isotope ratios obtained by this method. In addition to Nd-142/Nd-144, we demonstrate that it is possible to determine Nd-148/Nd-144 and Nd-150/Nd-144 ratios with the dynamic method. The reproducibilities of Nd-148/Nd-144 and Nd-150/Nd-144 for campaigns 5-7 were 6.3 and 8.8 ppm, respectively, which are 1.5-4.1 times better than those obtained in previous studies. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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