4.3 Review

Isotope-abundance variations of selected elements -: (IUPAC Technical Report)

期刊

PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY
卷 74, 期 10, 页码 1987-2017

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1351/pac200274101987

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Documented variations in the isotopic compositions of some chemical elements are responsible for expanded uncertainties in the standard atomic weights published by the Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. This report summarizes reported variations in the isotopic compositions of 20 elements that are due to physical and chemical fractionation processes (not due to radioactive decay) and their effects on the standard atomic-weight uncertainties. For 11 of those elements (hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, copper, and selenium), standard atomic-weight uncertainties have been assigned values that are substantially larger than analytical uncertainties because of common isotope-abundance variations in materials of natural terrestrial origin. For 2 elements (chromium and thallium), recently reported isotope-abundance variations potentially are large enough to result in future expansion of their atomic-weight uncertainties. For 7 elements (magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc, molybdenum, palladium, and tellurium), documented isotope variations in materials of natural terrestrial origin are too small to have a significant effect on their standard atomic-weight uncertainties. This compilation indicates the extent to which the atomic weight of an element in a given material may differ from the standard atomic weight of the element. For most elements given above, data are graphically illustrated by a diagram in which the materials are specified in the ordinate and the compositional ranges are plotted along the abscissa in scales of (1) atomic weight, (2) mole fraction of a selected isotope, and (3) delta value of a selected isotope ratio.

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