首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Analysis of low‐concentration gas samples with continuous‐flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry: eliminating sources of contamination to achieve high precision
Authors:Maria O L Cambaliza  Benjamin A Harlow  Nerea Ubierna  George H Mount  John D Marshall  R David Evans
Institution:1. Laboratory for Atmospheric Research, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA;2. Stable Isotope Core Laboratory, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA;3. Idaho Stable Isotopes Laboratory, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
Abstract:Developments in continuous‐flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry have made possible the rapid analysis of δ13C in CO2 of small‐volume gas samples with precisions of ≤0.1‰. Prior research has validated the integrity of septum‐capped vials for collection and short‐term storage of gas samples. However, there has been little investigation into the sources of contamination during the preparation and analysis of low‐concentration gas samples. In this study we determined (1) sources of contamination on a Gasbench II, (2) developed an analytical procedure to reduce contamination, and (3) identified an efficient, precise method for introducing sample gas into vials. We investigated three vial‐filling procedures: (1) automated flush‐fill (AFF), (2) vacuum back‐fill (VBF), and (3) hand‐fill (HF). Treatments were evaluated based on the time required for preparation, observed contamination, and multi‐vial precision. The worst‐case observed contamination was 4.5% of sample volume. Our empirical estimate showed that this level of contamination results in an error of 1.7‰ for samples with near‐ambient CO2 concentrations and isotopic values that followed a high‐concentration carbonate reference with an isotope ratio of ?47‰ (IAEA‐CO‐9). This carry‐over contamination on the Gasbench can be reduced by placing a helium‐filled vial between the standard and the succeeding sample or by ignoring the first two of five sample peaks generated by each analysis. High‐precision (SD ≤0.1‰) results with no detectable room‐air contamination were observed for AFF and VBF treatments. In contrast, the precision of HF treatments was lower (SD ≥0.2‰). VBF was optimal for the preparation of gas samples, as it yielded faster throughput at similar precision to AFF. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords:
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号