Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T15:30:46.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction of CO2-to-Graphite Conversion Time of Organic Materials for 14C AMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Mette S. Thomsen  and
Steinar Gulliksen
Mette S. Thomsen
Affiliation:
Radiological Dating Laboratory, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034 Trondheim Norway
Steinar Gulliksen
Affiliation:
Radiological Dating Laboratory, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034 Trondheim Norway
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Graphite is the most common type of target for 14C accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). It is readily produced by catalytic reduction of CO2, but the presence of a small amount of impurities (e.g., sulfur compounds) may retard the reaction. We have tested some techniques to find a method that reduces the impurity content of CO2 produced by combustion of organic material. We found that using water during combustion reduces the average time for graphite conversion of CO2 from organic matter from >3 h to ca. 2 h. This is the time for graphite production from CO2 obtained by acid hydrolysis of calcite. Measurements of known-age and background samples show that this combustion method neither changes the isotopic ratios nor introduces any additional background.

Type
I. Sample Preparation and Measurement Techniques
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 34 , Issue 3: Proceedings of the 14th International Radiocarbon Conference , 1992 , pp. 330 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Barker, H., Burleigh, R. and Meeks, N. 1969 New method for the combustion of samples for radiocarbon dating. Nature 221: 49–50.Google Scholar
Beukens, R. P. 1990 High-precision intercomparison at IsoTrace. In Scott, E. M., Long, A. and Kra, R. S., eds., Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intercomparison of 14C Laboratories. Radiocarbon 32 (3): 335–339.Google Scholar
de Vries, H. 1955/6 Purification of CO2 for use in a proportional counter for 14C age measurements. Applied Science and Research B5: 387–400.Google Scholar
Dörr, H., Kromer, B. and Münnich, K. O. 1989 Fast 14C sample preparation of organic material. In Long, A. and Kra, R. S., eds., Proceedings of the 13th International 14C Conference. Radiocarbon 31(3): 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freundlich, J. C. and Rutloh, M. 1972 Radiocarbon dating by carbon dioxide method: Influence and removal of known impurities. In Rafter, T. A. and Grant-Taylor, T., eds., Proceedings of the 8th International 14C Conference. Wellington, Royal Society of New Zealand 1: B25–B35.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, S. and Thomsen, M. S. 1992 Examination of background contamination levels for gas counting and AMS target preparation in Trondheim. Radiocarbon, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurfinkel, D. M. 1987 An assessment of laboratory contamination at the IsoTrace Radiocarbon Facility. Radiocarbon 29(3): 335–346.Google Scholar
Hut, G., Östlund, H. G. and Borg, K. van der 1986 Fast and complete CO2-to-graphite conversion for 14C accelerator mass spectrometry. In Stuiver, M. and Kra, R. S., eds., Proceedings of the 12th International 14C Conference. Radiocarbon 28(2A): 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemantaski, S. 1952 Action of inhibitors of carbon deposition in iron ore reduction. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, London 171: 176–182.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. C. and Judd, W. J. 1987 Graphite target preparation for radiocarbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B28: 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, R. G. and Turkdogan, E. T. 1974 Catalytic effect of iron on decomposition of carbon monoxide: II. Effect of additions of H2, H2O, CO2, SO2 and H2S. Metallurgical Transactions 5: 21–26.Google Scholar
Podgurski, H. H. 1954 Stabilization of metal carbides by nonmetallic elements. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 58: 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozanski, K., Stichler, W., Gonfiantini, R., Scott, E. M., Beukens, R. P., Kromer, B. and van der Plicht, J. 1992 The IAEA 14C Intercomparison Exercise 1990. Radiocarbon, this issue.Google Scholar
Scott, E. M., Aitchison, T. C., Harkness, D. D., Baxter, M. S. and Cook, G. T. 1989 An interim progress report on Stages 1 and 2 of the International Collaborative Program. In Long, A. and Kra, R. S., eds., Proceedings of the 13th International 14C Conference. Radiocarbon 31(3): 414–421.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. S., Nelson, D. E. and Southon, J. R. 1989 Accuracy and precision in dating microgram carbon samples. Radiocarbon 31(2): 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. S., Southon, J. R., Nelson, D. E. and Brown, T. A. 1984 Performance of catalytically condensed carbon for use in accelerator mass spectrometry. In Wölfli, W., Polach, H. A. and Andersen, H. H., eds., Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B5: 289–293.Google Scholar
Vogel, J. S., Southon, J. R. and Nelson, D. E. 1987 Catalyst and binder effects in the use of filamentous graphite for AMS. In Gove, H. E., Litherland, A. E. and Elmore, D., eds., Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B29: 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar