Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T05:12:30.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intercomparison of 14C Dating of Wood Samples at Lund University and ETH-Zurich AMS Facilities: Extraction, Graphitization, and Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2016

F Adolphi ,
D Güttler ,
L Wacker ,
G Skog  and
R Muscheler
F Adolphi*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, S-22362 Lund, Sweden
D Güttler
Affiliation:
Department of Ion Beam Physics, ETH-Zurich, Switzerland
L Wacker
Affiliation:
Department of Ion Beam Physics, ETH-Zurich, Switzerland
G Skog
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, S-22362 Lund, Sweden
R Muscheler
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, S-22362 Lund, Sweden
*
2Corresponding author. Email: Florian.Adolphi@geol.lu.se.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conducted an interlaboratory comparison between our radiocarbon-related research group at Lund University and the established ETH-Zurich facility to test the quality of the results obtained in Lund and to identify sources of potential background differences and scatter. We did find differences between the 2 laboratories in the contributions of chemical preparation, graphitization, and measurements to the overall background. The resulting overall background is, however, almost similar. Multiple measurements on 2 wood samples of known calendar age yield consistent and accurate 14C ages in both laboratories. However, one of our known samples indicates that IntCal09 is ≃38 ± 16 14C BP too young at 7020 calendar yr BP, which is consistent with one of the raw data sets contributing to IntCal09. Overall, our results show that a systematic approach to compare the different steps involved in 14C age determination is a useful exercise to pinpoint targets for improvement of lab routines and assess interlaboratory differences. These effects do not necessarily become apparent when comparing 14C measurements that integrate over the whole process of preparation and measurement of different laboratories.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 55 , Issue 2: Proceedings of the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference (Part 1 of 2) , 2013 , pp. 391 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burleigh, R, Leese, M, Tite, M. 1986. An intercomparison of some AMS and small gas counter laboratories. Radiocarbon 28(2A):571–7.Google Scholar
Edvardsson, J, Linderson, H, Rundgren, M, Hammarlund, D. 2012a. Holocene peatland development and hydrological variability inferred from bog-pine dendrochronology and peat stratigraphy – a case study from southern Sweden. Journal of Quaternary Science 27(6):553–63.Google Scholar
Edvardsson, J, Leuschner, HH, Linderson, H, Linderholm, HW, Hammarlund, D. 2012b. South Swedish bog pines as indicators of Mid-Holocene climate variability. Dendrochronologia 30(2):93–103.Google Scholar
Efron, B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics 7(1):1–26.Google Scholar
Fallon, SJ, Fifield, LK, Chappell, JM. 2010. The next chapter in radiocarbon dating at the Australian National University: status report on the single stage AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):898–901.Google Scholar
Freeman, SPHT, Dougans, A, McHargue, L, Wilcken, KM, Xu, S. 2008. Performance of the new single stage accelerator mass spectrometer at the SUERC. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 266(10):2225–8.Google Scholar
Freeman, SPHT, Cook, GT, Dougans, AB, Naysmith, P, Wilcken, KM, Xu, S. 2010. Improved SSAMS performance. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):715–7.Google Scholar
Güttler, D, Wacker, L, Kromer, B, Friedrich, M, Synal, H-A. 2013. Evidence of 11-year solar cycles in tree rings from 1010 to 1110 AD – progress on high precision AMS measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 294:459–63.Google Scholar
Kromer, B, Rhein, M, Bruns, M, Schochfischer, H, Munnich, KO, Stuiver, M, Becker, B. 1986. Radiocarbon calibration data for the 6th to the 8th millennia BC. Radiocarbon 28(2B):954–60.Google Scholar
McNichol, AP, Gagnon, AR, Jones, GA, Osborne, EA. 1992. Illumination of a black box: analysis of gas composition during graphite target preparation. Radiocarbon 34(3):321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemec, M, Wacker, L, Hajdas, I, Gäggeler, H. 2010a. Alternative methods for cellulose preparation for AMS measurement. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):1358–70.Google Scholar
Nemec, M, Wacker, L, Gäggeler, H. 2010b. Optimization of the graphitization process at AGE-1. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):1380–3.Google Scholar
Olsson, IU, Possnert, G. 1992. 14C activity in different sections and chemical fractions of oak tree rings, AD 1938–1981. Radiocarbon 34(3):757–67.Google Scholar
Pearson, GW, Becker, B, Qua, F. 1993. High-precision 14C measurement of German and Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from 7890 to 5000 BC. Radiocarbon 35(1):93–104.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Ramsey, CB, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Hajdas, I, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, SW, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Southon, JR, Talamo, S, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4):1111–50.Google Scholar
Sakurai, H, Gandou, T, Kato, W, Sawaki, Y, Matsumoto, T, Aoki, T, Matsuzaki, H, Gunji, S, Tokanai, F. 2004. AMS measurement of C-14 concentration in a single-year ring of a 2500-yr-old tree. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:371–5.Google Scholar
Santos, MG, Bird, IM, Pillans, B, Fifield, LK, Alloway, VB, Chappell, J, Hausladen, AP, Arneth, A. 2001. Radiocarbon dating of wood using different pretreatment procedures: application to the chronology of Rotoehu Ash, New Zealand. Radiocarbon 43(2A):239–48.Google Scholar
Santos, GM, Southon, JR, Druffel-Rodriguez, KC, Griffin, S, Mazon, M. 2004. Magnesium Perchlorate as an alternative water trap in AMS graphite sample preparation; a report on sample preparation at KCCAMS at the University of California, Irvine. Radiocarbon 46(1):165–73.Google Scholar
Santos, GM, Mazon, M, Southon, JR, Rifai, S, Moore, R. 2007. Evaluation of iron and cobalt powders as catalysts for 14C-AMS target preparation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):308–15.Google Scholar
Schulze-König, T, Seiler, M, Suter, M, Wacker, L, Synal, H-A. 2011. The dissociation of 13CH and 12CH2 molecules in He and N2 at beam energies of 80–250 keV and possible implications for radiocarbon mass spectrometry. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 269(1):34–9.Google Scholar
Scott, EM. 2003. The Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI). Radiocarbon 45(2):135–290.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010a. The Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):859–65.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010b. A report on phase 2 of the Fifth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon 52(2–3):846–58.Google Scholar
Skog, G. 2007. The single stage AMS machine at Lund University: status report. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):1–6.Google Scholar
Skog, G, Rundgren, M, Sköld, P. 2010. Status of the Single Stage AMS machine at Lund University after 4 years of operation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):895–7.Google Scholar
Southon, JR, Magana, AL. 2010. A comparison of cellulose extraction and ABA pretreatment methods for AMS 14C dating of ancient wood. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):1371–9.Google Scholar
Southon, J, Santos, GM. 2007. Life with MC-SNICS. Part II: further ion source development at the Keck Carbon Cycle AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):88–93.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Braziunas, TF. 1993. Sun, ocean, climate and atmospheric 14CO2: an evaluation of causal and spectral relationships. The Holocene 3(4):289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ, Braziunas, TF. 1998. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40(3):1127–51.Google Scholar
Synal, H-A, Stocker, M, Suter, M. 2007. MICADAS: a new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):7–13.Google Scholar
Unkel, I. 2006. AMS 14C Analysen zur Rekonstruktion der Landschafts- und Kulturgeschichte in der Region Palpa (S-Peru) [Phd dissertation]. Heidelberg: Karls Ruprecht Universitaet. 212 p.Google Scholar
Wacker, L, Christi, M, Synal, H-A. 2010a. Bats: a new tool for AMS data reduction. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):976–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Bonani, G, Friedrich, M, Hajdas, I, Kromer, B, Nemec, N, Ruff, M, Suter, M, Synal, H-A, Vockenhuber, C. 2010b. MICADAS: routine and high-precision radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 52(2–3):252–62.Google Scholar
Wacker, L, Nemec, M, Bourquin, J. 2010c. A revolutionary graphitisation system: fully automated, compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7–8):931–4.Google Scholar