Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2022 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (2)
- Posterpräsentation (2)
- Zeitschriftenartikel (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Schlagworte
- Uncertainty (5) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 1 Analytische Chemie; Referenzmaterialien (5) (entfernen)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
The Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM) organised an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) for the characterisation of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in limestone (IAG/CGL ML-3) and Penrhyn slate (IAG OU-6) reference materials by applying the conventional method for 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios. Samples were sent to thirteen analytical laboratories . Since both samples are powdered, rock materials, dissolution of the sample and Sr isolation via ion exchange chromatography were mandatory. This was done using acid, microwave/acid, bomb/acid digestion or borate fusion and subsequent isolation of Sr by means of commercially available ion exchange resins. In this study, we present and discuss the potential effects that differences between laboratories, and between two instrumental measurement techniques (i.e., MC-ICP-MS and MC-TIMS), may have upon the dispersion of measurement results of the 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio in the two aforementioned reference materials. We used a statistical mixed effects model to assess the potential effects of both the laboratory and the measurement technique. Consensus values for both materials and associated standard uncertainties {(IAG/CGL ML-3 (0.708245±0.000004) mol/mol; IAG OU-6 (0.729769±0.000008) mol/mol} were estimated by fitting a linear, Gaussian mixed effects model (Pinheiro and Bates 2000) using the R function “lmer” defined in package “lme4”. The statistical results showed that there is no significant effect attributable to differences between instrumental techniques when both materials are considered together, or separately. The p-value of the test of significance of the measurement technique effect is greater than 0.54. For both materials there were statistically significant effects attributable to differences between laboratories when the measurement results for both materials were considered together and separately. This effect is less than 0.00004 in absolute value. However, for neither material did consideration or disregard for such differences induce significant changes in the estimate of the consensus value for the 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio. Therefore, the effects attributable to differences between instrumental techniques or between laboratories can safely be disregarded when computing the best estimate for the true value of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio in these materials, by the community of expert laboratories represented in this study.
Thirteen laboratories participated in an international interlaboratory comparison for the determination of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in four cement reference materials (RM) using the conventional method for 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios analyses. Sample dissolution and Sr isolation via ion exchange chromatography were required since the cement samples were distributed as powders. Analytical preparation included the use of various digestion methods including mixed mineral acids, microwave/acid, bomb/acid digestion or borate fusion, followed by Sr separation using ion exchange chromatography. In this study, we evaluated whether any statistically significant differences were attributable to instrumental differences (i.e., MC-ICP-MS and MC-TIMS), or to laboratory-specific techniques (different sample preparation techniques, Sr isolation and the procedures for correcting the data outputs). To evaluate these effects, consensus values for cement RMs and associated standard uncertainties were estimated by fitting a linear, Gaussian mixed effects model using the R function “lmer” defined in package “lme4”. No statistically significant effects (SSE) attributable to instrumental differences regardless of whether the materials are considered together or separately were evident. There were SSE attributable to differences between laboratories for three cement RMs when the individual cements were considered separately. Since consideration or disregard for such differences does not induce significant changes in the estimate of the consensus values for the 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in cement RMs, these effects can safely be neglected when calculating the best estimates for the true values of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in these RMs.
Isotope reference materials
(2022)
The variation of isotope ratios is increasingly used to unravel natural and technical questions. In the past, the investigation and interpretation of such variations was the field of a limited number of experts. With new upcoming techniques and research topics in the last decades, such as provenance or food authenticity studies, the number of published isotope data strongly increased. Instrumental developments such as the enhancement of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers (ICP-MS) from an instrument for simple quantitative analysis to highly sophisticated isotope ratio machines influenced this process significantly. While in former times only experts in mass spectrometry were able to produce reliable isotope data, nowadays many laboratories, never been in touch with mass spectrometry before, produce isotope data with an ICP-MS. Isotope reference materials (iCRM) are indispensable to enable a reliable method validation or in rare cases even SI-traceability. The fast development and the broad availability of ICP-MS also lead to an expansion of the classical research areas and new elements are under investigation. Irrespective of the investigated element or the knowledge of the user all isotope ratio applications require reference materials either for correction of instrumental isotope fractionation, for method validation or to provide a common accepted basis as needed for delta measurements. This presentation will outline the basic principles and illustrate the urgent need for new iCRMs. Consequently, the production and certification of iCRMs will be discussed and illustrated by examples of already completed certification projects. Finally, plans for future iCRMs to be produced at BAM will be presented.
The present Table of Standard Atomic Weights (TSAW) of the elements is perhaps one of the most familiar data sets in science. Unlike most parameters in physical science whose values and uncertainties are evaluated using the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” (GUM), the majority of standard atomic weight values and their uncertainties are consensus values, not GUM-evaluated values. The Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) regularly evaluates the literature for new isotopic-abundance measurements that can lead to revised standard atomic-weight values, Ar(E) for element E.
The Commission strives to provide utmost clarity in products it disseminates, namely the TSAW and the Table of Isotopic Compositions of the Elements (TICE). In 2016, the Commission recognized that a guideline recommending the expression of uncertainty listed in parentheses following the standard atomic-weight value, for example, Ar(Se) = 78.971(8), did not agree with the GUM, which suggests that this parenthetic notation be reserved to express standard uncertainty, not the expanded uncertainty used in the TSAW and TICE. In 2017, to eliminate this noncompliance with the GUM, a new format was adopted in which the uncertainty value is specified by the “±” symbol, for example, Ar(Se) = 78.971 ± 0.008. To clarify the definition of uncertainty, a new footnote has been added to the TSAW. This footnote emphasizes that an atomic-weight uncertainty is a consensus (decisional) uncertainty. Not only has the Commission shielded users of the TSAW and TICE from unreliable measurements that appear in the literature as a result of unduly small uncertainties, but the aim of IUPAC has been fulfilled by which any scientist, taking any natural sample from commerce or research, can expect the sample atomic weight to lie within Ar(E) ± its uncertainty almost all of the time.