An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores
We undertook an interlaboratory comparison of techniques used to extract and analyze trapped gases in ice cores. The intercomparison included analyses of standard reference gases and samples of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) site. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, the δ;18O of O2, the...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC Washington, DC, 1997-11, Vol.102 (C12), p.26527-26538 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 26538 |
---|---|
container_issue | C12 |
container_start_page | 26527 |
container_title | Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC |
container_volume | 102 |
creator | Sowers, Todd Brook, Ed Etheridge, David Blunier, Thomas Fuchs, Andreas Leuenberger, Markus Chappellaz, Jerome Barnola, Jean Marc Wahlen, Martin Deck, Bruce Weyhenmeyer, Connie |
description | We undertook an interlaboratory comparison of techniques used to extract and analyze trapped gases in ice cores. The intercomparison included analyses of standard reference gases and samples of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) site. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, the δ;18O of O2, the δ15N of N2, and the O2/N2, and Ar/N2 ratios were measured in air standards and ice core samples. The standard reference scales for CO2 and CH4 were consistent at the ±2% level. The δO2/N2 and δ18O of O2 measurements showed substantial deviations between the two laboratories able to measure these ratios. The deviations are probably related to errors associated with calibration of the working standards. The δArN2 and δ15N of N2 measurements were consistent. Five laboratories analyzed the CH4 concentration in a 4.2‐m section of the GISP2 ice core. The average of 20 discrete CH4 measurements was 748±10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The standard deviation of these measurements was close to the total analytical uncertainty associated with the measurements. In all cases, those laboratories employing a dry extraction technique determined higher CH4 values than laboratories using a wet extraction technique. The origin of this difference is unclear but may involve uncertainties associated with blank corrections. Analyses of the CO2 concentration of trapped gases showed extreme variations which cannot be explained by analytical uncertainties alone. Three laboratories measured the [CO2] on 21 discrete depths yielding an average value of 283±13 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In this case, the standard deviation was roughly a factor of 2 greater than the analytical uncertainties. We believe the variability in the measured [CO2] results from impurities in the ice which may have compromised the [CO2] of trapped gases in Greenland ice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/97JC00633 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1919965006</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1919965006</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4588-400e298b24b22d51f525e69e0a813003c650411a2cd251152b0a5239be0de2c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9P3DAQxS1UJFaUA98gpwoO6Y7Hcf4cUUSXLqio1aL2ZjnOhBqycWoHdbefHq8WcYNasqyxfu_N6A1jpxw-c8BqXhXLGiAX4oDNkMs8RQT8wGbAszIFxOKInYTwAPFkMs-Az5i5GBI7TOR73TivJ-e3iXHrUXsb3JC4LpnI_B7snycKSed8QpvJazPZ4T7RQxuv7rf_dlX8Hkdqk3sdImqjraFo5Sl8ZIed7gOdvLzH7O7L5aq-Sm9uF1_ri5tUZ7Is0wyAsCobzBrEVvJOoqS8ItAlFwDC5BIyzjWaFiXnEhvQEkXVELSEJhfH7GzvO3q3m3dSaxsM9b0eyD0FxSteVdEEduin99HYsoiZ_h-Macfpswie70HjXQieOjV6u9Z-qzio3XbU63YiO9-zf21P27dBtVz8qAvAMirSvcKGiTavCu0fVV6IQqqf3xaquK6_i5X8pZbiGTqanY0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16334584</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sowers, Todd ; Brook, Ed ; Etheridge, David ; Blunier, Thomas ; Fuchs, Andreas ; Leuenberger, Markus ; Chappellaz, Jerome ; Barnola, Jean Marc ; Wahlen, Martin ; Deck, Bruce ; Weyhenmeyer, Connie</creator><creatorcontrib>Sowers, Todd ; Brook, Ed ; Etheridge, David ; Blunier, Thomas ; Fuchs, Andreas ; Leuenberger, Markus ; Chappellaz, Jerome ; Barnola, Jean Marc ; Wahlen, Martin ; Deck, Bruce ; Weyhenmeyer, Connie</creatorcontrib><description>We undertook an interlaboratory comparison of techniques used to extract and analyze trapped gases in ice cores. The intercomparison included analyses of standard reference gases and samples of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) site. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, the δ;18O of O2, the δ15N of N2, and the O2/N2, and Ar/N2 ratios were measured in air standards and ice core samples. The standard reference scales for CO2 and CH4 were consistent at the ±2% level. The δO2/N2 and δ18O of O2 measurements showed substantial deviations between the two laboratories able to measure these ratios. The deviations are probably related to errors associated with calibration of the working standards. The δArN2 and δ15N of N2 measurements were consistent. Five laboratories analyzed the CH4 concentration in a 4.2‐m section of the GISP2 ice core. The average of 20 discrete CH4 measurements was 748±10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The standard deviation of these measurements was close to the total analytical uncertainty associated with the measurements. In all cases, those laboratories employing a dry extraction technique determined higher CH4 values than laboratories using a wet extraction technique. The origin of this difference is unclear but may involve uncertainties associated with blank corrections. Analyses of the CO2 concentration of trapped gases showed extreme variations which cannot be explained by analytical uncertainties alone. Three laboratories measured the [CO2] on 21 discrete depths yielding an average value of 283±13 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In this case, the standard deviation was roughly a factor of 2 greater than the analytical uncertainties. We believe the variability in the measured [CO2] results from impurities in the ice which may have compromised the [CO2] of trapped gases in Greenland ice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-0227</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9275</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2156-2202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9291</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/97JC00633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Marine</subject><ispartof>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC, 1997-11, Vol.102 (C12), p.26527-26538</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1997 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4588-400e298b24b22d51f525e69e0a813003c650411a2cd251152b0a5239be0de2c63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4588-400e298b24b22d51f525e69e0a813003c650411a2cd251152b0a5239be0de2c63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F97JC00633$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F97JC00633$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46443,46808,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sowers, Todd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brook, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Etheridge, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blunier, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leuenberger, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chappellaz, Jerome</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnola, Jean Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wahlen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deck, Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weyhenmeyer, Connie</creatorcontrib><title>An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores</title><title>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</title><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><description>We undertook an interlaboratory comparison of techniques used to extract and analyze trapped gases in ice cores. The intercomparison included analyses of standard reference gases and samples of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) site. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, the δ;18O of O2, the δ15N of N2, and the O2/N2, and Ar/N2 ratios were measured in air standards and ice core samples. The standard reference scales for CO2 and CH4 were consistent at the ±2% level. The δO2/N2 and δ18O of O2 measurements showed substantial deviations between the two laboratories able to measure these ratios. The deviations are probably related to errors associated with calibration of the working standards. The δArN2 and δ15N of N2 measurements were consistent. Five laboratories analyzed the CH4 concentration in a 4.2‐m section of the GISP2 ice core. The average of 20 discrete CH4 measurements was 748±10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The standard deviation of these measurements was close to the total analytical uncertainty associated with the measurements. In all cases, those laboratories employing a dry extraction technique determined higher CH4 values than laboratories using a wet extraction technique. The origin of this difference is unclear but may involve uncertainties associated with blank corrections. Analyses of the CO2 concentration of trapped gases showed extreme variations which cannot be explained by analytical uncertainties alone. Three laboratories measured the [CO2] on 21 discrete depths yielding an average value of 283±13 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In this case, the standard deviation was roughly a factor of 2 greater than the analytical uncertainties. We believe the variability in the measured [CO2] results from impurities in the ice which may have compromised the [CO2] of trapped gases in Greenland ice.</description><subject>Marine</subject><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9275</issn><issn>2156-2202</issn><issn>2169-9291</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU9P3DAQxS1UJFaUA98gpwoO6Y7Hcf4cUUSXLqio1aL2ZjnOhBqycWoHdbefHq8WcYNasqyxfu_N6A1jpxw-c8BqXhXLGiAX4oDNkMs8RQT8wGbAszIFxOKInYTwAPFkMs-Az5i5GBI7TOR73TivJ-e3iXHrUXsb3JC4LpnI_B7snycKSed8QpvJazPZ4T7RQxuv7rf_dlX8Hkdqk3sdImqjraFo5Sl8ZIed7gOdvLzH7O7L5aq-Sm9uF1_ri5tUZ7Is0wyAsCobzBrEVvJOoqS8ItAlFwDC5BIyzjWaFiXnEhvQEkXVELSEJhfH7GzvO3q3m3dSaxsM9b0eyD0FxSteVdEEduin99HYsoiZ_h-Macfpswie70HjXQieOjV6u9Z-qzio3XbU63YiO9-zf21P27dBtVz8qAvAMirSvcKGiTavCu0fVV6IQqqf3xaquK6_i5X8pZbiGTqanY0</recordid><startdate>19971130</startdate><enddate>19971130</enddate><creator>Sowers, Todd</creator><creator>Brook, Ed</creator><creator>Etheridge, David</creator><creator>Blunier, Thomas</creator><creator>Fuchs, Andreas</creator><creator>Leuenberger, Markus</creator><creator>Chappellaz, Jerome</creator><creator>Barnola, Jean Marc</creator><creator>Wahlen, Martin</creator><creator>Deck, Bruce</creator><creator>Weyhenmeyer, Connie</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>KL.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19971130</creationdate><title>An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores</title><author>Sowers, Todd ; Brook, Ed ; Etheridge, David ; Blunier, Thomas ; Fuchs, Andreas ; Leuenberger, Markus ; Chappellaz, Jerome ; Barnola, Jean Marc ; Wahlen, Martin ; Deck, Bruce ; Weyhenmeyer, Connie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4588-400e298b24b22d51f525e69e0a813003c650411a2cd251152b0a5239be0de2c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Marine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sowers, Todd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brook, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Etheridge, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blunier, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchs, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leuenberger, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chappellaz, Jerome</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnola, Jean Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wahlen, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deck, Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weyhenmeyer, Connie</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sowers, Todd</au><au>Brook, Ed</au><au>Etheridge, David</au><au>Blunier, Thomas</au><au>Fuchs, Andreas</au><au>Leuenberger, Markus</au><au>Chappellaz, Jerome</au><au>Barnola, Jean Marc</au><au>Wahlen, Martin</au><au>Deck, Bruce</au><au>Weyhenmeyer, Connie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</jtitle><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><date>1997-11-30</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>C12</issue><spage>26527</spage><epage>26538</epage><pages>26527-26538</pages><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9275</issn><eissn>2156-2202</eissn><eissn>2169-9291</eissn><abstract>We undertook an interlaboratory comparison of techniques used to extract and analyze trapped gases in ice cores. The intercomparison included analyses of standard reference gases and samples of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) site. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, the δ;18O of O2, the δ15N of N2, and the O2/N2, and Ar/N2 ratios were measured in air standards and ice core samples. The standard reference scales for CO2 and CH4 were consistent at the ±2% level. The δO2/N2 and δ18O of O2 measurements showed substantial deviations between the two laboratories able to measure these ratios. The deviations are probably related to errors associated with calibration of the working standards. The δArN2 and δ15N of N2 measurements were consistent. Five laboratories analyzed the CH4 concentration in a 4.2‐m section of the GISP2 ice core. The average of 20 discrete CH4 measurements was 748±10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The standard deviation of these measurements was close to the total analytical uncertainty associated with the measurements. In all cases, those laboratories employing a dry extraction technique determined higher CH4 values than laboratories using a wet extraction technique. The origin of this difference is unclear but may involve uncertainties associated with blank corrections. Analyses of the CO2 concentration of trapped gases showed extreme variations which cannot be explained by analytical uncertainties alone. Three laboratories measured the [CO2] on 21 discrete depths yielding an average value of 283±13 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In this case, the standard deviation was roughly a factor of 2 greater than the analytical uncertainties. We believe the variability in the measured [CO2] results from impurities in the ice which may have compromised the [CO2] of trapped gases in Greenland ice.</abstract><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/97JC00633</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0148-0227 |
ispartof | Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC, 1997-11, Vol.102 (C12), p.26527-26538 |
issn | 0148-0227 2169-9275 2156-2202 2169-9291 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1919965006 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Free Content; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Marine |
title | An interlaboratory comparison of techniques for extracting and analyzing trapped gases in ice cores |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T15%3A21%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20interlaboratory%20comparison%20of%20techniques%20for%20extracting%20and%20analyzing%20trapped%20gases%20in%20ice%20cores&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Geophysical%20Research,%20Washington,%20DC&rft.au=Sowers,%20Todd&rft.date=1997-11-30&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=C12&rft.spage=26527&rft.epage=26538&rft.pages=26527-26538&rft.issn=0148-0227&rft.eissn=2156-2202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/97JC00633&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1919965006%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16334584&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |