Progress and challenges in dual‐ and triple‐isotope (δ18O, δ2H, Δ17O) analyses of environmental waters: An international assessment of laboratory performance
Rationale Stable isotope analyses of environmental waters (δ2H, δ18O) are an important assay in hydrology and environmental research with rising interest in δ17O, which requires ultra‐precise assays. We evaluated isotope analyses of six test water samples for 281 laboratory submissions measuring δ2H...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Rapid communications in mass spectrometry 2021-12, Vol.35 (24), p.e9193-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Rationale
Stable isotope analyses of environmental waters (δ2H, δ18O) are an important assay in hydrology and environmental research with rising interest in δ17O, which requires ultra‐precise assays. We evaluated isotope analyses of six test water samples for 281 laboratory submissions measuring δ2H and δ18O along with a subset analyzing δ17O and Δ17O by laser spectrometry and isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS).
Methods
Six test waters were distributed to laboratories spanning a wide δ range of natural waters for δ2H, δ18O and δ17O and Δ17O. One sample was a blind duplicate to test reproducibility and claims of analytical precision.
Results
Results showed that ca 83% of the submissions produced acceptable δ18O and δ2H results within 0.2‰ (mUr) and 1.6‰ of the benchmark values, respectively. However, 17% of the submissions gave questionable to unacceptable results. A blind duplicate revealed many laboratories reported overly optimistic precision, and many could not replicate within their claimed precision. For Δ17O, dual‐inlet results for IRMS using quantitative O2 conversion were accurate and highly precise, but the results for laser spectrometry ranged by ca 200 per meg (μUr) for each sample, with ca 70% unable to replicate the duplicate to their claimed Δ17O precision. One complicating factor is the lack of certified primary reference waters for δ17O.
Conclusions
No single factor or combination of factors was identifiable for poor or good performance, and underperformance came from issues like data normalization including inadequate memory and drift corrections, compromised working reference materials and underperforming instrumentation. We recommend isotope laboratories include high and low δ value controls of known isotope composition in each run. Progress in Δ17O analyses by laser spectrometry requires extraordinary proof of performance claims and would benefit from the development of adoptable and systematic advanced data processing procedures to correct for memory and drift. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0951-4198 1097-0231 |
DOI: | 10.1002/rcm.9193 |