2019
DOI: 10.1080/10256016.2019.1609959
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High-precision measurements of δ2H, δ18O and δ17O in water with the aid of cavity ring-down laser spectroscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
55
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
5
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Long runs of the Andes‐2020, Mainz‐2020, MIX‐2020 and VSMOW‐2 waters – covering a range typical for most natural samples and measured on a background of Mainz Milli‐Q water – all give internal precisions below 0.05‰ for δ 18 O values and 0.17‰ for δ 2 H values. The precisions, based on single sample injections, are comparable with the precisions of pooled injection data reported for Picarro L2140‐i analyzers in standard operating mode 15,16 and generally better than for IRMS systems 8 . If we pool the data from our study per four consecutive injections to make a better comparison with data from pooled injections in standard operation mode, the 1 σ uncertainties of the long runs of the Andes‐2020, Mainz‐2020, MIX‐2020 and VSMOW‐2 waters are between 0.01‰ and 0.02‰ for δ 18 O values and 0.05‰ and 0.12‰ for δ 2 H values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Long runs of the Andes‐2020, Mainz‐2020, MIX‐2020 and VSMOW‐2 waters – covering a range typical for most natural samples and measured on a background of Mainz Milli‐Q water – all give internal precisions below 0.05‰ for δ 18 O values and 0.17‰ for δ 2 H values. The precisions, based on single sample injections, are comparable with the precisions of pooled injection data reported for Picarro L2140‐i analyzers in standard operating mode 15,16 and generally better than for IRMS systems 8 . If we pool the data from our study per four consecutive injections to make a better comparison with data from pooled injections in standard operation mode, the 1 σ uncertainties of the long runs of the Andes‐2020, Mainz‐2020, MIX‐2020 and VSMOW‐2 waters are between 0.01‰ and 0.02‰ for δ 18 O values and 0.05‰ and 0.12‰ for δ 2 H values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Analyzers and analytical schemes have improved rapidly since extensive development started about 10 years ago 13,14 . Currently, methodologies employed for the analysis of water samples using IRIS systems typically rely on repetitive analysis of samples to bring the precisions of the pooled data down to 0.04‰ for δ 18 O values and 0.1‰ for δ 2 H values 15,16 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(one sigma level), whereas δ 2 H and δ 18 O values determined using IRMS technique have overall uncertainties in the order of 1.0‰ and 0.1‰, respectively. The uncertainties of δ 2 H and δ 18 O analyses using laser spectroscopy are substantially lower: approximately 0.18‰ and 0.037‰ for δ 2 H and δ 18 O, respectively (Pierchala et al 2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Since 2017, precipitation samples are also analysed using cavity ring-down laser spectrometry. Picarro L2140-i CRDS analyser is employed for this purpose (Pierchala et al 2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…δ 18 17 O excess values (Δ 17 O) are given in per meg (10 -6 ) calculated using a regression line after Luz et al [32]. Here we considered uncertainties for d-values better than 1 ‰ and those of Δ 17 O values better than 20 per meg derived for a quality check sample measured continuously and similar to those given in [33]. High contents of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) can be problematic for laser measurements because of potential interference with the used water absorption bands.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%