CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Compatibility of Atmospheric 14CO2 Measurements: Comparing the Heidelberg Low-Level Counting Facility to International Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratories

Open access
Hammer, Samuel, Friedrich, Ronny, Kromer, Bernd, Cherkinsky, Alexander, Lehman, Scott J, Meijer, Harro A J, Nakamura, Toshio, Palonen, Vesa +6 more·2017·Radiocarbon
DOI 10.1017/rdc.2016.62
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Combining atmospheric Δ14CO2 data sets from different networks or laboratories requires secure knowledge on their compatibility. In the present study, we compare Δ14CO2 results from the Heidelberg low-level counting (LLC) laboratory to 12 international accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) laboratories using distributed aliquots of five pure CO2 samples. The averaged result of the LLC laboratory has a measurement bias of –0.3±0.5‰ with respect to the consensus value of the AMS laboratories for the investigated atmospheric Δ14C range of 9.6 to 40.4‰. Thus, the LLC measurements on average are not significantly different from the AMS laboratories, and the most likely measurement bias is smaller than the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) interlaboratory compatibility goal for Δ14CO2 of 0.5‰. The number of intercomparison samples was, however, too small to determine whether the measurement biases of the individual AMS laboratories fulfilled the WMO goal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/rdc.2016.62

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In most work to date, no general pattern of offsets between AMS 14C measurements and LLGPC 14C measurements at Hd is apparent.

    “In most work to date, no general pattern of offsets between AMS 14C measurements and LLGPC 14C measurements at Hd is apparent (19, 43–45)”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Results and Conclusions (page not provided) report no significant average offset between Heidelberg low-level counting and the AMS consensus in this study. The paper compared five samples and cautions that they were too few to assess individual laboratories, so it does not establish the claim’s broader characterization of ‘most work to date.’ (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Francey RJ, Trudinger CM, van der Schoot M, Law RM, Krummel PB, Langenfelds RL, Steele LP, Allison C, Stavert A, Andres R, Rodenbeck C. 2013. Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO 2 emission trends. Nature Climate Change 3(5): 520-4.
  2. Gelencsér A, May B, Simpson D, Sánchez-Ochoa A, Kasper-Giebl A, Puxbaum H, Caseiro A, Pio C, Legrand M. 2007. Source apportionment of PM2.5 organic aerosol over Europe: primary/ secondary, natural/anthropogenic, and fossil/ biogenic origin. Journal of Geophysical Research 112:D23S04.
  3. Graven HD, Guilderson TP, Keeling RF. 2012. Observations of radiocarbon in CO 2 at seven global sampling sites in the Scripps flask network: analysis of spatial gradients and seasonal cycles. Journal of Geophysical Research 117:D02303.
  4. Graven H, Xu X, Guilderson TP, Keeling RF, Trumbore SE, Tyler S. 2013. Comparison of independent delta 14 CO 2 records at Point Barrow, Alaska. Radiocarbon 55(2-3):1541-5.
  5. Kromer B, Münnich KO. 1992. CO 2 gas proportional counting in radiocarbon dating-review and perspective. In: Taylor RE, Long A, Kra S, editors. Radiocarbon after Four Decades. New York: Springer. p 184-97.
  6. Levin I, Kromer B. 2004. The tropospheric 14 CO 2 level in mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (1959-2003). Radiocarbon 46(3): 1261-72.
  7. Levin I, Münnich KO, Weiss W. 1980. The effect of anthropogenic CO 2 and 14 C sources on the dis- tribution of 14 CO 2 in the atmosphere. Radio- carbon 22(2):379-91.
  8. Lindahl BD, Ihrmark K, Boberg J, Trumbore SE, Högberg P, Stenlid J, Finlay RD. 2007. Spatial separation of litter decomposition and mycor- rhizal nitrogen uptake in a boreal forest. New Phytologist 173(3):611-20.
  9. Miller J, Lehman S, Wolak C, Turnbull J, Dunn G, Graven H, Keeling R, Meijer H, Aerts-Bijma A, Palstra S, Smith A, Allison C, Southon J, Xu X, Nakazawa T, Aoki S, Nakamura T, Guilderson T, LaFranchi B, Mukai H, Terao Y, Uchida M, Kondo M. 2013. Initial results of an inter- comparison of AMS-based atmospheric 14 CO 2 measurements. Radiocarbon 55(2-3):1475-83.
  10. Naegler T, Ciais P, Rodgers KB, Levin I. 2006. Excess radiocarbon constraints on air-sea gas exchange and the uptake of CO 2 by the oceans. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L11802.
  11. Nydal R, Lövseth K. 1983. Tracing bomb 14 C in the atmosphere 1962-1980. Journal of Geophysical Research 88(C6):3621-42.
  12. Rozanski K, Stichler W, Gonfiantini R, Scott EM, Beukens RP, Kromer B, van der Plicht J. 1992. The IAEA 14 C Intercomparison Exercise 1990. Radiocarbon 34(3):506-19.
  13. Santos GM, De La Torre HAM, Boudin M, Bonafini M, Saverwyns S. 2015. Improved radiocarbon analyses of modern human hair to determine the year-of-death by cross-flow nanofiltered amino acids: common contaminants, implications for isotopic analysis, and recommendations. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 29(19): 1765-73.
  14. Scott E, Cook G, Naysmith P, Bryant C, O'Donnell D. 2007. A report on Phase 1 of the 5th International 882 S Hammer et al. https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.62 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, on 03 Aug 2018 at 09:49:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radio- carbon 49(2):409-26.
  15. Spalding KL, Bergmann O, Alkass K, Bernard S, Salehpour M, Huttner HB, Possnert G. 2013. Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans. Cell 153(6):1219-27.
  16. Stuiver M, Polach H. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14 C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355-63.
  17. Trumbore SE. 1993. Comparison of carbon dynamics in tropical and temperate soils using radiocarbon measurements. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7(2):275-90.
  18. Turnbull JC, Lehman SJ, Miller JB, Sparks RJ, Southon JR, Tans PP. 2007. A new high precision 14 CO 2 time series for North American continental air. Journal of Geophysical Research 112:D11310.
  19. Turnbull J, Rayner P, Miller J, Naegler T, Ciais P, Cozic A. 2009. On the use of 14 CO 2 as a tracer for fossil fuel CO 2 : quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model. Journal of Geophy- sical Research 114:D22302.
  20. WMO-GAW (World Meteorological Organization- Global Atmosphere Watch). 2013. 17th WMO/ IAEA Meeting of Experts on Carbon Dioxide, Other Greenhouse Gases, and Related Tracer Measurement Techniques. Volume 213, Global Atmosphere Watch. Beijing, China, 10-14 June 2013. Compatibility of Atmospheric 14 CO 2 measurements: LLC and AMS 883 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.62 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, on 03 Aug 2018 at 09:49:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hammer, S., Friedrich, R., Kromer, B., Cherkinsky, A., Lehman, S. J., Meijer, H. A. J., Nakamura, T., Palonen, V., Reimer, R. W., Smith, A. M., Southon, J. R., Szidat, S., Turnbull, J., & Uchida, M.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Curt Engelhorn Centre Archaeometry (DE)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Nagoya University (JP)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • GNS Science (NZ)
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
Corresponding author
Hammer, Samuel
ORCID
Venue
Radiocarbon
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2016-09-19
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
875-883
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
DOI
10.1017/rdc.2016.62
OpenAlex
W2751560402
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Institutional Repository (The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Helsingin Yliopisto
  • Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
  • University of Bern
  • Universität Heidelberg
  • Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
  • University of California, Irvine
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
atmospheric CO2, interlaboratory comparison, low-level counting, accelerator mass spectrometry, measurement bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review