Cited by 17Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesRadioactive Decay and Measurement TechniquesGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Contamination on AMS Sample Targets by Modern Carbon is Inevitable

Open access
Paul, Dipayan, Been, Henk A, Aerts-Bijma, Anita Th, Meijer, Harro A J·2016·Radiocarbon

Abstract

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements of the radiocarbon content in very old samples are often challenging and carry large relative uncertainties due to possible contaminations acquired during the preparation and storage steps. In case of such old samples, the natural surrounding levels of 14 C from gases in the atmosphere, which may well be the source of contamination among others, are 2–3 orders of magnitude higher than the samples themselves. Hence, serious efforts are taken during the preparation steps to have the samples pristine until measurements are performed. As samples often have to be temporarily stored until AMS measurements can be performed, storage conditions also become extremely crucial. Here we describe an assessment of this process of contamination in background AMS samples. Samples, both as pressed graphite (on AMS targets) and graphite powder, were stored in various storage conditions (CO 2-spiked air) to investigate the extent of contamination. The experiments clearly show that the pressed targets are more vulnerable to contamination than the unpressed graphite. Experiments conducted with enriched CO 2-spiked laboratory air also reveal that the contaminating carbon is not only limited to the target surface but also penetrates into the matrix. A combination of measurements on understanding the chemical nature of the graphitization product, combined with long-available knowledge on “adventitious carbon” from the surface science community, brought us to the conclusion that contamination is to a certain extent inevitable. However, it can be minimized, and should be dealt with by sputter-cleaning the samples individually before the actual measurement.

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.2016.9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Contamination of AMS sample targets by modern carbon is inevitable.

    “contamination on AMS sample targets by modern carbon is inevitable”
  • For samples close to background levels, it was not possible to protect them from traces of atmospheric contamination during periods of exposure to ambient conditions, even for relatively short time intervals.

    “This study determined that for samples close to background levels, it was not possible to protect these samples from traces of atmospheric contamination during the periods when they are exposed to ambient conditions, even for relatively short time intervals.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Aerts-Bijma AT, Meijer HAJ, van der Plicht J. 1997. AMS sample handling in Groningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1-4):221-5.
  2. Barr TL, Seal S. 1995. Nature of the use of adventitious carbon as a binding-energy standard. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology a-Vacuum Surfaces and Films 13(3):1239-46.
  3. Brown TA, Southon JR. 1997. Corrections for con- tamination background in AMS 14 C measure- ments. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1-4):208-13.
  4. de Rooij M, van der Plicht J, Meijer HAJ. 2010. Porous iron pellets for AMS 14 C analysis of small samples down to ultra-microscale size (10-25 μgC). Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7-8): 947-51.
  5. Kern W, Puotinen DA. 1970. Cleaning solutions based on hydrogen peroxide for use in silicon semiconductor technology. RCA Review 31(2): 187-205.
  6. Kim S-H, Kelly PB, Ortalan V, Browning ND, Clifford AJ. 2010. Quality of graphite target for biological/biomedical/environmental applications of 14 C-accelerator mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 82(6):2243-52.
  7. Kirner DL, Taylor RE, Southon JR. 1995. Reduction in backgrounds of microsamples for AMS 14 C dating. Radiocarbon 37(2):697-704.
  8. Kock A, De Bokx PK, Boellaard E, Klop W, Geus JW. 1985. The formation of filamentous carbon on iron and nickel catalysts: II. Mechanism. Journal of Catalysis 96(2):468-80.
  9. Mangolini F, McClimon JB, Rose F, Carpick RW. 2014. Accounting for nanometer-thick adventi- tious carbon contamination in X-ray absorption spectra of carbon-based materials. Analytical Chemistry 86(24):12,258-65.
  10. Miller DJ, Biesinger MC, McIntyre NS. 2002. Inter- actions of CO 2 and CO at fractional atmosphere pressures with iron and iron oxide surfaces: one possible mechanism for surface contamination? Surface and Interface Analysis 33(4):299-305.
  11. Nemec M, Wacker L, Gaggeler H. 2010. Optimiza- tion of the graphitization process at AGE-1. Radiocarbon 52(3):1380-93.
  12. Paul D, Meijer HAJ. 2015. IntraCavity OptoGalvanic Spectroscopy not suitable for ambient level radiocarbon detection. Analytical Chemistry 87(17):9025-32.
  13. Piao H, McIntyre NS. 2002. Adventitious carbon growth on aluminium and gold-aluminium alloy surfaces. Surface and Interface Analysis 33(7):591-4.
  14. Ruff M, Szidat S, Gaggeler HW, Suter M, Synal H-A, Wacker L. 2010. Gaseous radiocarbon measure- ments of small samples. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268(7-8):790-4.
  15. Santos GM, Southon JR, Griffin S, Beaupre SR, Druffel ERM. 2007. Ultra small-mass AMS 14C sample preparation and analyses at KCCAMS/ UCI Facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259(1):293-302.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paul, D., Been, H. A., Aerts-Bijma, A. T., & Meijer, H. A. J.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Meijer, Harro A J
Venue
Radiocarbon
Published
2016-02-17
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
407-418
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
OpenAlex
W2277167639
Cited by
17
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Radioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
radiocarbon contamination, graphite powder, sample storage conditions, graphitization, sputter cleaning

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