Cited by 57Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsGeological and Geochemical Analysis

Optimizing the Use of Carbonate Standards to Minimize Uncertainties in Clumped Isotope Data

Open access
Kocken, Ilja J., Müller, Inigo A., Ziegler, Martin·2019·Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

Abstract

Clumped isotopes provide a theory‐based proxy to reconstruct formation temperatures of carbonates. With the introduction of the empirical transfer function (ETF) and several carbonate standards, interlaboratory comparison has become achievable. Due to the rare occurrence of the multiply substituted isotopologues, the analytical precision of these measurements is very low. In order to improve precision, we investigate the optimal strategy for the conversion into the absolute reference frame using a simulation approach. We find that changing the relative proportions of the standards to include more standards that are closer to the unknown target Δ 47 value can greatly improve attainable precision. The inclusion of a hypothetical 4 °C standard results in only modest improvements in final temperature estimates for Earth surface temperature (0 and 40 °C) samples, indicating that the set of ETH‐1–3 standards is suitable for most applications. Full interpolation between two subsequent hypothetical standards, with Δ 47 values of CO 2 equilibrated at 1000 and 25 °C, results in modest improvements for samples with extreme Δ 47 values. With a more optimal distribution of standards it is possible to measure more sample replicates before the uncertainty derived from the ETF becomes limiting. We provide suggestions for the optimal distribution of standards for all target sample Δ 47 values and the R code to perform these simulations based on different laboratory settings. These optimizations can also be applied for ETFs using heated and equilibrated gases. We demonstrate numerically how optimizing the distribution and relative abundance of standards can increase measurement precision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2019gc008545

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kocken, I. J., Müller, I. A., & Ziegler, M.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Kocken, Ilja J.
Venue
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
Published
2019-11
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
5565-5577
ISSN
1525-2027 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2980676598
Cited by
57
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.161.365)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
Keywords
clumped isotopes, empirical transfer functions, Δ47, formation temperature, measurement precision, interlaboratory comparison, Earth surface temperature

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