The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments
Open accessAbstract
The Rock-Eval 6 apparatus is the latest version of the Rock-Eval product line, commercialized since 1996 by Vinci Technologies. The present work describes the methodology developed at IFP for reliable data acquisition and endorses the quality of geochemical parameters acquired with Rock-Eval 6. Data were obtained on 147 source rocks from various sedimentary basins, of different organic matter types and maturity stages. Intrinsic correlations for two different Rock-Eval 6 apparatus were performed and the obtained data set shows an excellent consistency and good reproducibility conditions for the whole set of Rock-Eval parameters. Complete recovery of total carbon (TC) by Rock-Eval 6 was confirmed by comparison with elemental analysis. In order to check the carbon partition (mineral vs. organic) determined by Rock-Eval 6, measurements of mineral carbon (MinC) and total organic carbon (TOC) were performed by alternative techniques. TOC measured by Rock-Eval 6 was compared to that obtained either by: the Leco apparatus for bulk rocks; elemental analysis for kerogens; and calculation from the mass balance determined after destruction of mineral matrix and the carbon concentration determined by elemental analysis on recovered kerogens for bulk rocks. The results display a good correlation for the whole concentration range (0-90 wt% TOC), when comparing elemental analyses and Rock-Eval 6 for source rocks and kerogens. However, comparison of Rock-Eval 6 with Leco data leads to larger deviations while correlation factors are still good. For a subset of kerogen samples, preparative pyrolysis was performed in order to confirm the value of 83 wt% for the organic carbon of the total S2 peak for any rock with any organic type and to check the absolute value of the S2 peak by gas chromatography analysis of pyrolysis by-product. MinC measured with Rock-Eval 6 was compared to that determined by: weight loss after HCl treatment; the acidimetry technique; and calculation after TC, mass balance from kerogen isolation and organic carbon measurement on kerogen by elemental analysis. The results display a good correlation for the whole concentration range (0-12 wt% MinC), when comparing elemental analyses and Rock-Eval 6. However, comparison of Rock-Eval 6 with acidimetry data leads to larger deviations while correlation factors are still good while comparison with weight loss is poor. As a whole an excellent reliability of TOC and MinC obtained by Rock-Eval 6 was demonstrated, and consequently, it is now possible to get at once the total organic and mineral carbon mass balance for a given rock. Recommendations are proposed regarding the standard samples and analytical methods selected for calibrating the Rock-Eval 6 over a large mineral and organic carbon range. Consistency between S2 and Tmax measured by Rock-Eval 2 and Rock-Eval 6 for Types I and II bulk rocks was also checked. A good correlation was obtained for S2, even though S2 values are slightlyhigher when measured with Rock-Eval 2. It was demonstrated that this is due to carrier gas (nitrogen vs. helium) by running measurements with a Rock-Eval 6 under helium, the difference ranging from 5 to 10 relative wt% for most studied samples. For Tmax correlation, data are much more scattered and as a general trend Tmax obtained by Rock-Eval 6 are higher than Tmax obtained by Rock-Eval 2 and the difference increases with Tmax: this is due to the fact that the probe measuring the temperature in the Rock-Eval 2 is located in the oven wall, consequently Tmax determination is highly dependent on the setup and calibration of the apparatus. A special attention was given for temperature measurement in the Rock-Eval 6, where the probe is in contact with the crucible containing the sample, leading to much more reliable data.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rock-Eval 6 Applications in Hydrocarbon Exploration, Production, and Soil Contamination Studies
Lafargue, E., Marquis, F., & Pillot, D. (1998) · Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole · doi:10.2516/ogst:1998036 · Cited by 1,163
La pyrolyse Rock-Eval et ses applications. III
Espitalié, J., Deroo, G., & Marquis, F. (1985) · Revue de l Institut Français du Pétrole · Cited by 598
Cited by
Kerogen origin, evolution and structure
Vandenbroucke, M., & Largeau, C. (2007) · Organic Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2007.01.001 · Cited by 1,294
Daval, D., Sissmann, O., Menguy, N., Saldi, G. D., Guyot, F., Martinez, I., Corvisier, J., Garcia, B., Machouk, I., Knauss, K. G., et al. (2011) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.02.021 · Cited by 338
Topsoil organic matter build‐up in glacier forelands around the world
Khedim, N., Cécillon, L., Poulenard, J., Barré, P., Baudin, F., Marta, S., Rabatel, A., Dentant, C., Cauvy‐Fraunié, S., Anthelme, F., et al. (2021) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15496 · Cited by 106
Fantasia, A., Adatte, T., Spangenberg, J. E., Font, E., Duarte, L. V., & Föllmi, K. B. (2019) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102932 · Cited by 111
Environmental factors controlling soil organic carbon stability in French forest soils
Soucémarianadin, L. N., Cécillon, L., Guenet, B., Chenu, C., Baudin, F., Nicolas, M., Girardin, C., & Barré, P. (2018) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-018-3613-x · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Behar, F., Beaumont, V., & De B. Penteado, H. L.
- Venue
- Oil & Gas Science and Technology
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 111-134
- ISSN
- 1294-4475 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119855749
- Cited by
- 1,361
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2516/ogst:2001013
- The paper
- Behar, F., Beaumont, V., & De B. Penteado, H. L. (2001). Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments. Oil & Gas Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst%3A2001013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.