Characterisation of Conventional 87Sr/86Sr Isotope Ratios in Cement, Limestone and Slate Reference Materials Based on an Interlaboratory Comparison Study

6Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

An interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was organised to characterise 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in geological and industrial reference materials by applying the so-called conventional method for determining 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios. Four cements (VDZ 100a, VDZ 200a, VDZ 300a, IAG OPC-1), one limestone (IAG CGL ML-3) and one slate (IAG OU-6) reference materials were selected, covering a wide range of naturally occurring Sr isotopic signatures. Thirteen laboratories received aliquots of these six reference materials together with a detailed technical protocol. The consensus values for the six reference materials and their associated measurement uncertainties were obtained by applying a Gaussian, linear mixed effects model fitted to all the measurement results. By combining the consensus values and their uncertainties with an uncertainty contribution for potential heterogeneity, reference values ranging from 0.708134 mol mol-1 to 0.729778 mol mol-1 were obtained with relative expanded uncertainties of ≤ 0.007 %. This study represents an ILC on conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios, within which metrological principles were considered and the compatibility of measurement results obtained by MC-ICP-MS and by MC-TIMS is demonstrated. The materials characterised in this study can be used as reference materials for validation and quality control purposes and to estimate measurement uncertainties in conventional 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio measurement.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kazlagić, A., Rosner, M., Cipriani, A., Frick, D. A., Glodny, J., Hoffmann, E. J., … Vogl, J. (2023). Characterisation of Conventional 87Sr/86Sr Isotope Ratios in Cement, Limestone and Slate Reference Materials Based on an Interlaboratory Comparison Study. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 47(4), 821–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggr.12517

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free