The performance of single and multi-collector ICP-MS instruments for fast and reliable 34S/32S isotope ratio measurements

15Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The performance and validation characteristics of different single collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers based on different technical principles (ICP-SFMS, ICP-QMS in reaction and collision modes, and ICP-MS/MS) were evaluated in comparison to the performance of MC ICP-MS for fast and reliable S isotope ratio measurements. The validation included the determination of LOD, BEC, measurement repeatability, within-lab reproducibility and deviation from certified values as well as a study on instrumental isotopic fractionation (IIF) and the calculation of the combined standard measurement uncertainty. Different approaches of correction for IIF applying external intra-elemental IIF correction (aka standard-sample bracketing) using certified S reference materials and internal inter-elemental IIF (aka internal standardization) correction using Si isotope ratios in MC ICP-MS are explained and compared. The resulting combined standard uncertainties of examined ICP-QMS systems were not better than 0.3-0.5% (uc,rel), which is in general insufficient to differentiate natural S isotope variations. Although the performance of the single collector ICP-SFMS is better (single measurement uc,rel = 0.08%), the measurement reproducibility (>0.2%) is the major limit of this system and leaves room for improvement. MC ICP-MS operated in the edge mass resolution mode, applying bracketing for correction of IIF, provided isotope ratio values with the highest quality (relative combined measurement uncertainty: 0.02%; deviation from the certified value: <0.002%).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hanousek, O., Brunner, M., Pröfrock, D., Irrgeher, J., & Prohaska, T. (2016). The performance of single and multi-collector ICP-MS instruments for fast and reliable 34S/32S isotope ratio measurements. Analytical Methods, 8(42), 7661–7672. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ay02177h

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