2016
DOI: 10.1002/2016gc006422
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated cleaning of foraminifera shells before Mg/Ca analysis using a pipette robot

Abstract: The molar ratio of magnesium to calcium (Mg/Ca) in foraminiferal calcite is a widely used proxy for reconstructing past seawater temperatures. Thorough cleaning of tests is required before analysis to remove contaminant phases such as clay and organic matter. We have adapted a commercial pipette robot to automate an established cleaning procedure, the “Mg‐cleaning” protocol of Barker et al. (2003). Efficiency of the automated nine‐step method was assessed through monitoring Al/Ca of trial samples (GeoB4420‐2 c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The relative standard deviation (RSD 1-sigma) was around 0.8%. Additional quality control for potential contamination was done through molar ratios of Fe, Mn, Al, and Ca (mmol/ mol) following Johnstone et al (2016) and Lear et al (2015). Overall, our results showed values below suggested thresholds (0.2 mmol/mol for Fe/Ca, 0.3 mmol/mol for Al/Ca, 0.1 mmol/mol for Mn/Ca) except one sample which is excluded from the results.…”
Section: Globigerinoides Ruber δ 18 O and Mg/ca Analysis Of Core Pasom3mentioning
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The relative standard deviation (RSD 1-sigma) was around 0.8%. Additional quality control for potential contamination was done through molar ratios of Fe, Mn, Al, and Ca (mmol/ mol) following Johnstone et al (2016) and Lear et al (2015). Overall, our results showed values below suggested thresholds (0.2 mmol/mol for Fe/Ca, 0.3 mmol/mol for Al/Ca, 0.1 mmol/mol for Mn/Ca) except one sample which is excluded from the results.…”
Section: Globigerinoides Ruber δ 18 O and Mg/ca Analysis Of Core Pasom3mentioning
confidence: 68%
“…Additional quality control for potential contamination was done through molar ratios of Fe, Mn, Al, and Ca (mmol/mol) following Johnstone et al. (2016) and Lear et al. (2015).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample recovery, where measured (n ¼ 105), was on average of 24% (1σ ¼ 14%). This is less than for samples containing multiple tests, where recovery is around 50% (Johnstone et al, 2016), and can probably be at least partly explained by there being a fixed loss due to surface tension. There was moderate correlation between initial test mass and sample recovery (r ¼ 0.45, p < 0.001, n ¼ 97) (Figure 2a).…”
Section: Quality Control Of Automated Cleaningmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Here single tests are cleaned according to conventional cleaning protocols which involve rinsing and ultrasonication of samples (Marchitto, 2006). We use an automated method of cleaning foraminifera samples (Johnstone et al, 2016), which is designed to carry out the cleaning protocol of Barker et al (2003), with modifications to optimize the method for small samples.…”
Section: Assessment Of Automated Cleaning Of Single Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation