Evaluation of the effects of composition on instrumental mass fractionation during SIMS oxygen isotope analyses of glasses

Hartley, Margaret E.; Thordarson, T.; Taylor, Christopher; Fitton, J. Godfrey; Eimf,

doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2012.10.027

Cited by 38 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Lyon et al 72 observed an effect of the crystallographic orientation of a sample relative to the secondary ion beam focused on the sample on isotope fractionation. This effect was shown to be significant for magnetite and hematite but not for other samples such as quartz or olivine.…”

Section: Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation In Simsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation

Irrgeher

Prohaska

2014

Sector Field Mass Spectrometry for Elemental and Isotopic Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In mass spectrometry, the term ‘instrumental isotopic fractionation’ is recommended to describe the sum of the effects in a mass spectrometer occurring during sample introduction, ion formation, ion extraction, ion separation and ion detection leading to a difference of the measured isotope ratio from the true isotope ratio in a sample. Instrumental isotopic fractionation (IIF) describes the instrumental fractionation between nuclides of the same element resulting in erroneous results of isotope ratios. The major aspects of IIF for the different techniques (i.e. (LA)-ICP-MS, GDMS, TIMS, SIMS and IRMS) based on magnetic sector field analysers are presented. A special focus is set on the description of the major causes of IIF, the areas of occurrence in the respective instrumentations as well as the impact of IIF on the final measurement result and the related measurement uncertainty. The described techniques differ strongly in the extent of IIF, mainly due to the different ionization sources as well as vacuum conditions.

show abstract

Section: Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation In Simsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation

Irrgeher

Prohaska

2014

Sector Field Mass Spectrometry for Elemental and Isotopic Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further characterisations of δ 18 O have been in glasses (Hartley et al . ) and in carbonates as a palaeoclimate tool considering the Mg/Fe matrix effects (Rollion‐Bard and Marin‐Carbonne ). Fitzsimons et al .…”

Section: Quantification Of Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in a recent characterisation of d 18 O in two quartz RMs, the repeatability of the SIMS measurements was reported, from which the materials were described as homogeneous but without the value for the heterogeneity explicitly quantified (Seitz et al 2016). Further characterisations of d 18 O have been in glasses (Hartley et al 2012) and in carbonates as a palaeoclimate tool considering the Mg/ Fe matrix effects (Rollion-Bard and Marin-Carbonne 2011). Fitzsimons et al (2000) presented a large data set of 3120 oxygen isotope ratio measurements in quartz and discussed their precision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Isotopic Heterogeneity of Candidate Reference Materials at the Picogram Sampling Scale

Wiedenbeck

2017

Geostandard Geoanalytic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a method for quantifying the in situ heterogeneity of solid materials at the picogram test portion scale, illustrating its use by investigating the oxygen isotope ratio (18O−/16O−) of four quartz samples. Using secondary ion mass spectrometry, we could estimate the intrinsic heterogeneity using a large number (~ 100) of closely spaced duplicated measurements. An analysis of variance was then applied to these large data sets to extract the measurement repeatability (typically 0.10–0.15‰, 1s) from the total variability, thereby revealing a variability ranging from 0.18‰ to 2.3‰, which can be attributed to the genuine isotope ratio heterogeneities. A small proportion of outlying values were either rejected manually after inspection, or were accommodated using robust statistics. We also evaluated two distinct approaches for estimating and correcting instrumental drift; the use of a sub‐area of the test material (if shown to have sufficiently low heterogeneity) is judged to be preferable to using a piece of unrelated silicate glass that we believe to be homogeneous. We also compared three approaches for estimating measurement repeatability, from which we show that the ‘duplicate method’ applied to the reference material is preferable to using other methods based either on the drift monitoring material or on assessing residuals of the drift monitoring material after drift correction. Finally, here we propose a strategy for predicting the number of measurements on individual fragments of a material that would be required to achieve a specified target uncertainty.

show abstract

“…For instance, it has been shown that (i) IMF varies linearly with the mass‐to‐charge ratio of octahedral cations (e.g. Mn, Mg, Fe, Ti) as they impact the strength of the OH and OB bond for analyses of 2 H/ 1 H in micas and amphiboles and 11 B/ 10 B in tourmaline, (ii) IMF during 18 O/ 16 O analyses in silicates depends on the SiO 2 and FeO contents, (iii) IMF during 18 O/ 16 O analyses in carbonates depends on Fe, Mg, and Mn contents, and (iv) IMF during 30 Si/ 28 Si and 44 Ca/ 40 Ca analyses in CaO–MgO–Al 2 O 3 –SiO 2 (CMAS) glasses varies linearly with optical basicity . Thus, for a given isotopic system, it is often possible to build an empirical calibration from measurements of a limited number of well‐chosen standards, and interpolate IMF values for different (but related) compositions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High‐precision in situ silicon isotopic analyses by multi‐collector secondary ion mass spectrometry in olivine and low‐calcium pyroxene

Villeneuve

Chaussidon

Marrocchi

et al. 2019

Rapid Comm Mass Spectrometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale High‐precision determination of silicon isotopes can be achieved by in situ multi‐collector secondary ion mass spectrometry (MS‐SIMS). The accuracy of the analyses is, however, sensitive to ion yields and instrumental mass fractionations (IMFs) induced by the analytical procedure. These effects vary from one instrument to another, with the analytical settings, and with the composition and nature of the sample. Because ion yields and IMF effects are not predictable and rely on empirical calibrations, high‐accuracy analyses require suitable sets of standards. Methods Here, we document calibrations of ion yields and matrix effects in a set of 23 olivine standards and 3 low‐Ca pyroxene for silicon isotopic measurements in both polarities using Cameca IMS 1270 E7 and IMS 1280 HR2 ion probes set with the cesium (Cs) or radiofrequency (RF) source. Results Silicon ion yields show (i) strong variations with the chemical composition, and (ii) an opposite behavior between the secondary positive and negative polarities. The magnitude of IMF along the fayalite‐forsterite (olivine) series shows a complex behavior, increasing overall by ≈7‰ (secondary positive) and ≈15‰ (secondary negative) with increasing olivine Mg#. A drastic change in olivine IMF occurs at Mg# ≈ 70 in both polarities. The magnitude of IMF for low‐Ca pyroxene from Mg# = 70–100 is almost constant in both polarities, i.e. ≈0.1‰ in secondary positive and ≈0.15‰ in secondary negative. The analytical uncertainties on individual analyses were ± 0.05–0.15‰ (2 S.E.) with both sources, and the external errors for each standard material were ≈ ±0.05–0.5‰ (2 S.E.) with the Cs source and ≈ ±0.03–0.15‰ (2 S.E.) with the RF source. Conclusions The IMF effect of Si isotopes in silicates shows complex behaviors that vary with the chemistry and the settings of the instrument. We developed a suitable set of standards in order to perform high‐accuracy in situ measurements of Si isotopes in olivine and low‐Ca pyroxene characterized by varying chemical compositions by MC‐SIMS.

show abstract

Evaluation of the effects of composition on instrumental mass fractionation during SIMS oxygen isotope analyses of glasses

Cited by 38 publications

References 20 publications

Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation

Instrumental Isotopic Fractionation

Quantifying Isotopic Heterogeneity of Candidate Reference Materials at the Picogram Sampling Scale

High‐precision in situ silicon isotopic analyses by multi‐collector secondary ion mass spectrometry in olivine and low‐calcium pyroxene

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About