2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.07.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Updated calibration of the clumped isotope thermometer in planktonic and benthic foraminifera

Abstract: Please note that this is an author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available on the publisher Web site.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

26
195
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(224 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
26
195
3
Order By: Relevance
“…We used the updated version of the Kele calibration (Δ 47 = [0.04451 ± 0.001004 × 10 6 ]/T 2 + [0.171 ± 0.01081]; Bernasconi et al, ), after recalculating the calibration set with the Brand parameters (Daëron et al, ). This calibration is fully consistent with the recent calibration developed for planktonic and benthic foraminifera of Peral et al ().…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…We used the updated version of the Kele calibration (Δ 47 = [0.04451 ± 0.001004 × 10 6 ]/T 2 + [0.171 ± 0.01081]; Bernasconi et al, ), after recalculating the calibration set with the Brand parameters (Daëron et al, ). This calibration is fully consistent with the recent calibration developed for planktonic and benthic foraminifera of Peral et al ().…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, despite the observations of Wacker et al () and the reanalysis of Defliese et al (), several workers have produced data that have shown there to be no dependence of the slope as a function of reaction temperature (Bajnai et al, ; Came et al, ; G. A. Henkes et al, ; Kelson et al, ). In addition, studies using common acid bath (Bonifacie et al, ; Peral et al, ) and the Kiel device (Breitenbach et al, ; Kele et al, ) have produced slopes similar to that produced in this study for samples reacted at 25 °C. While all these arguments suggest that the reaction temperature may not be responsible for differences in the slopes observed, this study shows that the 25 °C reaction produces a statistically steeper slope between precipitation temperature and Δ 47 values than carbonates reacted at 90 °C, similar to that predicted (Defliese et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…10.1029/2018GC008127 standards"; Bernasconi et al, 2018;Breitenbach et al, 2018;Peral et al, 2018), or a combination of the two. We choose not to include older studies that require "retroactive" conversion to the absolute reference frame using in-house standards, although they could, in principle, be converted into the absolute reference frame using a secondary transfer function.…”
Section: Data Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, background/pressure baseline correction and data reduction methods should be further investigated. While moving to a carbonate standard-based correction scheme would not necessarily reveal which of these slight differences in method is causing the remaining minor disagreements, their use has the promising potential to remove persistent interlab biases in both calibration and acid digestion fractionation data (Bernasconi et al, 2018;Peral et al, 2018).…”
Section: 1029/2018gc008127mentioning
confidence: 99%