Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T14:48:55.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ROUTINE QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE SUERC RADIOCARBON LABORATORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2023

B G Tripney Open the ORCID record for B G Tripney [Opens in a new window] ,
E Dunbar Open the ORCID record for E Dunbar [Opens in a new window] ,
E M Scott Open the ORCID record for E M Scott [Opens in a new window]  and
P Naysmith
B G Tripney*
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G75 0QF, Scotland, UK
E Dunbar
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G75 0QF, Scotland, UK
E M Scott
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK
P Naysmith
Affiliation:
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G75 0QF, Scotland, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: Brian.Tripney@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The SUERC Radiocarbon Laboratory reports approximately 3000 unknown samples per year with an additional 1200 samples processed for quality assurance purposes. In addition to the primary OxII standard (SRM-4990C) required for AMS batch normalization, secondary “known-age” standards have been used over many years to evaluate individual batch quality. These have included wood (as prepared alpha-cellulose), barley mash, humic acid, a background mammoth bone, known-age bones, and a whisky sample. In this paper, we present some of the results gathered over routine laboratory operation (for more than 10 years) and examine the results illustrating how they are being used to monitor and quality assure performance. Since many of these samples have also been used in the Glasgow intercomparisons, we will also reflect on the results, as well as the actual and potential uses of such samples.

Keywords

intercomparisonquality assurancestandards
Type
Conference Paper
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 66 , Issue 5: 24th Radiocarbon and 10th 14C & Archaeology, Zurich, Sept. 11–16, 2022 Proceedings Part 1 of 2 , October 2024 , pp. 1395 - 1405
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Arizona

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 24th Radiocarbon and 10th Radiocarbon & Archaeology International Conferences, Zurich, Switzerland, 11–16 Sept. 2022

References

REFERENCES

Brown, TA, Southon, JR. 1997. Corrections for contamination background in AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4):208–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, GT, Higham, TFG, Naysmith, P, Brock, F, Freeman, SPHT, Bayliss, A. 2012. Assessment of infinite-age bones from the Upper Thames Valley, UK, as 14C background standards. Radiocarbon 54(3–4):845–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, GT, Dunbar, E, Tripney, BG, Fabel, D. 2020. Using carbon isotopes to fight the rise in fraudulent whisky. Radiocarbon 62(1):51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, E, Cook, GT, Murdoch, I, Xu, S, Fabel, D. 2018. Identification of fraudulent-age whiskies using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon (14C) analyses. In: Proceedings of the Worldwide Distilled Spirits Conference 2017. Context, Packington. ISBN 9781899043781.Google Scholar
Dunbar, E, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P, Tripney, BG, Xu, S. 2016. AMS 14C Dating at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC) Radiocarbon dating laboratory Radiocarbon 58(1):9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, E, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT, Scott, EM, Xu, S, Tripney, BG. 2017. Investigation of the analytical F14C bone background value at SUERC. Radiocarbon 59(5):1463–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, E, Scott, E M, Tripney, B. In review. Carbon isotope changes through the recent past: F14C and δ13C values in single barley grain from 1852 to 2020. Radiocarbon.Google Scholar
Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Miller, BF, Scott, EM, Baxter, MS. 1989. Design and preparation of samples for the international collaborative study. Radiocarbon 31(3):407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoper, ST, McCormac, FG, Hogg, AG, Higham, TFG, Head, MJ. 1998. Evaluation of wood pretreatments on oak and cedar. Radiocarbon 40(1):45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanting, JN, Aerts-Bijma, AT, van der Plicht, J. 2001. Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 43:249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):241–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naysmith, P, Dunbar, E, Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Tripney, BG. 2017. Preliminary results for estimating the bone background uncertainties at SUERC using statistical analysis. Radiocarbon 59(5):1579–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naysmith, P, Scott, EM, Dunbar, E, Cook, GT. 2019. Humics—their history in the radiocarbon inter-comparisons studies. Radiocarbon 61(5):1413–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, editor. 2003. The Third International Radiocarbon Inter-Comparison (TIRI) and the Fourth International Radiocarbon Inter-Comparison (FIRI) 1990–2002: results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45(2):135–408.Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Aitchison, TC, Harkness, DD, Cook, GT, Baxter, MS. 1990. An overview of all three stages of the international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon 32(3):309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Cook, GT, Naysmith, P. 2010. The 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in Stage 3. Radiocarbon 52(2):859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E, Naysmith, P, Cook, G. 2017. Should Archaeologists Care about 14C Intercomparisons? Why? A Summary Report on SIRI. Radiocarbon 59(5):1589–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Cook, GT. 2018. Why do we need 14C inter-comparisons?: The Glasgow 14C inter-comparison series, a reflection over 30 years. Quaternary Geochronology 43:72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Naysmith, P, Dunbar, E. In review. Preliminary results from Glasgow International Radiocarbon Intercomparison. Radiocarbon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar