Content uploaded by M. Stuiver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Stuiver on Aug 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Radiocarbon
http://journals.cambridge.org/RDC
Additional services for Radiocarbon:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Workshop On 14C Data Reporting
Minze Stuiver
Radiocarbon / Volume 22 / Issue 03 / January 1980, pp 964 - 966
DOI: 10.1017/S0033822200010389, Published online: 18 July 2016
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0033822200010389
How to cite this article:
Minze Stuiver (1980). Workshop On 14C Data Reporting. Radiocarbon, 22, pp 964-966 doi:10.1017/S0033822200010389
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/RDC, IP address: 173.234.57.176 on 27 Aug 2016
[RADIOGAR1 ON, VOL 22, No. 3, 1980, P 964-966]
WORKSHOP ON 14C DATA REPORTING
MINZE STUIVER
Departments of Geological Sciences and Zoology,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
The purpose of the workshop was to clarify any possible confusion
related to the reporting 14C data. Two areas of concern, the use of the
new NBS oxalic acid standard (Cavallo and Mann, 1980), and the report-
ing of marine sample ages, were singled out for detailed discussions.
The 14C activity of the "old" NBS oxalic acid standard has tradi-
tionally been normalized on a S13CpDB value of -19 per mil. This value
is close, but not necessarily identical to the S13CPDB value of CO2 gas
obtained from oxalic acid by a random user. Differences will be small,
however, and if the user does not have a mass spectrometer available for
the 13C measurements, he can, at least for routine work, dispense with
the fine tuning (normalization to -19 per mil) and use his actual oxalic
acid counting rates without 13C correction.
The S13CPDB value of CO2 gas derived from the newly introduced
second NBS oxalic acid standard is closer to -17 per mil. Sentiment was
therefore voiced at the meeting to normalize the new standard to -17
per mil. Others were of the opinion that -19 per mil for both standards
was more appropriate.
Initially, a majority of the attendees in charge of 14C laboratories
expressed an interest in normalizing on a $13CpDB value of -17 for the
new standard. However, during further discussion, normalizing on a
8130 value of -25 per mil was favored because the 13C normalization of
samples and the new oxalic acid standard would then be identical.
To correct for 13C fractionation the oxalic acrd count rate is multi-
2(b13C + b}
plied with the approximate factor 1 - . For the old
1000
oxalic acid, b is 19 per mil. For the new oxalic acid, the discussions cen-
tered around a choice of 17, 19, and 25 per mil. The NBS report gives the
ratio of the oxalic acid counts (Ox for the old, NOX for the new) when
both are normalized to -19 per mil:
NOX(19)/0X(19) =1.2894 ± 0.0005.
The base-line (zero age activity) is obtained for the old oxalic acid
by using the 0.95 0X(19) count rate. The corresponding expression for
the new oxalic acid is X(b) NOX(b). For b = 19 per mil X(19) = 0.7368
when the preliminary NBS value is substituted. Thus, instead of taking
95 percent of the old oxalic acid value, equivalent results are obtained
by taking 73.68 percent of the new oxalic acid count rate (when both
are normalized on a 13C value of -19 per mil). The following relation-
ships apply
964
Workshop on 14C data reporting
Oxalic acid "13CPDB X(b)
965
Old -19 0.95
New -17 0.7338
New -19 0.7368
New -25 0.7457
The issue of normalization thus centers around the -17/0.7338;
-19/0.7368, and -25/0.7457 combination. It is obvious that each labora-
tory can have its preferred 8130 value as long as the appropriate b, X(b)
combination is used.
An ambiguity in the use of radiocarbon ages was discussed also.
Following Stuiver and Polach (1977) the term, conventional radiocarbon
age, would imply 13C normalization of all samples to the base of 613Cp
= -25 per mil. Thus, a conventional radiocarbon age would take into
account 13C fractionation but not differences in 14C specific activity of
reservoirs that arise from effects other than fractionation. A conventional
y
radiocarbon age would be reported without adjustment and a reservoir
corrected age would have to be given separately.
The major difficulty encountered with the above procedure is past
reporting practices for archaeologic and geologic marine samples. The
conventional radiocarbon age for marine materials only takes 13C frac-
tionation into account. Because the corrections for 13C fractionation and
reservoir 14C deficiency cancel each other more or less for shells of mid-
and low-latitude regions, many laboratories have adopted the convenient
practice of deleting correction factors for both isotope fractionation and
14C reservoir deficiency from their calculations. In that instance the radio-
carbon age reported is a reservoir corrected age.
A majority of the participants felt that for all samples, includin
marine specimens, a conventional radiocarbon age based on the g
normal-
ization to a 8130 value of -25 per mil -
p should be reported. Thus, a con-
ventional radiocarbon age, as well as a reservoir corrected age, would be
given. Although adopted, this proposal sparked strong opposition from
the minority (ca 40 percent of the voting participants).
The various possible ways of correcting for isotope fractionation
were also questioned. The fractionation factor for the distribution of
14C between two compounds should be the square of the fractionation for
13C (Craig, 1957) when possible effects of a molecular asymmetry are
neglected. The use of this rule (Stuiver and Robinson 1974) leads to an.
isotope fractionation corrected i14C (normalized to a 8130 value of -25
per mil) that is given by
Q14C - 1000 1 + 8' 9 C 0.9752
1000 b`13C 2 1 (1)
1+ 1000
where 614C is the relative difference between the 0.95 oxalic acid standard
and sample activity and 613C is the relative difference between the sample'
and PDB 13C/12C ratio.
966 Calibration and Data Reporting
A first order approximation of the above equation results in the
commonly used equation: 614C\
1.4C = 814C - (2 81JC + 50) 1 + 1000 (2)
Another approximation uses the relative 813C deviation (8130 + 25)1
8130
1 + 1000 (hook, 1980) 6C S13C (3)
Q14C = b`14C - 2 (13C + 25) 1 + 1000 1 + 1000
The L14C values derived from equations 2 and 3 differ slightly from
those obtained from equation 1. Equation 2 derived d14C values differ
less than 1 per mil from 014C's derived from equation 1 when 813C ratios
are in the -31 to +3 per mil range. For equation 3 the corresponding
interval is -55 to +6 per mil. Outside this range the discrepancies in-
crease more rapidly for equation 2 derived values than for those derived
from equation 3.
For measuring precisions up to a few per mil, and 8130 values in
the 0 to -30 per mil range, any of the above equations can be used with
good results. However, for high precision work (1 per mil or better), or
when a wide range of 8130 values is encountered, equation 1 is to be
preferred.
In further action, the meeting adopted the AD 1950 absolute NBS
oxalic acid disintegration rate of 14.27 ± 0.07 disintegrations per minute
per gram of carbon. This corresponds with an activity for 95 percent of
oxalic acid of 13.56 ± 0.07 disintegrations per minute per gram carbon,
which gives a 14C/C ratio of (1.176 ± 0.010) 10-12 (Karlen and others,
1968, first reported in 1964). The above activities are normalized on an
oxalic acid 813CPDB value of -19 per mil.
The 14C/C ratio is important for the conversion to total 14C (14C)
of, for instance, ocean water: p14C
"14C = 1.176 10-12 1 + 1000 CO2
where both Lr14C and CO2 are in p mole/kg of sea water.
REFERENCES
Cavallo, L M and Mann, W B, 1980, New National Bureau of Standards contemporary
carbon-14 standards, in Stuiver, Minze and Kra, Renee, eds, Internatl radiocarbon
conf, 10th, Proc: Radiocarbon, v 22, no. 3, p 962-963.
Craig, Harmon, 1957, Isotopic standards for carbon and oxygen and correction factors
for mass-spectrometric analysis of carbon dioxide: Geochim et Cosmochim Acta,
v 12, p 133-149.
Karlen, I, Olsson, I U, Kallberg, P, and Kilici, S, 1968, Absolute determination of the
activity of two 14C dating standards: Arkiv Geofysik, v 4, no. 22, p 465-471.
Mook, W G, 1980, The erect of fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 on the 13C and 14C
content of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in Stuiver, Minze and Kra, Renee, eds,
Internatl radiocarbon conf, 10th, Proc: Radiocarbon, v 22, no. 2, p 392-397.
Stuiver, Minze and Polach, H A, 1977, Discussion: Reporting of 14C data: Radiocarbon,
v 19, p 355-363.
Stuiver, Minze and Robinson, S W, 1974, University of Washington Geosecs North
Atlantic carbon-14 results: Earth and Planetary Sci Letters, v 23, p 87-90.