Isotope-abundance variations and atomic weights of selected elements: 2016 (IUPAC Technical Report)

Tyler B. Coplen; Yesha Shrestha

doi:10.1515/pac-2016-0302

Artikel Open Access

Isotope-abundance variations and atomic weights of selected elements: 2016 (IUPAC Technical Report)

Ein Erratum zu diesem Artikel finden Sie hier: https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2018-0504

Tyler B. Coplen und Yesha Shrestha

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 6. Januar 2017

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift Pure and Applied Chemistry Band 88 Heft 12

Abstract

There are 63 chemical elements that have two or more isotopes that are used to determine their standard atomic weights. The isotopic abundances and atomic weights of these elements can vary in normal materials due to physical and chemical fractionation processes (not due to radioactive decay). These variations are well known for 12 elements (hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, bromine, and thallium), and the standard atomic weight of each of these elements is given by IUPAC as an interval with lower and upper bounds. Graphical plots of selected materials and compounds of each of these elements have been published previously. Herein and at the URL http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7GF0RN2, we provide isotopic abundances, isotope-delta values, and atomic weights for each of the upper and lower bounds of these materials and compounds.

Keywords: atomic weights; boron, bromine; carbon; chlorine; hydrogen; isotopic abundances; lithium; magnesium; nitrogen; oxygen; silicon; sulfur; thallium

1 Introduction

Once in a while, a really big discovery is made in science, a discovery that affects all mankind. Such was the discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel [1] in 1896, which effected a paradigm shift in our view of matter. An outcome of this finding was that the spontaneous decay of atoms from one chemical element to another gives rise to the possibility that atoms of the same chemical element might have different atomic weights (also called relative atomic masses). In 1911, Soddy demonstrated that mesothorium 1 (²²⁸Ra) was chemically identical to radium [2], and he concluded that there were chemical elements having different atomic weights. Soddy coined the name “isotope” for these atoms of a chemical element having different atomic weights. Three years later, J. J. Thomson discovered that neon had isotopes with mass numbers 20 and 22 [3]. This discovery ushered in a new field in spectroscopy – the “spectroscopy of mass.”

The atomic weight of element E, A_r(E), in a material P is determined from the relation

(1) A r (E) P = ∑ [ x ( i E) P × A r ( i E)]

where x(ⁱE)_P is the amount fraction of isotope ⁱE in material P (also called the isotopic abundance or the mole fraction) and A_r(ⁱE) is the relative atomic mass of isotope ⁱE, where i is the mass number. The summation is over all stable isotopes of the element plus selected radioactive isotopes (having sufficiently long half-lives that characteristic terrestrial isotopic compositions can be determined, which enables a standard atomic weight to be determined) of the element. The atomic-mass values used to calculate the atomic-weight values given here derive from the 2012 Atomic Mass Evaluation [4].

In contrast to the atomic weight of an element in any given material, the standard atomic weight is a quantity that represents the atomic weight of an element in any normal material. By a normal material, the Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights means a material from a terrestrial source that satisfies the following criteria [5]:

“The material is a reasonably possible source for this element or its compounds in commerce, for industry or science; the material is not itself studied for some extraordinary anomaly and its isotopic composition has not been modified significantly in a geologically brief period.”

Because of variations in isotopic abundances in various sources of some chemical elements, the standard atomic weight must be given with larger uncertainty for these elements than the measured atomic weight in any given sample of that element.

The identification of variations in abundances of stable isotopes and their effect on atomic weights was recognized at the September 1951 meeting of the Commission on Atomic Weights of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and an atomic-weight “range” was assigned to an element – 32.066±0.003 to sulfur [6]. By 1967, recognized variations in isotopic abundances caused the Commission to assign atomic-weight uncertainties to six elements (hydrogen, boron, carbon, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur) [7].

During the meeting of the Commission on Atomic Weights and Isotopic Abundances at the General Assembly of IUPAC in 1985 in Lyon, France, the Working Party on Natural Isotopic Fractionation (subsequently named the Subcommittee on Natural Isotopic Fractionation) was formed to investigate the effects of isotope-abundance variations of elements upon their standard atomic weights and atomic-weight uncertainties [8], [9]. The aims of the Subcommittee were to (1) identify elements for which the uncertainties of the standard atomic weights are larger than measurement uncertainties in materials of natural terrestrial origin because of isotope-abundance variations caused by physical and chemical fractionation processes (excluding variations caused by radioactivity), and (2) provide information about the range of atomic-weight variations in specific substances and chemical compounds of each of these elements. The Subcommittee’s reports [8], [9] compiled ranges of isotope-abundance variations and corresponding atomic weights in selected materials from peer-reviewed publications for twenty chemical elements (hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, calcium, chromium, iron, copper, zinc, molybdenum, palladium, tellurium, and thallium). Graphical plots were presented for 15 elements [8], [9]. Atomic weights calculated from published variations in isotopic abundances for some elements can span relatively large intervals. For example, the atomic weight of hydrogen in normal materials (its standard atomic weight) spans the interval from 1.007 84 to 1.008 11 [8], [9], [10], whereas the uncertainty of the atomic weight calculated from the best measurement of the isotopic abundance of hydrogen is ±0.000 000 05 [11], [12], which is approximately 5000 times smaller than the difference between the lower and higher bounds. The Subcommittee’s reports formed the basis of the Commission’s decision in 2009 to express the standard atomic weight of ten elements (hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, and thallium) as intervals to indicate that standard atomic weights are not always constants of nature [13], [14]. In 2011, the Commission decided to express the standard atomic weights of two more elements (magnesium and bromine) as intervals [15].

The span of atomic-weight values in normal terrestrial materials is termed the interval. The interval [a, b] is the set of values x for which a≤x≤b, where b>a and where a and b are the lower and upper bounds, respectively [16]. Neither the lower nor upper bounds have any uncertainty associated with them; each is a considered decision by the Commission based on professional evaluation and judgment. Writing the standard atomic weight of hydrogen as “[1.007 84, 1.008 11]” indicates that its atomic weight in any normal material will be greater than or equal to 1.007 84 and will be less than or equal to 1.008 11. Thus, the atomic-weight interval is said to encompass atomic-weight values of all normal materials. The range of an interval is the difference between b and a, that is b–a [16]; thus, the range of the atomic-weight interval of hydrogen is calculated as 1.008 11–1.007 84=0.000 27. The interval designation does not imply any statistical distribution of atomic-weight values between the lower and upper bounds (e.g. the mean of a and b is not necessarily the most likely value) [13]). Similarly, the interval does not convey a simple statistical representation of uncertainty.

The lower bound of an atomic-weight interval is determined from the lowest atomic weight determined by the Commission’s review and evaluation of peer-reviewed literature, and this evaluation takes into account the uncertainty of the measurement result as well as the variation in isotopic abundance of natural materials. Commonly, isotope-delta measurements [17], [18], [19], [20] are the basis for the determination of the lower and upper atomic-weight bounds [8], [9]. The isotope delta is obtained from isotope-number ratio R(ⁱE, ^jE)_P

(2) R ( i E , j E ) P = N ( i E ) P N ( j E ) P

where N(ⁱE)_P and N(^jE)_P are the numbers of each isotope, and ⁱE denotes the higher (superscript i) and ^jE the lower (superscript j) atomic mass number of chemical element E in substance P. The isotope-delta value (symbol δ), also called the relative isotope-ratio difference, is a differential measurement obtained from isotope-number ratios of substance P and a reference material, Ref.

(3) δ ( i E , j E ) P,Ref = R ( i E , j E ) P − R ( i E , j E ) Ref R ( i E , j E ) Ref

A more convenient short-hand notation for the isotope-delta value is typically found in scientific publications; δ(ⁱE, ^jE)_P,Ref is shortened to δⁱE_Ref or to δⁱE. For example, δ(¹³C, ¹²C)_P,VPDB is shortened to either δ¹³C_VPDB or δ¹³C [17], [20], where VPDB is the Vienna Peedee belemnite–LSVEC scale for carbon isotope-delta measurements [21]. Isotope-delta values are small numbers and therefore frequently presented in multiples of 10⁻³ or per mil (symbol ‰).

To match an isotope-delta scale of an element to an isotope-amount scale (both shown in Figs. 1–12), a substance is needed whose isotopic abundance is well known and whose isotope-delta value is also well known relative to the isotope-delta scale. Commonly this substance is an isotopic reference material that has served as the “best measurement” for determination of isotopic abundance [10]. For example, consider hydrogen, shown in Fig. 1. The x(²H) scale is matched to the δ²H_VSMOW scale through measurement of the isotopic reference material VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) (Fig. 1), which has been assigned the consensus δ²H_VSMOW value of zero [22]. The hydrogen isotope-number ratio of VSMOW, R(²H, ¹H), has been measured by Hagemann et al. [12] and is 0.000 155 74(5). This measurement serves as the “best measurement” of a single terrestrial source [11]. VSMOW is the zero point on the hydrogen isotope-delta scale and therefore δ²H_VSMOW=0. Figure 1 and Table 1 shows δ²H_VSMOW values for 19 materials or substances. The material having the lowest measured ²H abundance is a natural gas sample from Kansas, USA (Fig. 1) [63], which has a δ²H_VSMOW value of –836‰. For this sample, the amount fraction of ²H, x(²H), is 0.000 0255, and A_r(H) is 1.007 8507. The material having the highest measured ²H abundance is benzaldehyde reagent produced by toluene catalytic oxidation (Fig. 1) [10], which has a δ²H_VSMOW value of +802‰. For this sample, the amount fraction of ²H, x(²H), is 0.000 2806, and A_r(H) is 1.008 1074. If material P is the normal material having the lowest atomic weight of element E, then

(4) lower bound of atomic weight = lowest A r (E) P − U [ A r (E)] P

$Fig. 1: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected hydrogen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VSMOW is the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water–Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation scale [22]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ2H scale and the 2H amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Hagemann et al. [12]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 2H amount-fraction scales with the δ2H scale is equivalent to 0.3‰.$

Fig. 1:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected hydrogen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VSMOW is the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water–Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation scale [22]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ²H scale and the ²H amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Hagemann et al. [12]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ²H amount-fraction scales with the δ²H scale is equivalent to 0.3‰.

$Fig. 2: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected lithium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). LSVEC is a lithium carbonate isotopic reference material [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ7Li scale and the 7Li amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Qi et al. [23]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 7Li amount-fraction scales with the δ7Li scale is equivalent to 3‰.$

Fig. 2:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected lithium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). LSVEC is a lithium carbonate isotopic reference material [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ⁷Li scale and the ⁷Li amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Qi et al. [23]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ⁷Li amount-fraction scales with the δ⁷Li scale is equivalent to 3‰.

$Fig. 3: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected boron-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). SRM 951 is a boric acid isotopic reference material [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ11B scale and 11B amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Catanzaro et al. [24]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 11B amount-fraction scales with the δ11B scale is equivalent to 0.8‰.$

Fig. 3:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected boron-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). SRM 951 is a boric acid isotopic reference material [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ¹¹B scale and ¹¹B amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Catanzaro et al. [24]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ¹¹B amount-fraction scales with the δ¹¹B scale is equivalent to 0.8‰.

$Fig. 4: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected carbon-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VPDB is the Vienna Peedee belemnite–LSVEC isotope scale [19] Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ13C scale and 13C amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Chang and Li [25] The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 13C amount-fraction scales with the δ13C scale is equivalent to 2.5‰.$

Fig. 4:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected carbon-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VPDB is the Vienna Peedee belemnite–LSVEC isotope scale [19] Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ¹³C scale and ¹³C amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Chang and Li [25] The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ¹³C amount-fraction scales with the δ¹³C scale is equivalent to 2.5‰.

$Fig. 5: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected nitrogen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ15NAir-N2 scale and 15N amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Junk and Svec [26]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 15N amount-fraction scales with the δ15NAir-N2 scale is equivalent to 1.1‰. The δ15NAir-N2 value of –150‰ for NOx from a nitric acid plant is for a commercially available material that has been subjected to inadvertent isotopic fractionation [8] (see footnote m of the Table of Standard Atomic Weights 2011 [15]); thus, it is not included in the atomic-weight interval.$

Fig. 5:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected nitrogen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ¹⁵N_Air-N2 scale and ¹⁵N amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Junk and Svec [26]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ¹⁵N amount-fraction scales with the δ¹⁵N_Air-N2 scale is equivalent to 1.1‰. The δ¹⁵N_Air-N2 value of –150‰ for NO_x from a nitric acid plant is for a commercially available material that has been subjected to inadvertent isotopic fractionation [8] (see footnote m of the Table of Standard Atomic Weights 2011 [15]); thus, it is not included in the atomic-weight interval.

$Fig. 6: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight composition of selected oxygen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VSMOW is the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water–Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation scale [22] and VPDB is the Vienna Peedee belemnite–LSVEC isotope scale [21]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ18OVSMOW scale and 18O amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Li et al. [27] and Baertschi [28]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 18O amount-fraction scales with the δ18O scale is equivalent to 0.3‰. The δ18OVSMOW value of –229‰ for CO tank gas is for a commercially available material that has been subjected to inadvertent isotopic fractionation [8] (footnote m of the Table of Standard Atomic Weights 2011 [15]); thus, it is not included in the atomic-weight interval.$

Fig. 6:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight composition of selected oxygen-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VSMOW is the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water–Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation scale [22] and VPDB is the Vienna Peedee belemnite–LSVEC isotope scale [21]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ¹⁸O_VSMOW scale and ¹⁸O amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Li et al. [27] and Baertschi [28]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ¹⁸O amount-fraction scales with the δ¹⁸O scale is equivalent to 0.3‰. The δ¹⁸O_VSMOW value of –229‰ for CO tank gas is for a commercially available material that has been subjected to inadvertent isotopic fractionation [8] (footnote m of the Table of Standard Atomic Weights 2011 [15]); thus, it is not included in the atomic-weight interval.

$Fig. 7: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of magnesium in selected magnesium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [15]. The δ26/24Mg measurements are expressed relative to the reference material DSM3 because many materials were measured relative to it [29]. However, DSM3 is not recommended as the international measurement standard for the δ26/24Mg scale because the supply is exhausted. The δ26/24Mg scale and 26Mg amount-fraction scales were matched using data from [29]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 26Mg amount-fraction scales with the δ26/24Mg scale is equivalent to 1.1‰.$

Fig. 7:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of magnesium in selected magnesium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [15]. The δ^26/24Mg measurements are expressed relative to the reference material DSM3 because many materials were measured relative to it [29]. However, DSM3 is not recommended as the international measurement standard for the δ^26/24Mg scale because the supply is exhausted. The δ^26/24Mg scale and ²⁶Mg amount-fraction scales were matched using data from [29]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ²⁶Mg amount-fraction scales with the δ^26/24Mg scale is equivalent to 1.1‰.

$Fig. 8: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected silicon-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). The isotopic reference material NBS 28 is optical quartz [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. IRMM-018 and NBS 28 have almost identical isotopic abundances and overlap. The δ30Si scale (or δ30/28Si scale, for specification with two isotopes) and 30Si amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of De Bièvre et al. [30] and a δ30Si value for IRMM-017 of –1.3‰ relative to NBS 28 [8]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 30Si amount-fraction scales with the δ30Si scale is equivalent to 0.23‰.$

Fig. 8:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected silicon-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). The isotopic reference material NBS 28 is optical quartz [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. IRMM-018 and NBS 28 have almost identical isotopic abundances and overlap. The δ³⁰Si scale (or δ^30/28Si scale, for specification with two isotopes) and ³⁰Si amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of De Bièvre et al. [30] and a δ³⁰Si value for IRMM-017 of –1.3‰ relative to NBS 28 [8]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ³⁰Si amount-fraction scales with the δ³⁰Si scale is equivalent to 0.23‰.

$Fig, 9: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected sulfur-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VCDT is Vienna Cañon Diablo troilite [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ34S scale (or δ34/32S scale, for completeness) and 34S amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Ding et al. [31]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 34S amount-fraction scales with the δ34S scale is equivalent to 0.2‰.$

Fig, 9:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected sulfur-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). VCDT is Vienna Cañon Diablo troilite [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ³⁴S scale (or δ^34/32S scale, for completeness) and ³⁴S amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Ding et al. [31]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ³⁴S amount-fraction scales with the δ³⁴S scale is equivalent to 0.2‰.

$Fig. 10: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected chlorine-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). SMOC is Standard Mean Ocean Chloride [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ37Cl scale and the 37Cl amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Shields et al. [32] and Xiao et al. [33]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 37Cl amount-fraction scales with the δ37Cl scale is equivalent to 2.5‰.$

Fig. 10:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of selected chlorine-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). SMOC is Standard Mean Ocean Chloride [8]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ³⁷Cl scale and the ³⁷Cl amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Shields et al. [32] and Xiao et al. [33]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ³⁷Cl amount-fraction scales with the δ³⁷Cl scale is equivalent to 2.5‰.

$Fig. 11: Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of bromine in selected bromine-bearing materials (modified from [15]). SMOB is Standard Mean Ocean Bromide [20]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ81Br scale and the 81Br amount-fraction scale were matched using data from [34], [35]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and 81Br amount-fraction scales with the δ81Br scale is equivalent to 1.1‰.$

Fig. 11:

Variation in isotopic composition and atomic weight of bromine in selected bromine-bearing materials (modified from [15]). SMOB is Standard Mean Ocean Bromide [20]. Isotopic reference materials are designated by solid black circles. The δ⁸¹Br scale and the ⁸¹Br amount-fraction scale were matched using data from [34], [35]. The expanded uncertainty in matching the atomic-weight and ⁸¹Br amount-fraction scales with the δ⁸¹Br scale is equivalent to 1.1‰.

$Fig. 12: Variation in atomic weight with isotopic composition of selected thallium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). The reference material SRM 997 is elemental thallium metal [8]. An isotopic reference material is designated by a solid black circle. The δ205Tl scale and the 205Tl amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Dunstan et al. [36] and Rosman and Taylor [37]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and 205Tl amount-fraction scales with the δ205Tl scale is equivalent to 0.4‰.$

Fig. 12:

Variation in atomic weight with isotopic composition of selected thallium-bearing materials (modified from [9], [13]). The reference material SRM 997 is elemental thallium metal [8]. An isotopic reference material is designated by a solid black circle. The δ²⁰⁵Tl scale and the ²⁰⁵Tl amount-fraction scale were matched using the data of Dunstan et al. [36] and Rosman and Taylor [37]. The expanded uncertainty in the atomic-weight and ²⁰⁵Tl amount-fraction scales with the δ²⁰⁵Tl scale is equivalent to 0.4‰.

Table 1:

Hydrogen isotopic compositions of selected hydrogen-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ²H_VSMOW		Maximum 10³ δ²H_VSMOW
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Water
Sea water (deep)	–2.5	[38]	+3.2	[38]
Other (naturally occurring)	–495	[39]	+129	[40]
Fruit juice and wine	–43	[41]	+47	[42]
Silicates
Pectolite	–429	[43]	–281	[43]
Other	–208	[44]	+5	[45]
Hydroxides
Aluminum and iron	–220	[46]	–8	[47], [48]
Organic hydrogen
Non-marine organisms	–237	[49]	+66	[50]
Marine organisms	–166	[51]	–13	[51]
Organic sediments	–103	[52]	–59	[53]
Coal	–162	[54]	–65	[55]
Crude oil	–163	[51]	–80	[51]
Ethanol (naturally occurring)	–272	[56]	–200	[56]
Reagents (synthetic)	–140	[56]	+802	[10]
Methane
Atmospheric	–232	[57]	–71	[58]
Other (naturally occurring)	–531	[53], [59]	–133	[60]
Hydrogen gas
Air	–136	[61]	+180	[62]
Other (naturally occurring)	–836	[63]	–250	[44]
Commercial tank gas	–813	[8]	–56	[8]
Automobile exhaust and industrial contamination	–690	[62]	–147	[62]

[Values normalized such that the δ²H_VSMOW of SLAP (Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation) is –428‰ exactly relative to VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water).].

where U[A_r(E)]_P is the combined uncertainty that incorporates the uncertainty in the measurement of the delta value of material P and the uncertainty in relating the delta-value scale to the isotope-amount fraction and atomic-weight scales. The latter is the uncertainty in relating an isotope-delta scale to an atomic-weight scale. In an equivalent manner, the upper bound for the highest atomic weight is

(5) upper bound of atomic weight = highest A r (E) P − U [ A r (E)] P

For each of the twelve elements having interval values of standard atomic weight, the Commission published a figure that displayed lower and upper bounds of isotope-delta values, isotopic abundances, and atomic weights in selected substances and materials (Figs. 1–12 [64]). The lower and upper bounds of the isotope-delta values of the selected substances and materials are compiled in Tables 1–12. A supplemental file [232] lists the atomic weight and the isotopic abundances for each isotope of each of the twelve elements for each substance and material shown in Figs. 1–12 and Tables 1–12. Many uses of atomic-weight data, such as for trade and commerce, need a value that is not an interval. For these purposes, the Commission provides conventional atomic-weight values [64], and the associated isotope-delta and isotope-amount-fraction values are listed in the supplemental file [232]. Additionally, the supplemental file lists the isotope-delta value and isotopic abundances of all stable isotopes corresponding to the lower and upper bounds of the standard atomic weights of the twelve elements discussed here. For the four elements with more than two stable isotopes, we assume mass-dependent isotopic fractionation when calculating isotopic abundances and atomic weights from isotope-delta values. For oxygen, R(¹⁷O, ¹⁶O)_sample/R(¹⁷O, ¹⁶O)_VSMOW=(R(¹⁸O, ¹⁶O)_sample/R(¹⁸O, ¹⁶O)_VSMOW)^0.528, where the value 0.528 was determined by Meijer and Li [233]. For magnesium, R(²⁵Mg, ²⁴Mg)_sample/R(²⁵Mg, ²⁴Mg)_DSM3=(R(²⁶Mg, ²⁴Mg)_sample/R(²⁶Mg, ²⁴Mg)_DSM3)^0.5; for silicon, R(²⁹Si, ²⁸Si)_sample/R(²⁹Si, ²⁸Si)_NBS28=(R(²⁹Si, ²⁸Si)_sample/R(²⁹Si, ²⁸Si)_NBS28)^0.5; for sulfur, R(³³S, ³²S)_sample/R(³³S, ³²S)_NBS28=(R(³⁴S, ³²S)_sample/R(³⁴S, ³²S)_NBS28)^0.5 and R(³⁴S, ³²S)_sample/R(³⁴S, ³²S)_NBS28= (R(³⁶S, ³²S)_sample/R(³⁶S, ³²S)_NBS28)^0.5.

Table 2:

Lithium isotopic compositions of selected lithium-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ⁷Li_LSVEC		Maximum 10³ δ⁷Li_LSVEC
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Marine sources
Sea water	+32.4	[65]	+33.9	[66]
Hydrothermal fluids	+2.6	[67]	+11	[68]
Foraminifera and carbonate sediments	–10	[69]	+42	[69]
Brines and pore water	+1	[70]	+56.3	[65]
Non-marine sources
Surface water	+15.5	[71]	+34.4	[66]
Ground and thermal water	–19	[8]	+10	[8]
Contaminated ground water	+10	[8]	+354	[8]
Lithium in rocks
Basalt (unaltered)	+3.4	[71]	+6.8	[71]
Basalt (altered)	–2.1	[71]	+13.5	[72]
Rhyolite	–3.5	[73]	–3.5	[73]
Granite	0	[8]	+11.2	[74]
Limestone	–3.5	[73]	+33.5	[69]
Phosphates
LiAlFPO₄ (amblygonite)	–13	[75]	+7.4	[76]
Silicates
Spodumene	–12.6	[75]	+11.8	[8]
Lepidolite	–6.6	[75]	+7.2	[75]
Reagents
⁶Li depleted compounds	+434	[77]	+3013	[77]
Other reagents	–11	[77]	+23	[77]

Table 3:

Boron isotopic composition of selected boron-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ¹¹B_SRM951		Maximum 10³ δ¹¹B_SRM951
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Marine sources
Sea water	+38.4	[78]	+40.4	[79]
Evaporated sea water	+36.5	[78]	+58.5	[80]
Hydrothermal fluids	+30.0	[81]	+36.8	[81]
Evaporite minerals	+18.2	[82]	+31.7	[82]
Carbonates (Skeletal parts and formations)	+4.0	[83]	+32.2	[83]
Non-marine sources
Rain water	+0.8	[84]	+35	[84]
Brines, surface and ground waters	–21.3	[85]	+59.2	[78]
Hydrothermal fluids	–9.3	[86]	+29.1	[80]
Evaporite minerals	–31.3	[87]	+7.3	[88]
Igneous rocks	–17.0	[89]	–1.7	[81]
Metamorphic rocks	–34.2	[90]	+22	[91]
Sediments	–17	[92]	+26.2	[92]
Organic boron	–12	[93]	+29.3	[94]

Table 4:

Carbon isotopic composition of selected carbon-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ¹³C_VPDB		Maximum 10³ δ¹³C_VPDB
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Carbonate and bicarbonate
Sea water	–0.8	[95]	+2.2	[95]
Other water	–37.1	[96]	+37.5	[97]
Metamorphic and igneous rock	–11.9	[98]	+24.8	[99]
Typical marine carbonate rock	–6	[100]	+6	[100]
Other carbonate	–64.5	[101]	+21.1	[101]
Carbon dioxide
Air	–8.2	[102]	–6.7	[103]
Soil gas	–31.0	[104]	+6.9	[105]
Volcanic gas	–37	[106]	+23	[106]
Oil, gas, coal, and landfills	–37.6	[107]	+28	[108]
Commercial tank gas and reference materials	–54	[8]	–28.76	[109]
Oxalates
Whewellite	–31.7	[110]	+33.7	[111]
Carbon monoxide
Air	–31.5	[112]	–22	[113]
Organic carbon
Land plants (C3 metabolic process)	–35	[114]	–21	[115]
Land plants (C4 metabolic process)	–16	[115]	–9	[115]
Land plants (CAM metabolic process)	–34	[116]	–10	[114]
Marine organisms	–74.3	[117]	–2	[118]
Marine sediments and compounds	–130.3	[119]	+7	[116]
Coal	–30	[116]	–19	[116]
Crude oil	–44	[120]	–16.8	[120]
Ethanol (naturally occurring)	–32	[56]	–10.3	[56]
Elemental carbon
Graphite	–41	[116]	+6.2	[121]
Diamonds	–34.4	[122]	+5	[123]
Ethane
Hydrocarbon gas	–55.6	[124]	+6.6	[125]
Methane
Air	–50.6	[126]	–39	[127]
Marine and other sources	–109	[128]	+12.7	[125]
Fresh water sources	–86	[129]	–50	[128]
Commercial tank gas	–51	[8]	–38	[8]

Table 5:

Nitrogen isotopic composition of selected nitrogen-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ¹⁵N_Air-N2		Maximum 10³ δ¹⁵N_Air-N2
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Nitrate
Air (aerosols and precipitation)	–16	[130]	+18	[131]
Sea water and estuaries	–6	[132]	+20	[133], [134]
Ground water and ice	–7	[135]	+150	[136]
Soil extracts	–23	[137]	+46	[138]
Desert salt deposits	–5	[139]	+15	[140]
Synthetic reagents and fertilizers	–23	[141]	+15	[142]
Nitrite
Ground waters	–30	[143]	+55	[143]
Synthetic reagents	–80	[8]	+4	[8]
Nitrogen oxide gases
N₂O in air (troposphere)	0	[144]	+10	[145]
N₂O in sea water	+3	[146]	+38	[147]
N₂O in ground water	–55	[143]	+53	[143]
NO_x in air	–15	[131]	+5	[130]
NO_x from nitric acid plant	–150	[130]
Nitrogen gas
Air	0	[148]	0	[148]
Ground waters	–3	[149]	+5	[150]
Volcanic gases and hot springs	–10	[151]	+16	[152]
Sedimentary basins	–49	[153]	+46	[154]
Commercial tank gas	–5	[155]	+3	[156]
Organic nitrogen
Plants and animals	–49	[137]	+31	[137]
Marine particulate organic matter	–3	[157]	+46	[157]
Bituminous sediments, peat, and coal	–3	[158]	+13	[159]
Crude oil	+1	[160]	+7	[154], [160]
Soils	–29	[137]	+38	[161]
Synthetic reagents and fertilizers	–3	[142]	+6	[142]
Biological fertilizers	+3	[142]	+15	[142]
Nitrogen in rocks
Metamorphic rocks	+1	[162]	+17	[163]
Igneous rocks	–36	[164]	+31	[165]
Diamonds	–37	[164]	+14	[164]
Ammonium
Air (ammonia gas)	–15	[130]	+28	[131]
Air (aerosols and precipitation)	–14	[166]	+14	[167]
Sea water and estuaries	+2	[168]	+42	[169]
Soil extracts	–7	[170]	+50	[161]
Volcanic gas condensates	–31	[171]	+13	[158], [171]
Synthetic reagents and fertilizers	–5	[142]	+11	[172]

Table 6:

Oxygen isotopic composition of selected oxygen-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum δ¹⁸O Value		Maximum δ¹⁸O Value
Substance	δ¹⁸O	Reference	δ¹⁸O	Reference
Oxygen gas
Air	+23.8	[173]	+23.8	[173]
Water
Sea water	–1	[174]	+0.6	[174]
Continental water	–62.8	[175]	+31.3	[40]
Fruit juice and wine	–4.4	[41]	+15.3	[176]
Carbon monoxide
Air	–6.9	[112]	+1.7	[112]
Commercial tank gas	–229	[8]	+7.6	[8]
Carbon dioxide
Air	+40	[177]	+53.0	[178]
Commercial tank gas	+3.9	[179]	+22.2	[109]
Carbonates
Typical marine carbonate	+26	[180]	+34	[180]
Igneous (carbonatite)	–1.3	[181]	+7.7	[182]
Other carbonate	–20.5	[183]	+36.4	[184]
Nitrogen oxides
N₂O (air and water)	+20	[185]	+109	[147]
Nitrate (air and water)	–2.5	[186]	+76	[187]
Oxides
Al and Fe oxides	–15.5	[46]	+16	[48]
Chert	+9.4	[188]	+45	[189]
Phosphates
Skeletal parts	+6	[190]	+26.7	[191]
Phosphorite rocks	+8.6	[192]	+25.1	[193]
Silicates	–16.2	[194]	+34.9	[195]
Sulfates
Air	–19	[196]	+14.1	[197]
Sea water	+9.3	[198]	+9.6	[198]
Other water	–19.8	[199]	+23.2	[200]
Minerals	–10.0	[201]	+31.2	[202], [203]
Plants and animals
Cellulose, lipids, and tissue	–4.3	[204]	+37.0	[50]

[Values normalized such that the δ¹⁸O_VSMOW of SLAP (Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation) is –55.5‰ exactly relative to VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water).]

Table 7:

Magnesium isotopic composition of selected magnesium-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ^26/24Mg		Maximum 10³ δ^26/24Mg
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Water
Sea water	–1	[205]	–0.69	[205]
Rivers and streams	–1.82	[206]	–0.08	[207]
Rain	–0.75	[207]	–0.5	[207]
Igneous and metamorphic rock
Olivine	–3.01	[208]	1.03	[208]
Others	–0.75	[205]	0.14	[205]
Carbonates (biological and non-biological)	–5.57	[209]	–1.04	[209]
Organic matter	–3.55	[205]	0.73	[207]
Elemental magnesium	–0.82	[210]	0.54	[210]

Table 8:

Silicon isotopic composition of selected silicon-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ³⁰Si_NBS28		Maximum 10³ δ³⁰Si_NBS28
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Igneous rocks	–1.0	[211]	+0.4	[212]
Metamorphic rocks	–1.1	[213]	+1.1	[214]
Vein quartz and silicified rocks	–1.5	[213]	+1.1	[214]
Sedimentary rocks
Quartz sandstones	–0.2	[215]	+0.2	[213]
Clay minerals	–2.6	[211]	+1.5	[211]
Sinter	–3.4	[211]	+0.2	[211]
Sea-floor hydrothermal siliceous precipitates	–3.1	[216]	0.0	[213]
Other siliceous rocks	–0.8	[213]	+3.4	[217]
Dissolved silica	–0.4	[211]	+3.4	[217]
Biogenic silica	–3.7	[211]	+2.5	[211]
Elemental silicon	–1.3	[8]	+0.5	[8]

Table 9:

Sulfur isotopic composition of selected sulfur-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ³⁴S		Maximum 10³ δ³⁴S
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Sulfate
Atmospheric	–30	[8]	30	[8]
Surface water/ground water	–22	[8]	135	[8]
Modern ocean	20.7	[8]	21.3	[8]
Mineral	–43	[8]	–3	[8]
Commercial	–3	[8]	30	[8]
Sulfuric acid	–3	[8]	12	[8]
Reagents	–34	[8]	26	[8]
Sulfur dioxide
Atmospheric	–39	[8]	33	[8]
Reagents	0.8	[8]	1.6	[8]
Elemental sulfur
Native	–30	[8]	16	[8]
Commercial	–4	[8]	28	[8]
Organic sulfur
Soil	–31	[8]	31	[8]
Vegetation	–33	[8]	32	[8]
Animals	–10	[8]	21	[8]
Fossil fuels	–11	[8]	28	[8]
Reagents	1	[8]	18	[8]
Sulfide
Atmospheric H₂S	–21	[8]	20	[8]
Thermogenic H₂S	0	[8]	30	[8]
Surface water/ground water	–55	[8]	30	[8]
Minerals	–54	[8]	70	[8]
Reagent H₂S	1	[8]	23	[8]
Other reagents	–33	[8]	23	[8]

Table 10:

Chlorine isotopic composition of selected chlorine-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ³⁷Cl_SMOC		Maximum 10³ δ³⁷Cl_SMOC
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Chlorides
Sea water	–0.15	[218]	+0.94	[33]
Ground, surface, pore, and oil formation waters	–7.7	[219]	+2.94	[220]
Hydrothermal fluid-inclusion water	–1.1	[221]	+0.8	[221]
Halite	–0.2	[222]	+0.7	[223]
Sylvite	–0.5	[224]	+0.3	[224]
Rock or sediments	+0.2	[225]	+7.5	[225]
Organic solvents
CH₃Cl	–6.0	[226]	+4.0	[227]
Other (trichloroethylene, and others)	–2.5	[104]	+4.4	[104]

Table 11:

Bromine isotopic composition of selected bromine-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ⁸¹Br_SMOB		Maximum 10³ δ⁸¹Br_SMOB
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Inorganic bromide
Sea water	0	[34]	0	[34]
Saline waters and slat deposits	–0.8	[228]	3.35	[228]
Organic compounds	–4.3	[229]	0.2	[229]
Elemental bromine	–1.34	[35]	0.86	[35]

Table 12:

Thallium isotopic composition of selected thallium-bearing materials.

Substance	Minimum 10³ δ²⁰⁵Tl		Maximum 10³ δ²⁰⁵Tl
Substance	Value	Reference	Value	Reference
Igneous rocks	–0.18	[230]	+0.35	[230]
Sedimentary rocks	+0.33	[231]	+1.43	[231]
Reagents	–0.14	[230]	+0.02	[230]

2 Hydrogen

Table 1 lists δ²H_VSMOW values of the extremes of hydrogen-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 1.

3 Lithium

Table 2 lists δ⁷Li_LSVEC values of the extremes of lithium-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 2, where LSVEC is the lithium carbonate isotopic reference material whose δ⁷Li_LSVEC value is zero by consensus [20].

4 Boron

Table 3 lists δ¹¹B_SRM951 values of the extremes of boron-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 3, where SRM 951 is the boric acid isotopic reference materials whose δ¹¹B_SRM951 value is zero by consensus [20].

5 Carbon

Table 4 lists δ¹³C_VPDB values of the extremes of carbon-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 4, where VPDB signifies the Vienna Peedee belemnite scale by assigning a δ¹³C_VPDB value of +1.95‰ to NBS 19 calcium carbonate by international consensus [124], [234].

6 Nitrogen

Table 5 lists δ¹⁵N_Air-N2 values of the extremes of nitrogen-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 5, where the subscript Air-N2 signifies the isotopic reference material atmospheric nitrogen, which has a δ¹⁵N_Air-N2 value of zero.

7 Oxygen

Table 6 lists δ¹⁸O_VSMOW values of the extremes of oxygen-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 6.

8 Magnesium

Table 7 lists δ^26/24Mg_DSM3 values of the extremes of magnesium-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 7 relative to the isotopic reference material DSM3 [20].

9 Silicon

Table 8 lists δ³⁰Si_NBS28 values of the extremes of silicon-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 8, where the subscript NBS28 signifies the isotopic reference material NBS 28 silica sand, which has a δ³⁰Si_NBS28 value of zero.

10 Sulfur

Table 9 lists δ³⁴S_VCDT values of the extremes of sulfur-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 9, where VCDT is Vienna Cañon Diablo troilite [8], which is assigned a δ³⁴S_VCDT value of zero.

11 Chlorine

Table 10 lists δ³⁷Cl_SMOC values of the extremes of chlorine-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 10, where SMOC is Standard Mean Ocean Chloride [20].

12 Bromine

Table 11 lists δ⁸¹Br_SMOB values of the extremes of bromine-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 11, where SMOB is Standard Mean Ocean Bromide [20].

13 Thallium

Table 12 lists δ²⁰⁵Tl_SRM997 values of the extremes of thallium-bearing substances and materials shown in Fig. 12, where the subscript SRM997 is the elemental thallium standard reference material SRM 997.

Membership of the sponsoring body

Membership of the IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division Committee for the period 2014–2015 was as follows:

President: J. Reedijk (Netherlands); Secretary: M. Leskelä (Finland); Vice President: L. R. Öhrström (Sweden); Past President: R. D. Loss; Titular Members: T. Ding (China); M. Drábik (Slovakia); E. Y. Tshuva (Israel); D. Rabinovich (USA); T. Walczyk (Republic of Singapore); M. E. Wieser (Canada); Associate Members: J. Buchweishaija (Tanzania); J. Garcia-Martinez (Spain); P. Karen (Norway); A. Kilic (Turkey); K. Sakai (Japan); R.-N. Vannier (France); National Representatives: F. Abdul Aziz (Malaysia); L. Armelao (Italy); A. Badshah (Pakistan); V. Chandrasekhar (India); J. Galamba Correia (Portugal); S. Kalmykov (Russia); L. Meesuk (Thailand); S. Mathur (Germany); B. Prugovecki (Croatia); N. Trendafilova (Bulgaria).

Membership of the IUPAC Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights for the period 2014–2015 was as follows:

Chair: J. Meija (Canada); Secretary: T. Prohaska (Austria); Titular Members: W. A. Brand (Germany); M. Gröning (Austria); R. Schönberg (Germany); X.-K. Zhu (China); Associate Members: T. Hirata (Japan); J. Irrgeher (Austria); J. Vogl (Germany); National Representatives: P. De Bièvre (Belgium); T. B. Coplen (USA); Ex-officio member: J. Reedijk (Netherlands).

Article note

Sponsoring body: IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division Committee: see more details on page 1219. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Juris Meija (National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Canada) and Prof. B. Brynn Hibbert (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) for their valuable suggestions that improved this manuscript. The support of the U.S. Geological Survey National Research Program made this report possible. The following IUPAC projects contributed to this Technical Report: 2011-040-2-200, 2015-030-2-200, and 2011-027-1-200.

References

[1] A. Becquerel. Comptes Rendus9, 145 (1839).Suche in Google Scholar

[2] F. Soddy. J. Chem. Soc. Trans.99, 72 (1911).10.1039/CT9119900072Suche in Google Scholar

[3] J. Thomson. Phil. Mag.24, 668 (1912).10.1080/14786441008637373Suche in Google Scholar

[4] M. Wang, G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, F. G. Kondev, M. MacCormick, X. Xu, B. Pfeiffer. Chinese Phys C36, 1603 (2012).10.1088/1674-1137/36/12/003Suche in Google Scholar

[5] H. S. Peiser, N. E. Holden, P. De Bièvre, I. L. Barnes, R. Hagemann, J. R. de Laeter, T. J. Murphy, E. Roth, M. Shima, H. G. Thode. Pure Appl. Chem.56, 695 (1984).10.1351/pac198456060695Suche in Google Scholar

[6] E. Wichers. J. Am. Chem. Soc.74, 2447 (1952).10.1021/ja01130a001Suche in Google Scholar

[7] “Atomic Weights of the Elements 1967”, Pure Appl. Chem.18, 569 (1969).10.1351/pac196918040569Suche in Google Scholar

[8] T. B. Coplen, J. A. Hopple, J. K. Böhlke, H. S. Peiser, S. E. Rieder, H. R. Krouse, K. J. R. Rosman, T. Ding, R. D. Vocke, Jr., K. Révész, A. Lamberty, P. Taylor, P. De Bièvre. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4222 (2002).Suche in Google Scholar

[9] T. B. Coplen, J. K. Böhlke, P. De Bièvre, T. Ding, N. E. Holden, J. A. Hopple, H. R. Krouse, A. Lamberty, H. S. Peiser, K. Révész, S. E. Rieder, K. J. R. Rosman, E. Roth, P. D. P. Taylor, R. D. Vocke, Jr., Y. K. Xiao. Pure Appl. Chem.74, 1987 (2002).10.1351/pac200274101987Suche in Google Scholar

[10] M. Butzenlechner, A. Rossmann, H. L. Schmidt. J. Agric. Food. Chem.37, 410 (1989).10.1021/jf00086a030Suche in Google Scholar

[11] M. Berglund, M. E. Wieser. Pure Appl. Chem.83, 397 (2011).10.1351/PAC-REP-10-06-02Suche in Google Scholar

[12] R. Hagemann, G. Nief, E. Roth. Tellus22, 712 (1970).10.1111/j.2153-3490.1970.tb00540.xSuche in Google Scholar

[13] M. E. Weiser, T. B. Coplen. Pure Appl. Chem.83, 359 (2011).10.1351/PAC-REP-10-09-14Suche in Google Scholar

[14] T. B. Coplen, N. Holden. Chem. Internal.33, 10 (2011).Suche in Google Scholar

[15] M. E. Wieser, N. Holden, T. B. Coplen, J. K. Böhlke, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. De Bièvre, M. Gröning, R. D. Loss, J. Meija, T. Harata, T. Prohaska, R. Schoenberg, G. O’Conner, T. Walcyzk, S. Yoneda, X.-K. Zu. Pure Appl. Chem.85, 1047 (2013).10.1351/PAC-REP-13-03-02Suche in Google Scholar

[16] BIPM. International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM), 3rd ed. Geneva (2008 version with corrections), Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. JCGM 200:2012 at http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] T. B. Coplen. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.25, 2538 (2011).10.1002/rcm.5129Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] H. C. Urey. Science108, 489 (1948).10.1126/science.108.2810.489Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] W. A. Brand, T. B. Coplen. Isotopes Environ. Health Stud.48, 393 (2012).10.1080/10256016.2012.666977Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] W. A. Brand, T. B. Coplen, J. Vogl, M. Rosner, T. Prohaska. Pure Appl. Chem.86, 425 (2014).10.1515/pac-2013-1023Suche in Google Scholar

[21] T. B. Coplen, W. A. Brand, M. Gehre, M. Gröning, H. A. Meijer, B. Toman, R. M. Verkouteren. Anal. Chem.78, 2439 (2006).10.1021/ac052027cSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] R. Gonfiantini. Nature271, 534 (1978).10.1038/271534a0Suche in Google Scholar

[23] H. P. Qi, P. D. P. Taylor, M. Berglund, P. De Bièvre. Int. J. Mass Spectrom.171, 263 (1997).10.1016/S0168-1176(97)00125-0Suche in Google Scholar

[24] E. J. Catanzaro, C. E. Champion, E. L. Garner, G. Marinenko, K. M. Sappenfield, W. R. Shields. NBS Special Publication 260-17: U.S. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 260, p. 11 (1970).Suche in Google Scholar

[25] T. L. Chang, W. J. Li. Chin. Sci. Bull.35, 290 (1990).10.1360/csb1990-35-22-1759-xSuche in Google Scholar

[26] G. Junk, H. J. Svec. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta14, 234 (1958).10.1016/0016-7037(58)90082-6Suche in Google Scholar

[27] W. J. Li, B. L. Ni, D. Q. Jin, T. L. Chang. Kexue Tongbao33, 1610 (1988).Suche in Google Scholar

[28] P. Baertschi. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.31, 341 (1976).10.1016/0012-821X(76)90115-1Suche in Google Scholar

[29] M. Bizzarro, C. Paton, K. Larsen, M. Schiller, A. Trinquier, D. Ulfbeck. J. Anal. At. Spectrom.26, 565 (2011).10.1039/c0ja00190bSuche in Google Scholar

[30] P. De Bièvre, S. Valkiers, H. S. Peiser. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.99, 201 (1994).10.6028/jres.099.016Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[31] T. Ding, S. Valkiers, H. Kipphardt, P. De Bièvre, P. D. P. Taylor, R. Gonfiantini, H. R. Krouse. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta65, 2433 (2001).10.1016/S0016-7037(01)00611-1Suche in Google Scholar

[32] W. R. Shields, T. J. Murphy, E. L. Garner, V. H. Dibeler. J. Am. Chem. Soc.84, 1519 (1962).10.1021/ja00868a001Suche in Google Scholar

[33] Y. K. Xiao, Z. Yinming, W. Qingzhong, W. Haizhen, L. Weiguo, C. J. Eastoe. Chem. Geol.182, 655 (2002).10.1016/S0009-2541(01)00349-7Suche in Google Scholar

[34] O. Shouakar-Stash, S. K. Frape, R. J. Drimmie. Anal. Chem.77, 4027 (2005).10.1021/ac048318nSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] E. Catanzaro, T. Murphy, E. Garner, W. Shields. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Std.68A 593 (1964).10.6028/jres.068A.057Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[36] L. Dunstan, J. Gramlich, I. Barnes, W. Purdy. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand.85, 1 (1980).10.6028/jres.085.001Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[37] K. Rosman, P. Taylor. Pure Appl. Chem.70, 217 (1998).10.1351/pac199870010217Suche in Google Scholar

[38] A. C. Redfield, I. Friedman. Symposium on Marine Geochemistry: Univ. Rhode Island, Occasional Publication, 3, 149 (1965).Suche in Google Scholar

[39] J. Jouzel, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, C. Genthon, N. I. Barkov, V. M. Kotlyakov, V. M. Petrov. Nature329, 403 (1987).10.1038/329403a0Suche in Google Scholar

[40] J.-C. Fontes, R. Gonfiantini. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.3, 258 (1967).10.1016/0012-821X(67)90046-5Suche in Google Scholar

[41] J. Bricout, L. Merlivat, J. Ch. Fontes. Comptes Rendus274, 1803 (1973).Suche in Google Scholar

[42] G. J. Martin, C. Guillou, M. L. Martin, M. T. Cabanis, Y. Tep, J. Aerny. J. Agric. Food. Chem.36, 316 (1988).10.1021/jf00080a019Suche in Google Scholar

[43] D. B. Wenner. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta43, 603 (1979).Suche in Google Scholar

[44] I. Friedman, J. R. O’Neil. In Handbook of Geochemistry II-1, K. H. Wedepohl (Ed.), p. 1B1, Section 1-B Isotopes in Nature, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1978).Suche in Google Scholar

[45] C. M. Graham, S. M. F. Sheppard. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.49, 237 (1980).10.1016/0012-821X(80)90068-0Suche in Google Scholar

[46] C. J. Yapp. “Climate change in continental isotopic records”, P.K. Swart et al. (Eds.), p. 285, Geophysical Monograph 78. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC (1993).Suche in Google Scholar

[47] C. Bernard. Composition isotopique des minéraux secondaries des bauxites, Problèmes de genèse, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Paris, Paris (1978).Suche in Google Scholar

[48] M. I. Bird, A. R. Chivas, A. S. Andrew. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta53, 1411 (1989).10.1016/0016-7037(89)90073-2Suche in Google Scholar

[49] H. Schütze, G. Strauch, K. Wetzel. In Stable Isotopes, Analytical Chemistry Symposia Series, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Jülich, H.-L. Schmidt et al. (Eds.), p. 121, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1982).Suche in Google Scholar

[50] L. O. Sternberg, M. J. DeNiro, H. B. Johnson. Plant Physiol.74, 557 (1984).10.1104/pp.74.3.557Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[51] W. E. Schiegl, J. C. Vogel. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.7, 307 (1970).10.1016/0012-821X(69)90041-7Suche in Google Scholar

[52] W. E. Schiegl. Science175, 512 (1972).10.1126/science.175.4021.512Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] R. S. Oremland, M. J. Whiticar, F. E. Strohmaier, R. P. Kiene. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta52, 1895 (1988).10.1016/0016-7037(88)90013-0Suche in Google Scholar

[54] J. W. Smith, R. J. Pallasser. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull.80, 891 (1996).Suche in Google Scholar

[55] C. Redding. In 4th International Conference on Geochronology, Cosmochronology and Isotope Geology, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-701, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report p. 348 (1978).Suche in Google Scholar

[56] P. Rauschenbach, H. Simon, W. Stichler, H. Moser. Z. Naturforsch34, 1 (1979).10.1515/znc-1979-1-204Suche in Google Scholar

[57] A. K. Snover, P. D. Quay, W. M. Hao. Global Biogeochem. Cycles14, 11 (2000).10.1029/1999GB900075Suche in Google Scholar

[58] M. Wahlen. Annu Rev. Earth. Planet. Sci.21, 407 (1993).10.1146/annurev.ea.21.050193.002203Suche in Google Scholar

[59] R. S. Oremland, L. G. Miller, M. J. Whiticar. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta51, 2915 (1987).10.1016/0016-7037(87)90367-XSuche in Google Scholar

[60] M. Schoell. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta44, 649 (1980).Suche in Google Scholar

[61] I. Friedman, T. G. Scholz. J. Geophys. Res.79, 785 (1974).10.1029/JC079i006p00785Suche in Google Scholar

[62] B. Gonsior, I. Friedman, G. Lindenmayr. Tellus18, 256 (1966).10.3402/tellusa.v18i2-3.9628Suche in Google Scholar

[63] R. M. Coveney, E. D. Goebel, E. J. Zeller, G. A. M. Dreschhoff, E. E. Angino. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull.71, 39 (1987).Suche in Google Scholar

[64] J. Meija, T. B. Coplen, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. De Bièvre, M. Gröning, N. E. Holden, J. Irrgeher, R. D. Loss, T. Walczyk, T. Prohaska. Pure Appl. Chem.88, 265 (2016).10.1515/pac-2015-0305Suche in Google Scholar

[65] C.-F. You, L.-H. Chan. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta60, 909 (1996).Suche in Google Scholar

[66] C. Lui-Heung, J. M. Edmond. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta52, 1711 (1988).10.1016/0016-7037(88)90239-6Suche in Google Scholar

[67] C. Lui-Heung, J. M. Gieskes, Y. Chen-Feng, J. M. Edmond. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta58, 4443 (1994).10.1016/0016-7037(94)90346-8Suche in Google Scholar

[68] L.-H. Chan, J. M. Edmond, G. Thompson. J. Geophys. Res.98 (B6), 9653 (1993).10.1029/92JB00840Suche in Google Scholar

[69] J. Hoefs, M. Sywall. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta61, 2679 (1997).10.1016/S0016-7037(97)00101-4Suche in Google Scholar

[70] R. D. Vocke, Jr., E. S. Beary, R. J. Walker. In V.M. Goldschmidt Conference; programs and abstracts, p. 89, Geochemical Society, (1990).Suche in Google Scholar

[71] L.-H. Chan, J. M. Edmond, G. Thompson, K. Gillis. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.108, 151 (1992).10.1016/0012-821X(92)90067-6Suche in Google Scholar

[72] L.-H. Chan, C.-F. You, W. P. Leeman. In Geological Society of America, 1995 annual meeting, 1995 annual meeting, p. 38 (1995).Suche in Google Scholar

[73] T. D. Bullen, Y. K. Kharaka. InProceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Water–Rock Interaction, Y. K. Kharaka, and A.S. Maest (Eds), p. 887 (1992).Suche in Google Scholar

[74] P. B. Tomascak, S. J. Lynton, R. J. Walker, E. J. Krogstad. In The Origin of Granites and Related Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Circular, M. Brown, and P. M. Piccoli (Eds.), p. 151 (1995).Suche in Google Scholar

[75] A. E. Cameron. J. Am. Chem. Soc.77, 2731 (1955).10.1021/ja01615a014Suche in Google Scholar

[76] H. J. Svec, A. R. Anderson. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta29, 633 (1965).10.1016/0016-7037(65)90060-8Suche in Google Scholar

[77] H. P. Qi, T. B. Coplen, Q. Zh. Wang, Y. H. Wang. Anal. Chem.69, 4076 (1997).10.1021/ac9704669Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[78] A. Vengosh, A. R. Chivas, M. T. Mcculloch, A. Starinsky, Y. Kolodny. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta55, 2591 (1991).10.1016/0016-7037(91)90375-FSuche in Google Scholar

[79] M. Nomura, T. Kanzaki, T. Ozawa, M. Okamoto, H. Kakihana. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta46, 2403 (1982).10.1016/0016-7037(82)90212-5Suche in Google Scholar

[80] U. S. Klötzli. Chem. Geol. (Isotope Geosci. Sect.)101, 111 (1992).10.1016/0009-2541(92)90208-MSuche in Google Scholar

[81] A. J. Spivack, J. M. Edmond. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta51, 1033 (1987).10.1016/0016-7037(87)90198-0Suche in Google Scholar

[82] G. H. Swihart, P. B. Moore, E. L. Callis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta50, 1297 (1986).10.1016/0016-7037(86)90413-8Suche in Google Scholar

[83] A. Vengosh, Y. Kolodny, A. Starinsky, A. R. Chivas, M. T. Mcculloch. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta55, 2901 (1991).10.1016/0016-7037(91)90455-ESuche in Google Scholar

[84] A. J. Spivack. Boron Isotope Geochemistry, Ph.D. Joint Program in Oceanography. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston (1986).Suche in Google Scholar

[85] S. Tonarini, M. Pennisi, A. Adorni-Braccesi, A. Dini, G. Ferrara, R. Gonfiantini, M. Gröning, M. Wiedenbeck. Geostand. Newslett.27, 21 (2003).10.1111/j.1751-908X.2003.tb00710.xSuche in Google Scholar

[86] M. R. Palmer, N. C. Sturchio. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta54, 2811 (1990).10.1016/0016-7037(90)90015-DSuche in Google Scholar

[87] H. O. Finley, A. R. Eberle, C. J. Rodden. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta26, 911 (1962).10.1016/0016-7037(62)90064-9Suche in Google Scholar

[88] E. K. Agyei, C. C. McMullen. Can. J. Earth Sci.5, 921 (1968).10.1139/e68-088Suche in Google Scholar

[89] R. B. Trumbull, M. Chaussidon. Chem. Geol.153, 125 (1999).10.1016/S0009-2541(98)00155-7Suche in Google Scholar

[90] G. Wang, Y. K. Xiao. Rock Mineral Anal.19, 169 (2000).10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(200024)19:1<169::AID-PAM16>3.0.CO;2-ASuche in Google Scholar

[91] G. H. Swihart, P. B. Moore. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta53, 911 (1989).10.1016/0016-7037(89)90035-5Suche in Google Scholar

[92] T. Ishikawa, E. Nakamura. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.117, 567 (1993).10.1016/0012-821X(93)90103-GSuche in Google Scholar

[93] M. E. Wieser, S. S. Iyer, H. R. Krouse, M. I. Cantagallo. Appl. Geochem.16, 317 (2001).10.1016/S0883-2927(00)00031-7Suche in Google Scholar

[94] R. A. Vanderpool, P. E. Johnson. J. Agric. Food. Chem.40, 462 (1992).10.1021/jf00015a020Suche in Google Scholar

[95] P. M. Kroopnick. Deep-Sea Res.32, 57 (1985).10.1016/0198-0149(85)90017-2Suche in Google Scholar

[96] A. Nissenbaum, B. J. Presley, I. R. Kaplan. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta36, 1007 (1972).10.1016/0016-7037(72)90018-XSuche in Google Scholar

[97] G. E. Claypool, C. N. Threlkeld, P. N. Mankeiwicz, M. A. Arthur, T. F. Anderson. In Intial Reports- Deep Sea Drilling Project, v. 84, p. 683 (1985).Suche in Google Scholar

[98] P. Deines, D. P. Gold. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta37, 1709 (1973).10.1016/0016-7037(73)90158-0Suche in Google Scholar

[99] P. Deines. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta32, 613 (1968).Suche in Google Scholar

[100] L. S. Land. In Concepts and Models of Dolomite Formation, D. A. Zenger (Ed.), Society Economic Paleontology Minerology, Special Publications, v. 28, p. 87 (1980).10.2110/pec.80.28.0087Suche in Google Scholar

[101] W. G. Deuser. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.8, 118 (1970).10.1016/0012-821X(70)90160-3Suche in Google Scholar

[102] C. D. Keeling, S. C. Piper, M. Heimann. A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds: 4. Mean annual gradients and interannual variations. In Aspects of climate variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas, D. H. Peterson (Ed.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 305 (1989). doi: 10.1029/GM055p0305.Suche in Google Scholar

[103] C. D. Keeling. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta13, 322 (1958).Suche in Google Scholar

[104] R. Aravena, S. K. Frape, B. J. Moore, E. M. Van Warmerdam, R. J. Drimmie. Water Res. Manage.1, 31 (1996).Suche in Google Scholar

[105] K. Notsu, K. Sugiyama, M. Hosoe, A. Uemura, Y. Shimoike, F. Tsunomori, P. A. Hernandez. In Eleventh Annual VM Goldschmidt Conference. Abstract 3224, LPI Contribution NO. 1088, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston (CD-ROM), (2001).Suche in Google Scholar

[106] V. M. Valysaev, Y. I. Grinchenko, V. Ye. Yerokhin, V. S. Prokhorov, G. A. Titkov. Lithol. Miner. Resour.20, 62 (1985).Suche in Google Scholar

[107] G. J. Wasserburg, E. Mazor, R. H. Zartman. In Earth and Science Meteoritics, J. Geiss, E.D. Goldberg (Eds.), p. 219, Amsterdamn, The Netherlands (1963).Suche in Google Scholar

[108] M. J. Whiticar, M. Hovland, M. Kastner, J. Sample. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, B. Carson, G. Westbrook (Eds.), p. 385, v. 146, (1995).Suche in Google Scholar

[109] NIST. Report of Investigation, Reference Materials 8562–8564, Gaithersburg, Maryland, National Institute of Standards and Technology.Suche in Google Scholar

[110] K. Žák, R. Skála. Chem. Geol. (Isotope Geosci. Sect.)106, 123 (1993).10.1016/0009-2541(93)90169-JSuche in Google Scholar

[111] B. A. Hofmann, S. M. Bernasconi. Chem. Geol.149, 127 (1998).10.1016/S0009-2541(98)00043-6Suche in Google Scholar

[112] C. A. Brenninkmeijer. J. Geophys. Res.Atmos.98, 10595 (1993).10.1029/93JD00587Suche in Google Scholar

[113] C. M. Stevens, L. Krout, D. Walling, A. Venters, A. Engelkemeir, L. E. Ross. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.16, 147 (1972).10.1016/0012-821X(72)90183-5Suche in Google Scholar

[114] M. H. O’Leary. Biosci.38, 328 (1988).10.2307/1310735Suche in Google Scholar

[115] B. N. Smith, B. Turner. Am. J. Bot.62, 541 (1975).10.2307/2441964Suche in Google Scholar

[116] P. Deines. In Handbook of environmental isotope geochemistry, Volume 1, The Terrestrial Environment, A.P. Fritz, J. Ch. Pontes (Eds.), p. 329, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1980).Suche in Google Scholar

[117] C. K. Paull, A. J. T. Jull, L. J. Toolin, T. Linick. Nature317, 709 (1985).10.1038/317709a0Suche in Google Scholar

[118] H. P. Schwarcz. In Handbook of Geochemistry, K.H. Wedepohl (Ed.), p. 6B1, The Stable Isotopes of Carbon, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany Section B-1, (1969).Suche in Google Scholar

[119] M. Elvert, E. Suess, J. Greinert, M. J. Whiticar. Org. Geochem.31, 1175 (2000).10.1016/S0146-6380(00)00111-XSuche in Google Scholar

[120] Z. Sofer. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull.68, 31 (1984).10.1111/j.1440-1630.1984.tb01462.xSuche in Google Scholar

[121] E. D. Ghent, J. R. O’Neil. Can. J. Earth Sci.22, 324 (1985).10.1139/e85-032Suche in Google Scholar

[122] E. Galimov. Geochem. Internal.22, 118 (1985).10.1093/jmedent/22.1.118Suche in Google Scholar

[123] J. Harris. In Mantle xenoliths, P.H. Nixon (Ed.), p. 477, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York (1987).Suche in Google Scholar

[124] G. Hut. Consultants’ group meeting on stable isotope reference samples for geochemical and hydrological investigations: IAEA, Vienna 16–18 September 1985: Report to the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency (1987).Suche in Google Scholar

[125] P. Gerling, M. J. Whiticar, E. Faber. Adv. Org. Geochem.13, 335 (1988).10.1016/B978-0-08-037236-5.50039-7Suche in Google Scholar

[126] D. A. Merritt, J. M. Hayes, D. J. DesMarias. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.100, 1317 (1995).10.1029/94JD02689Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[127] A. E. Bainbridge, H. E. Suess, I. Friedman. Nature192, 648 (1961).10.1038/192648a0Suche in Google Scholar

[128] M. J. Whiticar, E. Faber, M. Schoell. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta50, 693 (1986).10.1016/0016-7037(86)90346-7Suche in Google Scholar

[129] R. S. Oremland, G. M. King. In Microbial Mats: Physiological Ecology of Benthic Microbial Communities, Y. Cohen, E. Rosenberg (Eds.), p. 180, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC (1989).Suche in Google Scholar

[130] T. H. E. Heaton. Atmos. Environ.21, 843 (1987).10.1016/0004-6981(87)90080-1Suche in Google Scholar

[131] H. Moore. Atmos. Environ.11, 1239 (1977).10.1016/0004-6981(77)90102-0Suche in Google Scholar

[132] N. Ostrom. Stable isotopic variation in particulate organic matter and dissolved inorganic compounds in a northern fjord: Implications for present and past environments, Ph.D Dissertation. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland, Canada (1992).Suche in Google Scholar

[133] A. Mariotti, C. Lancelot, G. Billen. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta48, 549 (1984).10.1016/0016-7037(84)90283-7Suche in Google Scholar

[134] S. G. Horrigan, J. P. Montoya, J. L. Nevins, J. J. Mccarthy. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.30, 393 (1990).10.1016/0272-7714(90)90005-CSuche in Google Scholar

[135] A. Mariotti, A. Landreau, B. Simon. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta52, 1869 (1988).10.1016/0016-7037(88)90010-5Suche in Google Scholar

[136] H. D. Freyer, K. Kobel, R. J. Delmas, D. Kley, M. R. Legrand. Tellus B48, 93 (1996).10.3402/tellusb.v48i1.15671Suche in Google Scholar

[137] E. Wada, R. Shibata, T. Torii. Nature292, 327 (1981).10.1038/292327a0Suche in Google Scholar

[138] C. Kreitler. Determining the source of nitrate in groundwater by nitrogen isotope studies, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas Austin, Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 83 (1974).10.23867/RI0083DSuche in Google Scholar

[139] J. K. Böhlke, G. E. Ericksen, K. Revesz. Chem. Geol.136, 135 (1997).10.1016/S0009-2541(96)00124-6Suche in Google Scholar

[140] J. N. Densmore, J. K. Böhlke. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Drinking Water Risk Assessment and Management, E.G. Reichard, F.S. Hauchman, A.M. Sancha (Eds.), p. 63, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 260, (2000).Suche in Google Scholar

[141] H. D. Freyer, A. I. M. Aly. J. Environ. Qual.3, 405 (1974).10.2134/jeq1974.00472425000300040023xSuche in Google Scholar

[142] G. B. Shearer, D. H. Kohl, B. Commoner. Soil Science118, 308 (1974).10.1097/00010694-197411000-00005Suche in Google Scholar

[143] J. K. Böhlke, R. L. Smith, K. M. Revesz, T. Yoshinari. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union81, S186 (2000).Suche in Google Scholar

[144] H. Moore. Tellus26B, 169 (1974).10.3402/tellusa.v26i1-2.9767Suche in Google Scholar

[145] N. Yoshida, S. Matsuo. Geochem. J.17, 231 (1983).10.2343/geochemj.17.231Suche in Google Scholar

[146] N. Yoshida, H. Morimoto, M. Hirano, I. Koike, S. Matsuo, E. Wada, T. Saino, A. Hattori. Nature342, 895 (1989).10.1038/342895a0Suche in Google Scholar

[147] T. Yoshinari, M. A. Altabet, S. W. A. Naqvi, L. Codispoti, A. Jayakumar, M. Kuhland, A. Devol. Mar. Chem.56, 253 (1997).10.1016/S0304-4203(96)00073-4Suche in Google Scholar

[148] A. Mariotti. Nature303, 685 (1983).10.1038/303685a0Suche in Google Scholar

[149] J. C. Vogel, A. S. Talma, T. H. E. Heaton. J. Hydrol.50, 191 (1981).10.1016/0022-1694(81)90069-XSuche in Google Scholar

[150] R. L. Smith, B. L. Howes, J. H. Duff. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta55, 1815 (1991).10.1016/0016-7037(91)90026-2Suche in Google Scholar

[151] B. Marty, E. Gunnlaugsson, A. Jambon, N. Oskarsson, M. Ozima, F. Pineau, P. Torssander. Chem. Geol.91, 207 (1991).10.1016/0009-2541(91)90001-8Suche in Google Scholar

[152] P. Allard. In Forecasting Volcanic Events, Developments in Volcanology, H. Tazieff, J.-C. Sabroux (Eds.), p. 337, Elsevier, New York v. 1, (1983).Suche in Google Scholar

[153] L. Stroud, T. O. Meyer, D. E. Emerson. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigation 6936 (1967).Suche in Google Scholar

[154] V. R. Eichmann, A. Plate, W. Behrens, H. Kroepelin. Erdoel Kohle24, 2 (1971).Suche in Google Scholar

[155] G. B. Shearer, J. O. Legg. Soi. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.39, 896 (1975).10.2136/sssaj1975.03615995003900050030xSuche in Google Scholar

[156] M. Zschiesche. Entwicklung proben chemischen Verfahren zur Bestimmung der isotopen Zusammensetzung des N aus Gasen, Gesteinen, und N-Lieferanten für bakteriologische Modelluntersuchungen, Ph.D. Dissertation. Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig, Germany (1972).Suche in Google Scholar

[157] M. A. Altabet, J. J. McCarthy. Deep Sea Res. Part A. Ocean. Res. Papers32, 755 (1985).10.1016/0198-0254(85)92874-2Suche in Google Scholar

[158] T. Hoering. Science122, 1233 (1955).10.1126/science.122.3182.1233Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[159] D. Rigby, B. D. Batts. Chem. Geol.58, 273 (1986).10.1016/S0009-2541(86)90206-8Suche in Google Scholar

[160] T. C. Hoering, H. E. Moore. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta13, 225 (1958).10.1016/0016-7037(58)90024-3Suche in Google Scholar

[161] H. Mizutani, H. Hasegawa, E. Wada. Biogeochemistry2, 221 (1986).10.1007/BF02180160Suche in Google Scholar

[162] G. E. Bebout, M. L. Fogel. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta56, 2839 (1992).10.1016/0016-7037(92)90363-NSuche in Google Scholar

[163] D. Haendel, K. Muhle, H.-M. Nitzsche, G. Stiehl, U. Wand. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta50, 749 (1986).10.1016/0016-7037(86)90351-0Suche in Google Scholar

[164] D. P. Mattey, L. P. Carr, R. H. Carr, I. P. Wright, C. T. Pillinger. In The Early Earth: The Interval from Accretion to the Older Archean, Lunar and Planetary Institute Technical Report, v. 85-01, p. 59 (1985).Suche in Google Scholar

[165] K. Mayne. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta12, 185 (1957).Suche in Google Scholar

[166] H. D. Freyer. Tellus A30, 83 (1978).10.3402/tellusa.v30i1.10319Suche in Google Scholar

[167] L. J. Moore, L. A. Machlan, W. R. Shields, E. L. Garner. Anal. Chem.46, 1082 (1974).10.1021/ac60344a028Suche in Google Scholar

[168] D. J. Velinsky, M. L. Fogel, J. F. Todd, B. M. Tebo. Geophys. Res. Lett.18, 649 (1991).10.1029/91GL00344Suche in Google Scholar

[169] D. J. Velinsky, J. R. Pennock, J. H. Sharp, L. A. Cifuentes, M. L. Fogel. Mar. Chem.26, 351 (1989).10.1016/0304-4203(89)90040-6Suche in Google Scholar

[170] H. D. Freyer. Pure Appl. Geophy.116, 393 (1978).10.1007/BF01636894Suche in Google Scholar

[171] V. F. Volynets, I. K. Zadorozhny, K. P. Florensky. Geokhimiya5, 587 (1967).Suche in Google Scholar

[172] M. Drechsler. Entwicklung einer probenchemischen Methode zur Präzisionsisotopenanalyse am Stickstoff biogener Sedimente: Aussagen der Stickstoffisotopenvariationen zur Genese des Stickstoffs in Erdgasen, Ph.D. Dissertation. AdW der DDR, Leipzig, Germany (1976).Suche in Google Scholar

[173] P. Kroopnick, H. Craig. Science175, 54 (1972).10.1126/science.175.4017.54Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[174] H. Craig. In McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, p. 268, Isotopic Composition of Ocean Water, McGraw-Hill, New York (1967).Suche in Google Scholar

[175] L. Aldaz, S. Deutsch. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.3, 267 (1968).10.1016/0012-821X(67)90047-7Suche in Google Scholar

[176] E. A. Calwell. An understanding of factors controlling isotopic ratios of wine as a potential surrogate of past precipitation, M.Sc. Thesis. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada (1995).Suche in Google Scholar

[177] R. J. Francey, P. P. Tans. Nature327, 495 (1987).10.1038/327495a0Suche in Google Scholar

[178] M. H. Thiemens, T. L. Jackson, K. Mauersberger, B. Schueler, J. Morton. Geophys. Res. Lett.18, 669 (1991).10.1029/91GL00121Suche in Google Scholar

[179] T. B. Coplen, C. Kendall, J. Hopple. Nature302, 236 (1983).10.1038/302236a0Suche in Google Scholar

[180] K. J. Murata, I. Friedman, B. M. Madsen. In U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 614-B, p. B1 (1969).Suche in Google Scholar

[181] G. D. Garlick. “The stable isotopes of oygen”, in Handbook of Geochemistry, K.H. Wedepohl (Ed.), p. 8B1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1969).Suche in Google Scholar

[182] K. Suwa, S. Oana, H. Wada, S. Osaki. Phy. Chem. Earth9, 735 (1975).10.1016/0079-1946(75)90048-8Suche in Google Scholar

[183] G. Faure, J. Hoefs, L. M. Jones, J. B. Curtis, D. E. Pride. Nature332, 352 (1988).10.1038/332352a0Suche in Google Scholar

[184] A. Makhnach, N. Mikhajlov, V. Shimanovich, I. Kolosov. Sediment Geol94, 85 (1994).10.1016/0037-0738(94)90148-1Suche in Google Scholar

[185] T. Pérez, S. E. Trumbore, S. C. Tyler, E. A. Davidson, M. Keller, P. B. de Camargo. Global Biogeochem. Cycles14, 525 (2000).10.1029/1999GB001181Suche in Google Scholar

[186] A. Amberger, H. L. Schmidt. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta51, 2699 (1987).10.1016/0016-7037(87)90150-5Suche in Google Scholar

[187] K. W. J. Williard, D. R. DeWalle, P. J. Edwards, W. E. Sharpe. J. Hydrol.252, 174 (2001).10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00459-0Suche in Google Scholar

[188] L. P. Knauth, D. R. Lowe. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.41, 209 (1978).10.1016/0012-821X(78)90011-0Suche in Google Scholar

[189] L. D. Labeyrie, J. J. Pichon, M. Labracherie, P. Ippolito, J. Duprat, J. C. Duplessy. Nature322, 701 (1986).10.1038/322701a0Suche in Google Scholar

[190] Y. Kolodny, B. Luz, O. Navon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.64, 398 (1983).10.1016/0012-821X(83)90100-0Suche in Google Scholar

[191] J. D. Bryant, B. Luz, P. N. Froelich. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol.107, 303 (1994).10.1016/0031-0182(94)90102-3Suche in Google Scholar

[192] A. Longinelli, S. Nuti. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.5, 13 (1968).10.1016/S0012-821X(68)80003-2Suche in Google Scholar

[193] A. Shemesh, Y. Kolodny, B. Luz. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.64, 405 (1983).10.1016/0012-821X(83)90101-2Suche in Google Scholar

[194] P. Blattner, G. W. Grindley, C. J. Adams. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta61, 569 (1997).10.1016/S0016-7037(96)00350-XSuche in Google Scholar

[195] J. K. Böhlke, J. C. Alt, K. Muehlenbachs. Can. J. Earth Sci.21, 67 (1984).10.1139/e84-008Suche in Google Scholar

[196] A. L. Norman, H. R. Krouse. In Atmospheric Chmemistry, Papers from the 9th World Clean Air Congress, Critical Issues in the Global Environment, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, v. 2, Paper IU8.01 (1992).Suche in Google Scholar

[197] Y. Mizutani, T. A. Rafter. Geochem. J.6, 183 (1973).10.2343/geochemj.6.183Suche in Google Scholar

[198] A. Longinelli. In Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry, Volume 3, P. Fritz, J.Ch. Fontes (Eds.), p. 219, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1989).Suche in Google Scholar

[199] M. J. Hendry, H. R. Krouse, M. A. Shakur. Water Resour. Res.25, 567 (1989).10.1029/WR025i003p00567Suche in Google Scholar

[200] A. Longinelli, H. Craig. Science156, 56 (1967).10.1126/science.156.3771.56Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[201] C. J. Yonge, H. R. Krouse. Chem. Geol. (Isotope Geosci. Sect.)65, 427 (1987).10.1016/0168-9622(87)90018-2Suche in Google Scholar

[202] H. Sakai. Geochem. J.5, 79 (1971).10.2343/geochemj.5.79Suche in Google Scholar

[203] M. P. Cecile, M. A. Shakur, H. R. Krouse. Can. J. Earth Sci.20, 1528 (1983).10.1139/e83-142Suche in Google Scholar

[204] J. Dunbar, A. T. Wilson. Anal. Chem.54, 590 (1982).10.1021/ac00240a057Suche in Google Scholar

[205] E. B. Bolou-Bi, N. Vigier, A. Brenot, A. Poszwa. Geostandards Geoanal. Res.33, 95 (2009).10.1111/j.1751-908X.2009.00884.xSuche in Google Scholar

[206] E. Tipper, A. Galy, M. Bickle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.247, 267 (2006).10.1016/j.epsl.2006.04.033Suche in Google Scholar

[207] E. B. Bolou-Bi, N. Vigier, A. Poszwa, J.-P. Boudot, E. Dambrine. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta87, 341 (2012).10.1016/j.gca.2012.04.005Suche in Google Scholar

[208] N. Pearson, W. Griffin, O. Alard, S. Y. O’Reilly. Chem. Geol.226, 115 (2006).10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.09.029Suche in Google Scholar

[209] F. Wombacher, A. Eisenhauer, F. Böhm, N. Gussone, M. Regenberg, W.-C. Dullo, A. Rüggeberg. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta75, 5797 (2011).10.1016/j.gca.2011.07.017Suche in Google Scholar

[210] A. Galy, N. S. Belshaw, L. Halicz, R. K. O’Nions. Int. J. Mass Spectrom.208, 89 (2001).10.1016/S1387-3806(01)00380-3Suche in Google Scholar

[211] C. Douthitt. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta46, 1449 (1982).10.1016/0016-7037(82)90278-2Suche in Google Scholar

[212] D. L. Lu, G. J. Wan. Geol. Explor.28, 28 (1992).Suche in Google Scholar

[213] T. Ding, S. Jiang, D. Wan, Y. Li, J. Li, H. Song, Z. Liu, X. Yao. Silicon Isotope Geochemistry, Geological Publishing House, Beijing (1996).Suche in Google Scholar

[214] M. J. Huang, R. Q. Li, D. Y. Liu, Z. J. Shen, S. H. Tang, W. S. Chen. A study on exploration mineralogy and mineral prediction of rock-bounded metallogenic series of ore deposits in southern Hunan (in Chinese). Hunan Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 97 (1991).Suche in Google Scholar

[215] I. Basile-Doelsch, J. D. Meunier, C. Parron. Nature433, 399 (2005).10.1038/nature03217Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[216] S. Y. Wu. The submarine hydrothermal chimney of the Mariana Trough and sediments in the Philippine Sea (in Chinese). Oceanic Publishing House, Beijing (1991).Suche in Google Scholar

[217] D. Tiping, W. Defang, L. Jincheng, J. Shaoyong, S. Hebing, L. Yanhe, L. Zhijian. Kuangchang Dizhi (Mineral Deposits)7, 90 (1988).Suche in Google Scholar

[218] R. S. Kaufmann, A. Long, D. J. Campbell. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull.72, 839 (1988).Suche in Google Scholar

[219] B. Ransom, A. J. Spivack, M. Kastner. Geology23, 715 (1995).10.1130/0091-7613(1995)023<0715:SCIISZ>2.3.CO;2Suche in Google Scholar

[220] W. G. Liu, Y. K. Xiao, Q. Z. Wang, H. P. Qi, Y. H. Wang, Z. M. Zhou, P. V. Shirodkar. Chem. Geol.136, 271 (1997).10.1016/S0009-2541(96)00134-9Suche in Google Scholar

[221] R. S. Kaufman, S. Arnórsson. “37Cl/35Cl ratios in Icelandic geothermal waters”, Fifth International Symposium on Water Rock Interaction, Extended Abstracts: v. 5, p. 325 (1986).Suche in Google Scholar

[222] A. Long, C. J. Eastoe, R. S. Kaufmann, J. G. Martin, L. Wirt, J. B. Finley. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta57, 2907 (1993).10.1016/0016-7037(93)90398-GSuche in Google Scholar

[223] R. S. Kaufmann, A. Long, H. W. Bentley, S. N. Davis. Nature309, 338 (1984).10.1038/309338a0Suche in Google Scholar

[224] T. C. Hoering, P. L. Parker. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta23, 186 (1961).10.1016/0016-7037(61)90043-6Suche in Google Scholar

[225] A. J. Magenheim, A. J. Spivack, P. J. Michael, J. M. Gieskes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.131, 427 (1995).10.1016/0012-821X(95)00017-7Suche in Google Scholar

[226] N. Tanaka, D. M. Rye. Nature353, 707 (1991).10.1038/353707a0Suche in Google Scholar

[227] N. Jendrzejewski, H. G. M. Eggenkamp, M. L. Coleman. Appl. Geochem.16, 1021 (2001).10.1016/S0883-2927(00)00083-4Suche in Google Scholar

[228] O. Shouakar-Stash, S. V. Alexeev, S. K. Frape, L. P. Alexeeva, R. J. Drimmie. Appl. Geochem.22, 589 (2007).10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.12.005Suche in Google Scholar

[229] D. Carrizo, M. Unger, H. Holmstrand, P. Andersson, Ö. Gustafsson, S. P. Sylva, C. M. Reddy. Environ. Chem.8, 127 (2011).10.1071/EN10090Suche in Google Scholar

[230] M. Rehkamper, A. N. Halliday. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta63, 935 (1999).Suche in Google Scholar

[231] M. Rehkämper, M. Frank, A. Halliday, J. Hein. In 11th Biannual Symposium, Strassbourg, Book of Abstracts, (2001).Suche in Google Scholar

[232] T. B. Coplen, Y. Shrestha. Tables and Charts for Isotope-Abundance Variations and Atomic Weights of Selected Elements: 2016: U.S. Geological Survey Data Release, (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7GF0RN2.10.1515/pac-2016-0302Suche in Google Scholar

[233] H. A. J. Meijer, W. J. Li. Isotopes Environ. Health Stud.34, 349 (1998).10.1080/10256019808234072Suche in Google Scholar

[234] I. Friedman, J. O’Neil, G. Cebula. Geostand. Newslett.6, 11 (1982).10.1111/j.1751-908X.1982.tb00340.xSuche in Google Scholar

Note

Republication or reproduction of this report or its storage and/or dissemination by electronic means is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC or De Gruyter permission on condition that an acknowledgment, with full reference to the source, along with use of the copyright symbol ©, the name IUPAC, the name De Gruyter, and the year of publication, are prominently visible. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization and De Gruyter.

Received: 2016-03-25

Accepted: 2016-09-26

Published Online: 2017-01-06

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2016-0302

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

atomic weights; boron, bromine; carbon; chlorine; hydrogen; isotopic abundances; lithium; magnesium; nitrogen; oxygen; silicon; sulfur; thallium

Creative Commons

BY-NC-ND 4.0