
doi: 10.1002/mas.20251
pmid: 19598224
AbstractFor many decades the accurate and precise determination of isotope ratios has remained a very strong interest to many researchers due to its important applications in earth, environmental, biological, archeological, and medical sciences. Traditionally, thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) has been the technique of choice for achieving the highest accuracy and precision. However, recent developments in multi‐collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC‐ICP‐MS) have brought a new dimension to this field. In addition to its simple and robust sample introduction, high sample throughput, and high mass resolution, the flat‐topped peaks generated by this technique provide for accurate and precise determination of isotope ratios with precision reaching 0.001%, comparable to that achieved with TIMS. These features, in combination with the ability of the ICP source to ionize nearly all elements in the periodic table, have resulted in an increased use of MC‐ICP‐MS for such measurements in various sample matrices. To determine accurate and precise isotope ratios with MC‐ICP‐MS, utmost care must be exercised during sample preparation, optimization of the instrument, and mass bias corrections. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies and errors evident in many MC‐ICP‐MS publications, including errors in mass bias correction models. This review examines “state‐of‐the‐art” methodologies presented in the literature for achievement of precise and accurate determinations of isotope ratios by MC‐ICP‐MS. Some general rules for such accurate and precise measurements are suggested, and calculations of combined uncertainty of the data using a few common mass bias correction models are outlined. © 2009 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Mass Spec Rev 28:990–1011, 2009
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 242 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
