Abstract Details
(2020) A Perfect MC-ICP-MS Detector Array for Transient Signal Analysis?
Craig G, Vollstaedt H, Lloyd N, Bouman C & Schwieters J
https://doi.org/10.46427/gold2020.487
The author has not provided any additional details.
06d: Room 2, Thursday 25th June 06:00 - 06:03
Grant Craig
View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
View abstracts at 8 conferences in series
Hauke Vollstaedt View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
Nicholas Lloyd View all 4 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 4 conferences in series
Claudia Bouman View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 21 conferences in series
Johannes B. Schwieters View all 4 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 17 conferences in series
Hauke Vollstaedt View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
Nicholas Lloyd View all 4 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 4 conferences in series
Claudia Bouman View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 21 conferences in series
Johannes B. Schwieters View all 4 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 17 conferences in series
Listed below are questions that have been submitted by the community that the author will try and cover in their presentation. To submit a question, ensure you are signed in to the website. Authors or session conveners approve questions before they are displayed here.
Submitted by Charles Magee on Tuesday 23rd June 01:26
Dear Dr Craig, How do you determine the counting statistics for software-enlarged peak sizes?
Counting statistics can be determined as we would for any normal measurement. If we are doing our job correctly counts are only being moved in time, not created or destroyed.
Dear Dr Craig, How do you determine the counting statistics for software-enlarged peak sizes?
Counting statistics can be determined as we would for any normal measurement. If we are doing our job correctly counts are only being moved in time, not created or destroyed.
Submitted by Thomas Zack on Wednesday 24th June 12:43
Hi Grant, impressive indeed! Two questions: 1) the Tau correction is entirely software-driven? As I understood, you know how the peak shape should be, and can correct for the slow signal decay, correct? 2) For those Rb-poor inclusions in this grain, you should have obtained 87Sr/86Sr ratios. What errors (precision and "trueness") are we talking here?
Hi Thomas, in answer to the 1st question the tau correction is indeed software-driven. However, it must be said that other, hardware and firmware correction, are also applied to alter the signal decay profile. We do not know what the peak shape should be to apply corrections, instead we work from what we know of the detection system i order to calculate an input signal from the measured output. For the Rb-poor inclusions the precision the errors on the image did depend on the inclusion size, but 0.2% could be achieved on the 87Sr/86Sr. Limitations were correlated to corrections for REE++ and Kr interferences.
Hi Grant, impressive indeed! Two questions: 1) the Tau correction is entirely software-driven? As I understood, you know how the peak shape should be, and can correct for the slow signal decay, correct? 2) For those Rb-poor inclusions in this grain, you should have obtained 87Sr/86Sr ratios. What errors (precision and "trueness") are we talking here?
Hi Thomas, in answer to the 1st question the tau correction is indeed software-driven. However, it must be said that other, hardware and firmware correction, are also applied to alter the signal decay profile. We do not know what the peak shape should be to apply corrections, instead we work from what we know of the detection system i order to calculate an input signal from the measured output. For the Rb-poor inclusions the precision the errors on the image did depend on the inclusion size, but 0.2% could be achieved on the 87Sr/86Sr. Limitations were correlated to corrections for REE++ and Kr interferences.
Submitted by Frank Wombacher on Thursday 25th June 09:25
Dear Grant, 1) would the DCI or a similar device increase the sensitivity when combined with dry plasma solution work (I guess large droplets from wet plasma need their residence time in the plasma for desolvation). Is it very sensitive to torch positioning? Would matrix (mass bias)-effects improve or get worse? 2) Could you imagine non-imaging applications using the DCI with a smoothing device to increase sensitivity while sacrificing the fast response e.g. for sake of isotope ratio measurement stability using 10^13 and 10^11 Ohm resistors?
Dear Grant, 1) would the DCI or a similar device increase the sensitivity when combined with dry plasma solution work (I guess large droplets from wet plasma need their residence time in the plasma for desolvation). Is it very sensitive to torch positioning? Would matrix (mass bias)-effects improve or get worse? 2) Could you imagine non-imaging applications using the DCI with a smoothing device to increase sensitivity while sacrificing the fast response e.g. for sake of isotope ratio measurement stability using 10^13 and 10^11 Ohm resistors?
Sign in to ask a question.