<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bright, Jordon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ebert, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MATTHEW A. KOSNIK</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Southon, John R</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Whitacre, Katherine</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Albano, Paolo G</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Flores, Carola</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frazer, Thomas K</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hua, Quan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kowalewski, Michal</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martinelli, Julieta C</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oakley, David</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Parker, Wesley G</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Retelle, Michael</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MATIAS DO NASCIMENTO RITTER</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rivadeneira, Marcelo M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scarponi, Daniele</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yanes, Yurena</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zuschin, Martin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DARRELL S. KAUFMAN</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">COMPARING DIRECT CARBONATE AND STANDARD GRAPHITE 14C DETERMINATIONS OF BIOGENIC CARBONATES</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radiocarbon</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">biogenic carbonate</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">direct carbonate 14C AMS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">standard graphite 14C AMS</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/comparing-direct-carbonate-and-standard-graphite-14c-determinations-of-biogenic-carbonates/D63FB9D8A4F00C9E91584636A818D2AA</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cambridge University Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-17</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0033-8222</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The direct carbonate procedure for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (AMS 14C) dating of submilligram samples of biogenic carbonate without graphitization is becoming widely used in a variety of studies. We compare the results of 153 paired direct carbonate and standard graphite 14C determinations on single specimens of an assortment of biogenic carbonates. A reduced major axis regression shows a strong relationship between direct carbonate and graphite percent Modern Carbon (pMC) values (m = 0.996; 95% CI [0.991–1.001]). An analysis of differences and a 95% confidence interval on pMC values reveals that there is no significant difference between direct carbonate and graphite pMC values for 76% of analyzed specimens, although variation in direct carbonate pMC is underestimated. The difference between the two methods is typically within 2 pMC, with 61% of direct carbonate pMC measurements being higher than their paired graphite counterpart. Of the 36 specimens that did yield significant differences, all but three missed the 95% significance threshold by 1.2 pMC or less. These results show that direct carbonate 14C dating of biogenic carbonates is a cost-effective and efficient complement to standard graphite 14C dating.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">n/a</style></notes></record></records></xml>