@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00011868, author = {南, 雅代 and Minami, Masayo and 太田, 友子 and Ohta, Tomoko and 大森, 貴之 and Omori, Takayuki and 中村, 俊夫 and Nakamura, Toshio}, journal = {名古屋大学加速器質量分析計業績報告書}, month = {Mar}, note = {For combustion of samples a closed tube-combustion (CTC) method has been generally and widely used until now, but this method takes much time and labor. Recently we have investigated a CO_2 production and purification system using a commercial elemental analyzer (EA) connected to cryogenic traps, which enables fast combustion and CO_2 purification of samples. We compared δ^<13>C values between closed tube- and elemental analyzer-combusted samples of Oxalic Acid-II (new oxalic acid standard distributed by NIST; SRM4990c) and almost ^<14>C-free oxalic acid (Kishida[○!R]). For the CTC method δ^<13>C measured values tend to increase as sample amount is small relative to CuO amount. This might be due to absorption of more ^<12>C than ^<13>C to an inner wall of Pyrex tube and/or CuO. Furthermore, different δ^<13>C is observed by addition of Sulfix[○!R] to small amount of CO_2. δ^<13>C values measured by the EA method show good agreement with the results using the CTC method, and sample preparation background of ^<14>C is higher in the CTC method than the EA method, suggesting that this newly developed EA system shows high precision and accuracy. However, more detailed study and improvement on the EA system will be needed for different amounts of various standards such as IAEA standards., 第20回名古屋大学年代測定総合研究センターシンポジウム平成19(2007)年度報告<第2部> Proceedings of the 20th symposiumon on Chronological Studies at the Nagoya University Center for Chronological Research\ in 2007 日時:平成20 (2008)年1月10日(木)~11日(金) 会場:名古屋大学野依記念学術交流館 Date:January10th-11th, 2008 Venue:Nagoya Uhiversity Noyori Conference Hall}, pages = {160--168}, title = {試料燃焼-二酸化炭素精製における炭素同位体比分別 : 封管法と元素分析計による試料調製の違い(第20回名古屋大学年代測定総合研究センターシンポジウム平成19(2007)年度報告)}, volume = {19}, year = {2008} }