English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The sample selected as an analytical standard is a claybearing nannofossil ooze that is typical of much of the sediment recovered during the cruise. The sample was obtained from a 6.2-m experimental core recovered at Site 602. This core was too intensely disturbed to be useful for sediment lithology or stratigraphy studies (see Site 602 Chapter, this volume) so portions of it were homogenized for use as an analytical standard. The standard sediment sample was prepared as follows. Approximately 2.5 kg of wet sediment from Core 602 were freeze dried; the solid residue was then homogenized and split using a sample divider. Half of this material was further subdivided, and 10-g portions were sent to each laboratory that had expressed an intention to conduct sediment geochemistry analyses on Leg 92 sediments. The remaining material has been retained at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor; portions of this are available on request. Five laboratories returned results, which are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The principal investigator, laboratory affiliation, and letter code used for each laboratory in the tables are as follows: V. Marchig, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Hannover, Federal Republic of Germany (BGR); J. Erzinger, Mineralogy-Petrology Institute, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Federal Republic of Germany (JLU): M. Lyle, College of Oceanography, Oregon State University (OSU); M. Leinen, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island (URI); R. Owen, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, The University of Michigan (UM). Whenever two or more laboratories reported a result for the same parameter, we calculated a simple arithmetic mean value and reported it in Tables 1 and 2. These Table 1. Major element composition of standard sediment sample (wt.%).

Interlaboratory Comparison of Leg 92 Standard Sediment Sample Analyses