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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), any sample (S) measurement isperformed as a relative-difference ((S/W)di) from a working-lab-reference (W),but the result is evaluated relative to a recommended-standard (D): (S/D)di. Itis thus assumed that different source specific results ((S1/D)di, (S2/D)di)would represent their sources (S1, S2), and be accurately intercomparable.However, the assumption has never been checked. In this manuscript we carry outthis task by considering a system as CO2+-IRMS. We present a model for a prioripredicting output-uncertainty. Our study shows that scale-conversion, even withthe aid of auxiliary-reference-standard(s) Ai(s), cannot make (S/D)di free fromW; and the ((S/W)di,(A1/W)di,(A2/W)di) To (S/D)di conversion-formula normallyused in the literature is invalid. Besides, the latter-relation has been workedout, which leads to e.g.,fJ([(S/W)dJCO2pmp%],[(A1/W)dJCO2pmp%],[(A2/W)dJCO2pmp%]) = ((S/D)dJCO2pm4.5p%);whereas FJ([(S/W)dJCO2pmp%],[(A1/W)dJCO2pmp%]) = ((S/D)dJCO2pm1.2p%). That is,contrary to the general belief (Nature 1978, 271, 534), the scale-conversion byemploying one than two Ai-standards should ensure (S/D)di to be more accurate.However, a more valuable finding is that the transformation of any d-estimateinto its absolute value helps improve accuracy, or any reverse-process enhancesuncertainty. Thus, equally accurate though the absolute-estimates ofisotopic-CO2 and constituent-elemental-isotopic abundance-ratios could be, incontradistinction any differential-estimate is shown to be less accurate.Further, for S and D to be similar, any absolute estimate is shown to turn outnearly absolute accurate but any (S/D)d value as really absurd. That is,estimated source specific absolute values, rather than correspondingdifferential results, should really represent their sources, and/ or be closelyintercomparable.

Pros and cons of the technique of processing IRMS data as desired-delta  values: uncertainty and comparability in results, a case study for  determining carbon and oxygen isotopic abundance ratios as CO_2^+