Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-lxcff Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-30T14:35:05.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gas Proportional Versus Liquid Scintillation Counting, Radiometric Versus AMS Dating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Páll Theodórsson
Páll Theodórsson*
Affiliation:
Science Institute, University of Iceland, Dunhaga 3, 107 Reykjavík, Iceland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I discuss here the basis of a comparison of methods for radiocarbon dating and introduce a new index for the relative merit of a system, factor of counting capacity, that is generally more appropriate than the commonly used factor of merit. The merit of a dating system cannot be based on a single figure but other factors must also be considered. A comparison of the gas proportional, liquid scintillation and accelerator mass spectrometry technique is presented that for gas proportional counters is based on a multi-detector system rather than a single detector.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 1991 , pp. 9 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Damon, P (ms) 1989 Radiocarbon dating techniques: TAMS versus Quantulus. In preparation.Google Scholar
Hut, G, Kayser, J and Wijma, S 1983 A multiple proportional 14C counter system for milligram-sized samples. in Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 11th, Proc. Radiocarbon 25(2): 547–552.Google Scholar
Jelen, K and Geyh, MA 1986 A low-cost miniature counter system for radiocarbon dating. in Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc. Radiocarbon 28(2A): 578–585.Google Scholar
Mäntynen, P, Äikää, O, Kankainen, T and Kaihola, L 1987 Application of pulse-shape discrimination to improve the precision of the carbon-14 gas-proportional-counting method. Appl Radiat Isot 38(10): 869–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, WG and Streurman, HJ 1983 Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. PACT 8: 31–56.Google Scholar
Nydal, R, Gulliksen, S and Lövseth, K 1975 Proportional counters and shielding for low level gas counting. in Povinec, P, ed, Internatl conference on Low-radioactivity: measurements and applications. High Tatras, Proc: 77-84.Google Scholar
Oeschger, H and Wahlen, M 1975 Low level counting technique. Ann Rev Nuclear Sci: 423–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otlet, RL, Huxtable, G and Sanderson, DCW 1986 The development of practical systems for 14C measurement of small samples using miniature counters. in Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 12th, Proc. Radiocarbon 28(2A): 603–614.Google Scholar
Polach, H, Calf, G, Harkness, D, Hogg, A, Kaihola, L and Robertson, S 1988 Performance of new technology liquid scintillation counters for 14C dating. Nuclear Geophysics 2.Google Scholar
Robinson, SW 1976 Radiocarbon dating at the US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. in Berger, R and Suess, HE, eds, Radiocarbon dating. Internatl 14C conf, 9th, Proc. Berkeley, Univ California Press: 268-273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, SW and Trimble, DA 1981 US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, radiocarbon measurements II. Radiocarbon 23(2): 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoch, H, Bruns, M, Münnich, KO and Münnich, M 1980 A multi-counter system for high precision carbon-14 measurements. in Stuiver, M and Kra, RS, eds, Internatl 14C conf, 10th, Proc. Radiocarbon 22(2): 442–447.Google Scholar
Tans, PP, de Jong, AFM, Mook, WG and Hut, G 1982 High accuracy carbon-14 counting and the application to the radiocarbon calibration curve. in Povinec, P, ed, Conference on low-level counting, 2nd, Proc. Bratislava: 155-169.Google Scholar
Watt, DE and Ramsden, D 1964 High sensitivity counting technique. London, Pergamon Press: 2.Google Scholar