Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Halldórsson, S. A.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 12
  • 12

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2021Instrumental mass fractionation during sulfur isotope analysis by secondary ion mass spectrometry in natural and synthetic glasses12citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Neave, David
1 / 3 shared
Burgess, Ray
1 / 1 shared
Turchyn, A. V.
1 / 1 shared
Stefánsson, A.
1 / 1 shared
Taracsák, Zoltán
1 / 1 shared
Beaudry, P.
1 / 1 shared
Ono, S.
1 / 4 shared
Edmonds, M.
1 / 1 shared
Gunnarsson-Robin, J.
1 / 1 shared
Hartley, Margaret
1 / 2 shared
Ranta, E.
1 / 1 shared
Longpré, M.-A.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2021

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Neave, David
  • Burgess, Ray
  • Turchyn, A. V.
  • Stefánsson, A.
  • Taracsák, Zoltán
  • Beaudry, P.
  • Ono, S.
  • Edmonds, M.
  • Gunnarsson-Robin, J.
  • Hartley, Margaret
  • Ranta, E.
  • Longpré, M.-A.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Instrumental mass fractionation during sulfur isotope analysis by secondary ion mass spectrometry in natural and synthetic glasses

  • Neave, David
  • Burgess, Ray
  • Turchyn, A. V.
  • Stefánsson, A.
  • Taracsák, Zoltán
  • Beaudry, P.
  • Ono, S.
  • Halldórsson, S. A.
  • Edmonds, M.
  • Gunnarsson-Robin, J.
  • Hartley, Margaret
  • Ranta, E.
  • Longpré, M.-A.
Abstract

Sulfur isotope ratios are among the most commonly studied isotope systems in geochemistry. While sulfur isotope ratio analyses of materials such as bulk rock samples, gases, and sulfide grains are routinely carried out, in-situ analyses of silicate glasses such as those formed in magmatic systems are relatively scarce in the literature. Despite a number of attempts in recent years to analyse sulfur isotope ratios in volcanic and experimental glasses by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), the effects of instrumental mass fractionation (IMF) during analysis remain poorly understood. In this study we use more than 600 sulfur isotope analyses of nine different glasses to characterise the matrix effects that arise during sulfur isotope analysis of glasses by SIMS. Samples were characterised for major element composition, sulfur content, and sulfur isotope ratios by independent methods. Our glasses contain between 500 and 3400 ppm sulfur and cover a wide compositional range, including low-silica basanite, rhyolite, and phonolite, allowing us to investigate composition-dependent IMF. We use SIMS in multi-collection mode with a Faraday cup/electron multiplier detector configuration to achieve uncertainty of 0.3h to 2h (2σ) on measured δ34S. At high sulfur content, the analytical error of our SIMS analyses is similar to that of bulk analytical methods, such as gas-source isotope ratio mass spectrometry. We find IMF causes an offset of -12h to +1h between bulk sulfur isotope ratios and those measured by SIMS. Instrumental mass fractionation correlates non-linearly with glass sulfur contents and with a multivariate regression model combining glass Al, Na, and K contents. Both ln(S) and Al-Na-K models are capable of predicting IMF with good accuracy: 84% (ln(S)) and 87% (Al-Na-K) of our analyses can be reproduced within 2σ combined analytical uncertainty after a correction for composition-dependent IMF is applied. The process driving IMF is challenging to identify. The non-linear correlation between glass S content and IMF in our dataset resembles previously documented correlation between glass H2O abundance and IMF during D/H ratio analyses by SIMS, and could be attributed to changes in 32S- and 34S- ion yields with changing S content and glass composition. However, a clear correlation between S ion yields and S content cannot be identified in our dataset. We speculate that accumulation of alkalis at the SIMS crater floor may be the principal driving force of composition dependent IMF. Nonetheless, other currently unknown factors could also influence IMF observed during S isotope ratio analyses of glasses by SIMS. Our results demonstrate that the use of multiple, well-characterised standards with a wide compositional range is required to calibrate SIMS instruments prior to sulfur isotope analyses of unknown silicate glasses. Matrix effects related to glass Al-Na-K contents are of particular importance for felsic systems, where alkali and aluminium contents can vary considerably more than in mafic magmas.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • grain
  • aluminium
  • glass
  • glass
  • spectrometry
  • selective ion monitoring
  • secondary ion mass spectrometry
  • fractionation
  • isotope ratio mass spectrometry