16-05-2021, 07:34 PM
(16-05-2021, 06:20 PM)Anton wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think so.
Regarding the solvent treatment, they say in several places that it was necessary so I can only regard the quoted sentence as a mistake.
Under Chemical Treatment
"The results indicated that the solvent extraction was necessary, so it was adopted for all subsequent samples."
Under Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
"The two measurements of Leaf #68 indicate a younger radiocarbon age for the sample that did not undergo solvent extraction. This pattern is consistent with the accumulation of more recent carbon, perhaps from handling."
Under Averaging the results to increase precision
"Given the clustering of the dates for the four Soxhlet treated samples, and the nature of the object (a book), one can argue that in fact, a single object was measured 4 times. The mean and combined error of these four measurements was calculated using the formulae shown below. The results were 516 ± 18 radiocarbon years BP."
Soxhlet treated = solvent extracted.
If you use the solvent extracted value of 550 for f68, you get the correct mean of 516. If you use the solvent untreated value of 488, you get a mean of 499.5, which is incorrect.
Figure 6 shows the 4 samples used. f68 has the value 550 and the prominent first peak of the age distribution.
Hence I conclude that the solvent extraction was used in all cases for the 4 final samples.