Comment on “The origin of methane in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf unraveled with triple isotope analysis” by Sapart et al. (2017)
In this comment, we outline two major concerns regarding some of the key data presented in this paper. Both of these concerns are associated with the natural abundance radiocarbon-methane ( 14 C-CH 4 ) data. First, no systematic methodology is presented, nor previous peer-reviewed publication refere...
| Published in: | Biogeosciences |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4777-2018 https://doaj.org/article/109b1f1b7d644a1a8c5efbc2966624fe |
| Summary: | In this comment, we outline two major concerns regarding some of the key data presented in this paper. Both of these concerns are associated with the natural abundance radiocarbon-methane ( 14 C-CH 4 ) data. First, no systematic methodology is presented, nor previous peer-reviewed publication referenced, for how these samples were collected, prepared, and ultimately analyzed for 14 C-CH 4 . Not only are these procedural details missing, but the critical evaluation of them using gaseous and aqueous blanks and standards was omitted although these details are essential for any reader to evaluate the quality of data and subsequent interpretations. Second, due to the lack of methodological details, the source of the sporadic anthropogenic contamination cannot be determined and thus it is premature for the authors to suggest it was in the natural environment prior to sample collection. As the natural 14 C-CH 4 data are necessary for the authors' stated scientific objectives of understanding the origin of methane in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, our comment serves to highlight that the study's objectives have not been met. |
|---|