Articles | Volume 26, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3673-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3673-2022
Research article
 | 
14 Jul 2022
Research article |  | 14 Jul 2022

A comparative study of plant water extraction methods for isotopic analyses: Scholander-type pressure chamber vs. cryogenic vacuum distillation

Giulia Zuecco, Anam Amin, Jay Frentress, Michael Engel, Chiara Marchina, Tommaso Anfodillo, Marco Borga, Vinicio Carraro, Francesca Scandellari, Massimo Tagliavini, Damiano Zanotelli, Francesco Comiti, and Daniele Penna

Viewed

Total article views: 3,704 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
2,665 988 51 3,704 55 74
  • HTML: 2,665
  • PDF: 988
  • XML: 51
  • Total: 3,704
  • BibTeX: 55
  • EndNote: 74
Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Oct 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Oct 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,704 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,398 with geography defined and 306 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 17 Jul 2024
Download
Short summary
We analyzed the variability in the isotopic composition of plant water extracted by two different methods, i.e., cryogenic vacuum distillation (CVD) and Scholander-type pressure chamber (SPC). Our results indicated that the isotopic composition of plant water extracted by CVD and SPC was significantly different. We concluded that plant water extraction by SPC is not an alternative for CVD as SPC mostly extracts the mobile plant water whereas CVD retrieves all water stored in the sampled tissue.