Tabulated export of 3D-TE Calibration settings

Geonostalgia

Is there a way to export a tabulation of all the choices made for 3D Trace elements calibration session-crunch? As to say, an export that will produce an csv/excel file with the standards and model fit used per element, with R² values per block and whether or not the curve was zeroed, and other choices made?
Thank you!

Bence

Hi @Geonostalgia,

No, there isn't a way to do that yet in the current version, but we'll certainly add it as it's a great idea.

Keep an eye on the iolite Release Notes for when it's available (I'll post here too).

Kind regards,
Bence

Geonostalgia

Woohoo! That would be a fantastic addition I think.

It might also be nice to have some sort of marker and/or exclusion feature in the QA/QC Secondary and Element Checks for which standards were used for which elements in calibration curves; that way elements that are measured in standards but aren't used in your calibrations don't have to seemingly "drag down" the quality of standards used with elements that you weren't using them for anyway (for monitor elements, for example).

Bence

By 'monitor elements' do you mean elements that are not used in the sum normalisation approach? Or something else?

Geonostalgia

More or less, yes - elements that are either indicative of a different phase being analyzed rather than the phase of interest (and thus not used in the sum normalization, yes; measuring Si to help better refine selection criteria for areas of carbonate minerals, for example), or for interference correction factors with certain mass numbers (where I got the "monitor element" term from - I've mostly seen this with older mass spectrometers).

I guess what I'm getting at is a way to control which elements or standards appear in in the secondary checks such that you can restrict the view to the elements or standards that matter most to that session, even if you're measuring other elements or standards.

Geonostalgia

Hey all - any progress on that calibration schematics mass export function?

I ask because looking at the 2023 paper again, I was struck by the power of Figure 2a - is there a way that this could be a function in Iolite too? That way you could save different calibration strategy results and compare them simultaneously in the QAQC checks?

Being able to mass-export this type of feature as well would be a really easy way to promote transparency in what is shaping the quantification of the data. Personally, I find it a little disconcerting (at no fault of Iolite or any other laser data processing program) that many mineral trace element papers give relatively detailed descriptions of laser parameters, only to say in so many words that "we processed the raw data with this program" - and that's that. Often correspondence to RM values is given as a mark of verification, but usually quite vaguely. Granted, how does one report calibration data in an easily communicable way, even for an appendix? I'm wondering if easy (especially graphical) outputs like this would provide a bit more accountability for the data and the community by making it more accessible - not only for the choices made, but for the choices not made and why (which also reflects the nature of the original mass spec data). Thoughts?

Thanks for all y'all do!

Bence

Hi @Geonostalgia ,

Sorry, we've been so busy adding features and fixing bugs with iolite Targeting recently that we haven't been back to add features to iolite v4.

This is on our list, but isn't ready yet. I'll post here when it is released. I do have an idea for automating something like the figure you mention... more on that in the future...

Thanks for the reminder though! (We do need them sometimes 😀 )

Bence