Govindaraju. Editorial: Think Geostan

Editorial: Think Geostan

K. Govindaraju

Centre de Recherches Pétrographiques et Géochimiques, 15, rue Notre Dame
des Pauvres, B.P. 20, 54501 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex, France

Think Geostan
In a way, the following lines are rather a continuation of the "FINAL REMARKS" appearing in the July 1989 Special Issue of Geostandards Newsletter (p.7). The main thrust of these remarks was that for many of the geostandards, the working values were based most often on an inadequate number of analytical data. Before searching for a solution to this problem, we may mention a near-ideal situation for assigning working values, at least for major and minor elements, has been the collaborative study on Ailsa Craig Granite AC-E for which it was possible to harvest more than 100 individual analytical results for major and minor elements obtained through different methods. A salient feature of this study was that working values could be proposed for seventy major, minor and trace elements and this could be achieved with the participation of 128 GIT-IWG laboratories during a short period of only nine months (September 1986-May 1987) and the compilation report published in October 1987 in Geostandards Newsletter. Similar situations have been encountered for the five earlier GIT-IWG samples (AN-G, BE-N, MA-N, AL-I and IF-G). Despite these favourable observations, data on many trace elements remain desperately inadequate.

For the GIT-IWG samples, the period of study including the release of the first reports did not exceed 18 months. This is much in contrast with the life of many geostandards still available but prepared years back for which we still deplore insufficient amount of compiled data, sometimes even for major and minor elements; however, a notable exception is IGGE samples from China with 26 samples prepared in large amounts and characterised for seventy elements or more. The examples of GIT-IWG and IGGE show that it should be possible to launch successful studies if they have the support of several laboratories, GIT-IWG members in the case of the GIT-IWG studies and mostly Chinese laboratories in the case of the IGGE studies. Now, we must admit that the all important problem, how to valorize the existing samples, is a formidable challenge. One approach to this challenge may be to render the geoanalytical and geochemical communities very concerned about and conscious of the importance of disposing well characterized geostandards to maintain and to improve the quality of geoanalytical data and the slogan "Think Geostan" appearing for the first lime in the front cover page of the Special Issue and in this regular issue is a first step in this direction. Naturally, Think Geostan aims at target values i.e., at accurate working values. Besides this rather psychological attempt, concrete practical solutions are urgently needed. One idea is to select, say 10 geostandards, with support from the producers for their free supply and to form an ad hoc committee to get the samples analysed for some "difficult" trace elements such as Sn, W, Mo, Ta within a short period of time. This idea and others may be discussed during the Geoanalysis 90 symposium in Canada (dune 1990) where several geoanalysts and geostandardists are expected to meet and discuss geostandards problems. In the meanwhile, Think Geostan!

Geostandards Newsletter (1989), Vol. 13 No. 2 pp. 195

Return to Contents list | Index Volume 13

Return to main page Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research