Rock and Mineral Feedstock Characterization
Loading...
This Module (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.) provides the requirements and recommendations for the characterization of solid rock and mineral feedstocks that may be used in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects by Project Proponents (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.). This Module is intended for use in conjunction with other Isometric pathway level Protocols and Modules. This Module can be used in any instanceapplies where physical and geochemical characterization for the use of a rock or mineral material as a feedstockfeedstocks is required byfor use in a Crediting Project Proponent.
The characterization requirements and recommendations outlined within this Module are based on best known scientific practices at the time of writing. Requirements may be updated in future versions of this Module in line with changes in scientific consensus. This Module outlines methodologies that may be employed to characterize feedstocks to the best of the Project Proponent’s ability, considering scientific rigor, method employment economics, best practice and feasibility. Specific analytical method standard details are outlined in Appendix 1.
Within this Module framework, the key physical and geochemical characteristics of rock feedstocks required for CDR pathways are outlined. It is a requirementRequirements that are specific to different feedstock types, such as commercially produced feedstocks and waste products, are clearly differentiated in distinct sections of this Module. Project Proponents must characterize all feedstocks are characterized, prior to application, in a Crediting Project to ensure safety, suitability, and suitabilitycompliance with this Module and applicable Protocols. Where a specific Protocol outlines requirements that deviate from or supersede the requirements in this Module, those Protocol requirements take precedence. In all other instances where a Protocol does not specify requirements for CO2a removal.particular Wecharacterization outlineelement, the corerequirements feedstockoutlined in this Module apply in full.
The characterization requirements and recommendations outlined in Tablethis Module are applied with consideration of feedstock type. Three primary feedstock categories are addressed: (1.) Thecommercially requirementsproduced feedstocks obtained from established suppliers; (2) feedstocks sourced from extractive industries (mining, quarrying) or designated as waste products under national law; and recommendations(3) outlinedgeneral herecharacterization applyapplicable to all pathwayfeedstock leveltypes Protocols that utilize this Module unless otherwise specified in the Protocol. Any deviations from these requirements outlined in a Protocol will supersede the requirements listed below. These characterization parameters are outlined in more detail in Section 3.
Table 1: Feedstock Characterization Requirements and Recommendations
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is noted that the requirements outlined in Table 12 are(presented minimumin requirementsSection for3) feedstock used withinprovides a Crediting Project. Where a feedstock is sourced from mining operations further characterization may be required, based on relevant regulatory requirements. A summary of suchwhich characterization methodselements specificare required, recommended, or conditionally applicable to mining relatedeach feedstock is given in Section 3.4.5.
In some instances, determination methods other than those listed as required in Table 1 may be appropriatecategory. Project Proponents may,should consult this table alongside the detailed requirements in consultationSections with3.1 Isometric,through conduct3.5 alternativeto analyses with adequate justification indetermine the Projectfull Designscope Documentof (PDD)characterization (Therequired documentfor thattheir clearlyspecific outlinesfeedstock howtype aand Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.)origin.
It
Project Proponents utilizingmust a rock or mineral feedstock thatsubmit documentation is submitted to the projectProject's Validation & Verification Body (VVB) (Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.) that outlines the origin and nature of the utilizedfeedstock feedstockused. This documentation shouldmust formaddress a distinct sectionall of the project's PDD and should contain the following information:
Where feedstocks are obtained from a commercial feedstock producer, Project Proponents may submit a summary of pre-processing and production procedures in lieu of detailed documentation of each process step. Any such summary must be signed off by the commercial feedstock producer for accuracy and completeness.
[/R-36GV-0]Project Proponents may submit prior geochemical or physical characterization carried out onby the organization that produced or sourced the feedstock. Prior characterization may be submitted in the following instances:
Isometric and the Project VVB will assess the suitability of all submitted prior characterization data on a case-by-case basis, evaluating whether the methodologies, standards, and quality assurance procedures meet the requirements outlined in Section 3 and Appendix 1. If prior characterization is deemed not suitable for submission, Project Proponents are required to carry out supplementary or complete characterization of feedstocks. See Section 5.2 for guidance on third-party characterization submissions.
[/R-PVCG-0]Project Proponents must provide adequate supporting documentation to explain any information listed above that is not available at the time of PDD submission, Project Proponents are required to provide adequate supporting documentation to explain why. Such circumstances may occur in relation to the use ofwhen mining waste materials or proprietary commercial feedstocks are used, whereand some information mayis beclassified madeas confidential by the entitysource thatorganization. producedWhere confidentiality applies, Project Proponents must:
Ifacceptable thealternatives rockto orunavailable mineraldocumentation
Where feedstocks have been recovered as a by-product of an extractive process (mining, quarrying, or similar operations), Project ProponentProponents is required tomust report on the legal classification and status of the source material beforeprior to use in a CDR Crediting Project.
Specifically, ThisProject requirementProponents willmust:
Legal frameworks applicable to extractive waste include, but are not limited to, the Extractive Waste Directive 2006/21/EC withinin the European Union. Project Proponents operating in other jurisdictions must consult applicable national waste and extractive industry regulations.
There are a wide range of characteristics that can influence a feedstock’s weathering or dissolution rate for CO2 removal. These include both physical properties (e.g., particle size distribution, permeability, density, etc.) and geochemical properties (e.g., mineralogy and elemental composition). Understanding how these characteristics interact with environmental variables to determine theseweathering and dissolution rates is still an active area of scientific investigation, and characterization methodologies continue to evolve with advances in analytical technology and field understanding.
This Module’s iscore designedfeedstock notcharacterization justrequirements and recommendations are summarized in Table 1. The characterization parameters outlined here apply to all pathway-level Protocols that utilize this Module, except where those Protocols specify alternative or additional requirements (as described in the Introduction Section). Table 2 identifies which of the Table 1 parameters are required, recommended, or conditionally required based on feedstock type and origin. The detailed methodologies and applicability conditions for materialeach characterization, butparameter are outlined in Sections 3.1 through 3.5 below.
Table 1: Feedstock Characterization Requirements and Recommendations
Characterization Parameter | Measurement Rationale | Determination Methods |
|---|---|---|
Grain size | Informing weathering potential | Required for |
Geotechnical Properties | Informing weathering potential | Varies. Required: uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), density. Recommended: porosity, permeability. See Section 3.4.3 |
Surface area | Informing weathering potential | Required for all feedstock types: BET surface area (or equivalent analysis, such as laser diffraction, depending on specific feedstocks utilized) |
Mineral type and abundance | Informing weathering potential | All of the Recommended: |
Total Carbon and Sulfur | Assessment of baseline carbon content | Required for all feedstock types: • Dry combustion analysis |
Trace and major elemental composition | Assessment of weathering potential | All of the following are required for all feedstock types |
Radiation levels | Assessment of safety | Required for extractive and waste feedstocks: Measurement of gross alpha and beta radioactivity |
Elemental Deportment Analysis | Assessment of likelihood of release of harmful elements | Required for industrial and waste feedstocks applied to agricultural land. |
pH-dependent leaching tests | Assessment of how and under what conditions elements are released from a feedstock into solution | pH-dependent leaching tests are recommended for all feedstock types. Required for industrial and waste feedstocks applied to agricultural land:
|
Table 2: Feedstock-Type Applicability
Characterization Parameter | Commercial Feedstocks | Extractive/Waste Feedstocks | All Feedstock Types |
Particle Size Distribution (Section 3.3) | Required | Required | Required |
Bulk Density (Section 3.3) | Required | Required | Required |
Surface Area (Section 3.3) | Required | Required | Required |
Mineralogy (Section 3.4.1) | Required | Required | Required |
Elemental Composition (Section 3.4.2) | Required | Required | Required |
Geotechnical Properties (Section 3.4.3) | Recommended | Required | — |
Contaminant Screening (Section 3.5.1) | Recommended | Required | — |
Characterization for Mining Operations (Section 3.5.5) | Not applicable | Required if sourced from mining | — |
Waste Legal Status (Section 2) | Not applicable | Required | — |
The characterization requirements outlined hereinin willTable be1 foundationalprovide a summary of core parameters applicable to feedstock characterization across all feedstock types. Table 2 identifies which Table 1 parameters are mandatory, recommended, or conditionally applicable to different feedstock categories (commercial, extractive/waste). Project Proponents must use both tables in conjunction with the detailed requirements in Sections 3.1–3.5 to establish the complete characterization scope for buildingtheir scientificspecific consensusfeedstock.
Where aroundfeedstocks theare underlyingsourced controlsfrom extractive processes (mining, quarrying, or similar operations) or have been designated as waste products under national law, additional characterization requirements may apply based on feedstockrelevant weatheringregulatory and/orframeworks. dissolutionSee Section 3.5.5 for characterization methods specific to feedstocks recovered from extractive (e.g., mining) and willother ultimatelyindustrial leadprocesses to(e.g., moresteel sophisticatedproduction) model-basedand approachesSection as2 thefor fieldlegal maturesstatus reporting requirements.
AllAnalytical projectsstandards and methodologies form the foundation of reliable feedstock characterization. Adherence to established standards (whether national, international, or manufacturer-defined) ensures that characterization results are reproducible, defensible, and comparable across projects. This section outlines the standard-hierarchy approach required for all feedstock characterization and addresses situations where standards may not fully cover the analysis being undertaken.
Project Proponents must characterize feedstocks in CDR projects have been characterized in lineaccordance with the following standards hierarchy, applied in order of priority:
Where specific standards do not exist for analytical techniques (e.g., X-ray diffraction-based mineralogy), Project Proponents must follow the ProjectStandard ProponentOperating isProcedures required to provide an SOP for the analysis undertaken that can be reviewed by the VVB. Such situations may occur for specific analysis, such as XRD based mineralogical analysis, where methods and (SOPs may be) defined by the analytical instrument manufacturer.
Similarly, there may be instances in which the most accessibleWhere analytical testing facilities do not conform to ISO or othernational standard,standards and instead utilizesutilize their own methodologies, Project Proponents may use in-house methods only with explicit prior approval from Isometric and the Project VVB.
For each analytical method, Project Proponents must clearly identify and document in the PDD submission:
(See Appendix 1 for detailed standards and measurement guidance.)
[/G-YP8W-0]For analytical techniques where no applicable national or ISO standard exists, Project Proponents must provide detailed documentation of the analytical method employed. This must include:
Where analytical facilities utilize in-house methodologies that do not conform to established standards, Project Proponents must obtain written approval from Isometric prior to employing such methodologies. Such approval should be sought during early Project planning (before sample analysis begins) to avoid delays. The Project Proponent must provide:
Where analysis is carried out by a third party (such as a commercial feedstock producer, external laboratory, or specialist analytical facility), the Project Proponent remains responsible for ensuring that all standards, methods, and SOPs requirements outlined above are met. Specifically, Project Proponents must:
See Section 5.2 for detailed guidance on submitting third-party characterization data.
[/R-CRJE-0]In some instances, analytical or characterization methods other than those listed as required in this Module may be permissiblescientifically justified or more appropriate for the specific feedstock and requireProject explicitcontext. Advances in analytical technology, constraints imposed by feedstock availability or budget, or site-specific conditions may necessitate the use of alternative methods. This section describes when and how alternatives may be employed.
Project Proponents may propose and employ characterization methods other than those specified as required in Table 1 and Sections 3.1–3.5, provided that:
Approval Process
Project Proponents should consult with Isometric during early Project development to discuss alternative methods. Approval is typically granted as part of the PDD submission review, but early consultation can identify potential issues and improve approval likelihood. Requests for alternative method approval should include:
SampleReliable characterization results depend critically on proper sample handling from collection through storage and analysis. Representative sampling, careful preparation, and secure identification and storage ensure that analytical results truly reflect the feedstock being characterized and can be reproduced if needed. This section establishes requirements and recommendations for all aspects of sample management throughout the characterization program.
Project Proponents should undertake sample preparation for geochemical analysis in accordance with one of, or a combination of, the following standards:
Note: The applicability of the standards listed above for a specific feedstock type should be assessed and implemented on a Project by Project basis.
Within this Module, a batch is defined as unit of feedstock that is expected to be compositionally homogeneous, derived from a consistent feedstock source, production process and/or storage location. A batch may represent a discrete stockpile, or defined volume of material aggregated over time, provided homogeneity can be demonstrated by a Project Proponent.
Project Proponents must determine the specific number of samples or replicates that need to be collected for any one batch of feedstock, conduct characterization of every batch, and justify the sampling procedure and number of analyses based on project-specific considerations. Project Proponents must ensure that data is spatially representative of the entire project area and that sampling captures both horizontal and vertical variability within the feedstock used in a Crediting Project. Projects must demonstrate the degree of homogeneity within a single feedstock batch and report this to Isometric.
Project Proponents must:
Projects that utilize a commercially available feedstock are not required to implement a specific sampling plan if the characterization data provided by the feedstock producer demonstrates consistent homogeneity and satisfies all other requirements of this Module.
Where data and information provided by commercial feedstock producers does not meet all requirements of this Module, the Project Proponent must carry out additional analysis and outline a sampling plan for additional characterization analysis within the PDD submission.
[/R-C7SZ-0]The Project Proponent must consider a broad range of feedstock characteristics and relevant context that may influence rock homogeneity when determining a sampling plan. These considerations include, but are not limited to, grain size distribution, particle sorting that may occur during processing and transport, the amount of feedstock being spread and the geological/geochemical setting from which the feedstock was extracted.
Note: All relevant details of the sampling plan, number of analyses, and adequate justification for these choices must be included in the PDD submission.
Recommended methods for assessing feedstock homogeneity include compositional variance analysis, such as ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) (see ISO 33405:2024), performed on major element or mineralogical characterization data; field screening techniques using handheld XRF or near-infrared spectroscopy; and approaches such as the ITRC Incremental Sampling Methodology1, which suggests collecting a large number of small increments — typically 30–100 — systematically and randomly distributed throughout the bulk feedstock pile. It is acknowledged that rock feedstocks are likely to vary in composition as an extractive material, depending on the source location.
Project Proponents must include in the PDD submission a detailed description of how the chosen sampling plan addresses any heterogeneity that might be present within the batch. This may include sampling across horizontal and vertical dimensions of a feedstock batch as a consideration of particle sorting that may happen during processing.
[/R-ZWNM-0]Where feedstocks are delivered to a Project site that is geographically separate from the source location, Project Proponents must undertake the following to ensure homogeneity across deliveries:
Note: The sampling frequency of ongoing deliveries must be assessed on a Project by Project basis, informed by the demonstrated homogeneity of the source feedstock batch. Delivery characterisation approaches should be agreed in consultation with Isometric and the Project VVB.
[/G-2M6F-0]To determine the variability of a feedstock material, is it recommended that Project Proponents use relevant ISO standards, such as those outlined in Table 3 below.
For example, Annex 2 of ISO 3082:2017 outlines a variability experiment using duplicate sampling, where
The variability of feedstock materials, and subsequent sampling increments (n), must be demonstrated and justified within the PDD submission. A Project Proponent ismust responsibleoutline the specific method used to assess variability, such as compositional variance analysis (such as ANOVA).
Table 3: Example ISO standards that may be utilized when designing a sampling plan
Standard | Primary Focus | Typical use cases |
|---|---|---|
Iron Ores / Hard Rock | Large-scale mineral feedstock & geochemical assays. | |
Statistical Theory | Validating the "representativeness" of a sampling plan. | |
Hard Coal | Solid mineral fuels and carbon-based feedstocks. | |
Soil & Earth | Geotechnical site characterization and environmental data. | |
Pretreatment of samples for | Is intended for soils but can be applied to other rock and mineral materials |
In line with ISO 3082:2017 sampling increments, composite sampling and aliquots are followeddefined byas partnerfollows:
Project Proponents are required to providecollect detaileda informationminimum of 40 representative sample increments from their feedstock source in order to create a composite sample mass for characterization. The sampling plan employed to collect sample increments must be described in detail within the PDD submission.
All Information related to the creation of composite samples, laboratory samples and aliquots for the purpose of feedstock characterization must be outlined within the PDD submission. Information must include utilized material characterization, preparation and sampling standards, methods and SOPs (where applicable).
[/R-KHH9-0]While Project Proponents are required to collect a minimum of 40 representative sample increments from their feedstock source (e.g. stockpile or TSF), it is highly recommended that Project Proponents follow the methods and guidances outlined in relevant ISO standards.
For example, where a specific standard deviation is not known for a feedstock yet, ISO 3082:2017 (Annex 2 recommends default sample increment numbers based on the preparationmass of the feedstock source / stockpile and handlingthe variability of rockthe feedstock (high or low). Table 4 outlines recommended sampling increments, in line with ISO 3082:2017 (Annex 2).
Table 4: Recommended Sample Increments for high and minerallow variability feedstocks
Mass | Number of Sample Increments for High Variability Feedstocks | Number of Sample Increments for Low Variability Feedstocks |
|---|---|---|
15,000 tons | 125 | 40 |
15,000 – 30,000 tons | 175 | 50 |
30,000 – 45,000 tons | 200 | 60 |
45,000 – 60,000 tons | 225 | 70 |
100,000 tons | 300+ | 100+ |
Alternative Asampling chainincrement ofplans custody is required tomay be submittedacceptable withwhere theProject resultsProponents obtainedcan throughdemonstrate materialstatistical characterizationrepresentativeness or have followed a specific ISO standard for sampling and sample preparation. ChainFor of custody documents must outline detailed informationguidance on thealternative handling of rockmethods and mineralapproval feedstock materialsprocesses, fromsee theirSection source3.1 location(Consolidated toAlternative the production of characterization resultsMethods).
The physical properties of rock and mineral feedstocks are required to be characterized before use in a Crediting Project. Physical characteristics are required to be assessed in line with the methods and standards outlined within this Module. Within this Module, physical characterization covers a material's geotechnical and physical characteristics.
It is required that all materials are characterized for their geotechnical properties. TheseGeotechnical properties are key to understanding the physical nature of utilized rock feedstocks at the time of analysis. Key parameters may include water content, specific gravity, particle density, bulk density and permeability. Geotechnical investigation and testing follow the ISO 17892 standards group, adapted to feedstock-specific contexts.
Project Proponents are required tomust undertake geotechnical investigation and testing. The exact set of tests required will vary on a project basis, but should generally be in linealigned with the ISO standards group ISO 17892. Thisstandards standardor setequivalent isnational listedstandards below,and withreport feedstock-specificresults requirementswithin highlightedthe PDD submission.
Required tests for all pathways, unless otherwise specified in a pathway Protocol:
Recommended tests for all pathways, unless otherwise specified in a pathway Protocol:
A Project ProponentProponents ismust responsible for ensuringensure that all geotechnical laboratory testing undertaken on rock and mineral feedstock materials meetmeets standards in accordance with national regulations in athe project's location. If a Project Proponent or partner facility undertakes testing in line with aWhere national alternativealternatives to the aforementioned ISO 17892 standards are used, this must be reported within the projectPDD PDDsubmission.
Commercially produced carbonate feedstocks are exempt from geotechnical and radioactivity measurement requirements.
[/G-FJ1S-0]Particle size distribution (PSD) and specific surface area analysis quantify the physical characteristics of feedstock materials. PSD characterizes the range of particle sizes present, while surface area analysis determines the reactive surface available for chemical weathering. Within this Module, gravimetric sieving and BET analysis are the required methods for these parameters.
ProjectsProject areProponents required tomust carry out particle size distribution (PSD (Particle size distribution.)) and specific surface area analysis for all rock and mineral feedstocks used within Crediting Projects.
Gravimetric WithinSieving
Gravimetric thissieving Moduledetermines particle size distribution by mechanically separating particles into defined size fractions.
Project toProponents determine these parameters.must:
Gravimetric Sieving
It is required that
BET Analysis
ToBET quantify(Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) theanalysis quantifies specific surface area by measuring the extent of agas rockadsorption andon mineralthe feedstock materials, it is required that projects undertake BET analysissurface. This analysis will aid in quantifyingquantifies the potential reactive surface area of rock feedstock and will aidaids in estimating the relative reaction kinetics offor aCDR feedstockapplications.
Project ItProponents ismust:
Other PSD (Particleand sizeSurface distribution.)Area andTechniques
The Project Proponent may, in consultation with Isometric,references performto alternate SOPs or standards such as ISO 17867:2020 for approval. ]
Alternative techniques may be used to measure or validate a rock feedstock's PSD or relative surface area. Such techniques, forsubject example,to approval.
Project Proponents may includeperform alternate techniques such as small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS (A non-destructive X-Ray technique used to investigate the size, shape and distribution of nanoscale particles and other structural features in materials.)) that may be used to estimate mean particle sizes between 1 nm and 100 nm. Where such techniques are utilized by a Project Proponent, the procedures undertaken must be clearly and adequately reported, with reference to SOP’sSOPs or standards, such as ISO 17867:2020. For approval processes and guidance on alternative methods, see Section 3.1 (Consolidated Alternative Methods).
Geochemical characterization is required for all proposed rock and mineral feedstock materials. Project Proponents are required to determine the abundance of major and minor elements within a feedstock, the mineralogy of the feedstock, the total elemental carbon and sulfur and feedstock radioactivity using the methods described in the following section.
Elemental characterization isestablishes requiredthe to establish baseline metal cation and anion contents of a rock feedstock material. Elemental composition evaluationis can be carried outdetermined using amethods rangeselected of methods, dependentbased on the exactspecific composition and characteristics of the feedstock rock., Projects are required to undertakeincluding ED-XRF, WD-XRF, or fusion / acid digestion coupled with ICP-MS or ICP-OES.
Project Proponents must:
Projects areusing requiredED-XRF, toWD-XRF, initiallyor fusion/acid digestion coupled with ICP-MS or ICP-OES
Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Se, Sr, Mo, Cd, Ba, W, Hg, Tl, Pb and Zr
Initial characterization must also include
ED-XRF
MajorED-XRF (Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence) determines major and minor elemental compositionscomposition, areallowing required to be analyzed via ED-XRF. This analysis is required as it will allow Project Proponents to identify the proportionsidentification of key elements such as Mg and Ca (oftentypically reported as oxides MgO and CaO) within a proposed feedstock material. Major and minor elemental analysis is also required to assess the suitability of a material for use in CDR projects, taking into consideration the concentrationsassessment of potentially environmentally harmful elements within athe feedstock.
Project Proponents are recommended to analyze major and minor elemental compositions via ED-XRF to assess both the suitability of the material for CDR projects and the concentrations of potentially harmful elements.
Data collected by a portable XRF is not eligible for creditingelemental characterization within this Module. Portable XRF data may be used to demonstrate homogeneity when creating a sampling plan (see Section 3.3.2), but must not be used as a primary elemental characterization analysis method.
Acid Digestion and/or Fusion coupledCoupled with ICP-MS/OES
ItAcid digestion and fusion methods coupled with ICP-MS or ICP-OES provide detailed elemental analysis with higher analytical resolution than fluorescence-based methods alone. While digestion, fusion, and fluorescence-based methods are not directly comparable, the additional level of analysis reduces analytical uncertainties in rock feedstock characterization and is requiredparticularly thatimportant for trace element determination.
Project Proponents must undertake detailed elemental analysis of rock feedstocks. Although it is acknowledged that digestion, fusion, and fluorescence based analysis methods are not directly comparable, a more detailed level of analysis will potentially reduce analytical uncertainties when characterizing a rock feedstock. At least one of the following analyses aremust requiredbe for elemental characterizationperformed:
Other Elemental Measurement Techniques
Additional elemental measurement techniques
If a Project Proponent chooses to utilize additional elemental measurement techniques, such as Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS (A technique used in analytical chemistry that measures element concentrations through the application of characteristic wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from a light source.)) or WD-XRF, itmay isbe aused requirementas thatsupplementary details of the analyses are outlined within the PDDmethods.
It is strongly recommended that Project Proponents should consider the analytical uncertainty associated with various measurement techniques when developing an analytical framework for feedstock characterization. For example, XRF techniques may have sufficient precision to determinefor major elemental composition, but higher analytical resolution may be required for a full characterization of trace elements.
Project Proponents must provide:
To assess the theoretical maximum carbon removal potential of an alkaline rock or mineral feedstock, Project Proponents must use an adjusted version of the Steinour equation, issee recommendedEquation 112. The equation uses bulk elemental oxide composition to estimate the maximum CO2 removal potential of a feedstock material:
[math: {E_{pot}} = (\frac{1000}{100}) \times (\frac{CaO}{M_{W, CaO}} + \frac{MgO}{M_{W, MgO}} + \frac{Na_2O}{M_{W, Na_2O}} + \frac{K_2O}{M_{W, K_2O}} - \frac{SO_4}{M_{W, SO_4}} - \frac{P_2O_5}{M_{W, P_2O_5}}) \times M_{W, CO_2} \times \eta - C_{feedstock}]
(Equation 1)
Where:
The adjusted equation utilizes elemental composition to identify maximum CO2 capture potential of an enhanced mineralization project ([math: E_{pot}]Epot) based solely on bulk elemental analysis. The calculation output is in the form of kg of CO2 per tonne of feedstock and represents the quantitative hypothetical potential of the material to capture CO2 as bicarbonate or carbonate. It must be noted that this equation does not take into consideration variables that effect carbonation and carbonation rates such as temperature, known reaction rates, pressure, moisture content and PSD. The equation considers the presence of elemental sulfur and phosphorus as having a reducing effect on overall theoretical potential. This is due to two distinct rationales: (1) their dissolution has no implicit reaction with CO2 directly and (2) they may become acid compounds, producing acidity which has implications on the carbonate system as CO2 may be produced23.
Elemental abundance data should be produced according to methods prescribed in this Module. The CDR potential calculated in Equation 1 represents the upper limit of creditableCreditable removals for a single batch of feedstock as defined in Section 43.13.1. Project Proponents are required to report the CDR potential of each batch of feedstock used pursuant to project activities in the PDD submission.
Project Proponents may use an alternative version of the Steinour equation when calculating the theoretical maximum carbon removal potential of a feedstock. For approval of alternative calculation approaches or methods, see Section 3.1 (Consolidated Alternative Methods).
[/G-CRZ1-0]It is recommended that the Project Proponent determines the impact of previous chemical alteration and weathering on rock and mineral feedstocks as part of a suitability assessment prior to application. One tool that may be used for aluminosilicate rocks and minerals that are not Mg2+ or Fe3+ rich, such as plagioclase and other feldspars, is the chemical index of alteration ([math: CIA])34. This geochemical tool was introduced by Nesbitt and Young (1982) and is commonly used in sedimentary geology, geochemistry, and paleoclimatology to infer the intensity of weathering processes and climatic conditions. The [math: CIA] is calculated from the molar proportions of major oxides in a sample, focusing on the loss of mobile cations (like Ca2+, Na+, and K+) relative to immobile aluminum. The [math: CIA] has been historically used in the weathering literature344,5,67,8,9 including mafic terrains, and provides the most straightforward interpretation of incipient alteration. The maximum CDR potential of the feedstock will be inherently limited by the initial degree of alteration. Additionally, the [math: CIA] value can be used in concert with the mineralogical assessment of the feedstock to evaluate the input of clay minerals from weathered feedstock and/or a source of contamination to the feedstock (e.g., atmospheric dust). The equations uses molar proportions of elements as follows:
[math: CIA= \frac{Al_2O_3}{Al_2O_3 + CaO^*+ Na_2O + K_2O} \times 100]
(Equation 2)
Where [math: CaO^*] is traditionally the amount of CaO incorporated into only the silicate fraction, i.e., a correction for any calcium in carbonate or apatite in the feedstock. Pairing the [math: CIA] calculation with the mineralogy of the feedstock, this [math: CaO^*] correction can be ignored if these phases are absent. Lower values (less than 50) tend to indicate very limited weathering and high CDR potential. Values approaching 100 indicate significant weathering and very low CDR potential. Project Proponents may also consider applying alternative weathering indiciesindices that are more appropriate for a given feedstock chemistry (e.g., Mafic Index of Alteration and/or Weathering Intensity Scale).
AnalysisTotal carbon and sulfur analysis determines the quantity of baselinecarbon (measured as total carbon, inorganic carbon, and/or organic carbon) and sulfur within feedstock materials. These parameters are essential for calculating CO₂ removal potential and assessing environmental risks such as acid generation from sulfide oxidation.
Project Proponents must:
Total carbonmethod and sulfurresults contentin arethe requiredPDD as baseline measurements before a rock feedstock can be utilized within a Crediting Project by Project Proponents.
Consideration
Feedstock radiation levels must be assessed prior to rockfeedstock application.utilization Atto aensure minimumcompliance with all applicable local, the Project Proponent must either determine gross alphanational and betainternational activities or provide adequate, geologicallyregulations and geographicallyto specificprotect justificationhuman demonstratinghealth lowand radiationenvironmental levelsquality. TheAssessment followingmay standardinvolve isdirect recommended:
Where an alternative standard is used, documentationevaluation of suchpre-existing standarddata demonstrating negligible radioactivity.
Project Proponents must be provided to the VVB. The Project Proponent is required to ensure adherence to all applicable local, national and international laws regarding acceptable levels of radiation within the context of the projectProject.
For feedstocks from extractive or mining sources, the Project Proponent must either:
Where an alternative standard to ISO 18589:2019 is used, documentation of such standard must be provided to the VVB.
[/G-7QJ0-0]In some cases, there may be sufficient pre-existing data demonstratingmay demonstrate that radioactivity of a certainfeedstock—such as commercially available feedstock products—is negligible. Project Proponents may, in consultation with Isometric, choose to submit this pre-existing data with sufficient justification in the PDD submission, demonstrating that measurement is not necessary. For guidance on submitting alternative evidence, see Section 3.1 (Consolidated Alternative Methods).
Mineralogical characterization isdetermines requiredthe mineral types and relative abundances within rock feedstock materials, essential for assessing CO₂ removal potential, reaction kinetics, and environmental and health risks. Characterization typically combines X-ray diffraction (XRD), light microscopy, and/or scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) to provide qualitative and quantitative mineral data.
Project Proponents must undertake mineralogical characterization for all rock feedstock materials used within Crediting Projects.
Mineralogical Analytical Methods
Mineralogical characterization cancombines be performed through multiple analytical methodsXRD, dependinglight onmicroscopy, and/or SEM-EDS mineral mapping to determine mineral type and abundance. Quantitative XRD (qXRD) is used to measure the feedstockrelative source,abundances targetof mineral phases and(in contrast to qualitative XRD, which only identifies mineral phases present).
Project Proponents must:Mineralogical AnalyticalDocument Requirementssample preparation, coating types, calibration, and RecommendationsCRMs used (where relevant for SEM-EDX/EDS)]Aare required to determine a rock feedstock's mineral type and abundance. As XRD can be used for either qualitative analysis, which identifies mineral phases present, or quantitative analysis, which measures the relative abundances of those minerals, is required when examining mineral type and abundance in feedstock materials. Project Proponents are required to report used in CDR Crediting Projects. Project Proponents are required to outlinethe utilized equipment’s manufacturer methodologies.Project Proponents choosing to utilizeutilizing light microscopy for mineralogical characterization are required to, send rock samples to an accredited external laboratory for analysis and must cross-check results with qXRD, SEM-EDS and/or geologic information.
RockRisk FeedstockAssessment: Target Mineral AbundanceGroups
Rock Riskfeedstocks Descriptionsmay contain mineral groups that pose project risks related to human health, environmental quality, or CO₂ removal efficiency. Key target mineral groups that warrant assessment include carbonates, sulfides, and Assessments
Whenasbestos assessinggroup minerals. The specific risks depend on the useapplication, feedstock source, and project context.
Project Proponents tomust:
Mineral groups, including carbonates, sulfides andcontaining asbestos group minerals, shouldassess bethe assessedpotential for environmental harm (e.g., release of fibrous asbestos particles) and report findings in the contextPDD of thesesubmission
Feedstocks sourced from mining operations or extractive industries require documented evidence of origin and detailed characterization to ensure traceability, quality, and environmental compliance. AClear sourcing documentation supports chain-of-custody (CoC) and feedstock homogeneity claims.
Where a rock feedstock has been sourced from a mining operation or extractive industry, the Project Proponent is required to provide detaileddocumented quantitativeevidence andthat qualitative descriptions of its feedstock with direct reference to key target mineral groups.
Where a rock feedstockthe material containshas sulfidebeen andcharacterized asbestosfollowing groupall minerals,requirements aoutlined in this Module. The Project Proponent ismust required to assessprovide the viabilityfollowing of utilizing such feedstocks within a Crediting Project. Such assessments should consider the potential for reversals (for example where the oxidation of sulfide minerals leads to the production of acidity),information:
The specific risksinformation related to usesourcing ofand apreparation
This rockinformation feedstockmust materialbe will depend on the application of the material within an individual project. Therefore, risk assessments are required on a projectverified by project basis in consultation with the project registry,Project VVB and relevant regulatory bodies.
Rock and mineral feedstock sourced from mining operations, both active and closed, may require further geochemical characterization in line with relevant local regulatory requirements. The terms mine wastes/by-products within this Module refers specifically to tailings and waste rock (overburden) materials. Specific geochemical characterization for mining wastes beyond the requirements listed above is not specifically required within this Module, although Project Proponents must demonstrate that any further characterization required by relevant regulatory bodies has been undertaken.
It is recommended that projects that utilize rock feedstocks produced by mining operations undertake a detailed geochemical characterization program. Such programs should include consideration of the potential environmental implication of utilizing such feedstocks within the Crediting Projects. Multiple international guides and standards exist specifically for characterizing extractive wastes such as tailings and waste rock. Project Proponents are responsible for ensuring such wastes are characterized in accordance with local regulatory requirements.
Where specific regulatory guidance on the characterization of mining wastes and by-products does not exist within the locality of a Crediting Project, we recommend that the Project Proponents are recommended to revert to the mandated characterization standards outlined by the European Commission. These standards provide a detailed baseline for the characterization of rock feedstocks sourced from mining operations. The following standards are recommended:
Regionally specific mining waste characterization programs may be undertaken dependent on the national regulatory requirements of the project's host country. Project Proponents are required to report utilized mining waste characterization procedures and methods within the project's PDD. Project Proponents are required to demonstrate that wastes recovered from extractive processes meet national environmental regulations within the project's location.
Where a mining operation's waste characterization program follows specific guidance based on best practices, rather than ISO or CEN standards, the Project Proponent is required, andto responsible for, outliningoutline the specific methods and procedures that have been utilized to characterize the mining waste materials. Such alternative guides or handbooks may include the following:
Project Proponents must carry out the following additional analyses when feedstocks recovered from a mining operation or other extractive industry are applied to agricultural land:
While the methods listed above are recommended for EDA, Project Proponents may undertake alternative analysis. Where alternative analysis or method types are utilised to assess elemental deportment, Project Proponents must provide full justifications.
pH-dependent tests are particularly relevant to Enhanced Weathering Projects, where field pH conditions vary significantly by project design, soil type, and over the reporting period as feedstocks weather.
Project Proponents must justify the type of leach tests employed when characterising a feedstock. Where leaching tests are required as part of permit approval or regulatory compliance, additional testing is not required. Pre-existing results should be submitted directly in PDD.
Note: Project Proponents may propose alternative tests to demonstrate safety, at the discretion of approval from Isometric and the VVB.
[/G-EZAT-0]This Module does not currently prescribe a specific number of samples or replicates that need to be collected for any one batch of feedstock. This is due to the fact that a batch associated with any one project may have a unique history or characteristics that could require individual consideration. Instead, it is required that the Project Proponent conduct characterization of every batch and justify the sampling procedure and number of analyses based on project-specific considerations. The Project Proponent must consider a broad range of feedstock characteristics and relevant context that may influence rock homogeneity when determining a sampling plan. These considerations include, but are not limited to, grain size distribution, particle sorting that may occur during processing and transport, the amount of feedstock being spread and the geological/geochemical setting from which the feedstock was extracted. All relevant details of the sampling plan, number of analyses, and adequate justification for these choices must be included in the PDD. It is recommended that projects utilizing relatively homogenous feedstock sourced from a single location should conduct a full suite of geochemical analyses a minimum of once for every 5000 tonnes of rock910.
While the number of samples needed for feedstock characterization will depend on the particular feedstock being used, we expect and encourage Project Proponents to utilize high-throughput, non-destructive and less expensive analyses such as XRD and XRF with high frequency to characterize the level of batch heterogeneity. Conversely, it is acceptable for Project Proponents to use the results of such high-throughput methods to identify a more limited number of representative samples for lower-throughput analyses (e.g., mineral mapping with SEM-EDS).
ItAnalytical laboratories conducting feedstock characterization must maintain rigorous quality standards to ensure data reliability and reproducibility. Reputable laboratories implement systematic quality assurance procedures and maintain recognized accreditation for their specific test methods.
Project Proponents must ensure that all projectsanalytical demonstratework is completed by laboratories accredited to ISO 17025 or equivalent standards for laboratory quality management, specific to the degreetest ofmethod homogeneityemployed within a single feedstock batch(e. For the purpose of this Moduleg., weASTM defineD5291).
Sub-infrared spectroscopy; and approaches such as the ITRC Incremental Sampling Methodology9, which suggests collecting a large number of small increments—typically 30–100—systematically and randomly distributed throughout the bulk feedstock pile. It is acknowledged that rock feedstocks are likely to vary in composition as an extractive material, depending on the source location. As a result, requirements:
A Project Proponent is required tomust report theall analytical laboratory/laboratories that have been utilized for feedstock characterization. It iswithin the responsibilityPDD of the submission
It
This section applies if the Project Proponent's utilizesanalysis laboratoryis facilitiesperformed withinat ana non-accredited academic institutionfacility, or a non-accredited commercial laboratory, or internally owned/operated laboratory.
When feedstock characterization is performed outside of ISO 17025-accredited facilities, external validation by an accredited laboratory provides independent verification of analytical results. This validation ensures data reliability and identifies potential systematic errors or methodological discrepancies.
Project Proponents must undertake periodic external validation of all results that directly influence Crediting volumes, at a minimum during the Project's first verification and annually thereafter.
[/R-X3JW-0]Sub-requirements:
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures are fundamental to ensuring that characterization data are accurate, reproducible, and suitable for crediting calculations. Systematic documentation of calibration, analytical checks, and certified reference materials (CRM) provides evidence of data reliability.
Project Proponents must report comprehensive QA/QC processes within the PDD submission and provide supporting documentation to the relevant VVB when submitting feedstock characterization data.
[/R-4DA6-0]Sub-requirements:
Project Proponents are required and are responsible for the delivery of rockCharacterization Data
Comprehensive reporting of feedstock characterization data toenables aindependent project’sverification VVBof results and reproducibility of analytical methods. AlthoughComplete adata documentation, including raw measurements, standards data, and metadata, supports the transparency and credibility required for crediting determinations.
Project ProponentProponents tomust deliverprovide all feedstock characterization data within the PDD submission and maintain records in a form that enables external verification and replication of analytical methods.
Sub-requirements:
Project Proponents are required tomust report data such that the data analysis methods used are easily identified, verified and replicated.
Data Record Retention Requirement: Project Proponents must maintain all feedstock characterization data records for a minimum of 5 years following the date of data collection.
[/G-2P4Z-0]When characterization data is generated by third parties, such as commercial feedstock producers, mining operators, or contract laboratories, clear submission protocols ensure data quality, intellectual property protection, and efficient verification. Different submission pathways apply depending on the data source and whether third parties submit information directly or through the Project Proponent.
The following table outlines which submission pathway applies based on who performed the characterization:
Characterization Performer | Data Submission Path | Requirements | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
Accredited external laboratory (ISO 17025) | Project Proponent submits in PDD | Full requirements apply; external validation may not be required | Section 4.1.1 |
Non-accredited academic facility | Project Proponent submits in PDD | External validation required annually; all Section 4 requirements apply | Section 4.1.2 |
Commercial feedstock producer | Project Proponent or third party direct submission | Conditional requirements; see Section 5.1.2 | Section 5.1.2 |
Third-party mining or processing operator | Project Proponent or third party direct submission | All Section 4 and 5.2 requirements apply unless specifically waived | Section 5.2.1 & 5.2.2 |
Results and data submissions by third parties must meet all requirements outlined in this Module, unless explicitly stated otherwise in Section 5.1.2 or by Isometric approval.
[/R-WJTD-0]Sub-requirements:
When third parties submit characterization methods and results directly to Isometric and the VVB, the following provisions apply:
Sub-requirements:
Definition: Commercial feedstocks are feedstocks that are commercially available for purchase by a Project Proponent and have not been mined or quarried specifically for the Project. An example of this would include Calcium Carbonate that is purposely quarried and produced for commercial sale, which is not a waste or by-product of other extractive activities (such as the mining of rare earth elements).
Feedstocks procured from commercial producers may have been subject to rigorous quality control by the producer. In such cases, certain characterization data generated by the producer under ISO-compliant quality management systems may be accepted without the full external validation requirements that apply to academic or non-accredited laboratories.
Project Proponents procuring feedstock from commercial feedstock producers must provide producer information to Isometric and the VVB within the PDD submission and may submit commercial characterization data to fulfill the requirements of this Module.
[/R-G7P2-0]Sub-requirements:
Chain of custody documentation provides a complete audit trail of feedstock handling, from production through characterization analysis. This documentation demonstrates proper sample integrity, prevents contamination, and ensures that analytical results are traceable to specific feedstock batches, deliveries and individual samples. Depending on the feedstock type and characterization pathway, different CoC formats and standards apply.
Project Proponents must submit chains of custody (CoC) that cover feedstock production, transportation, and characterization programs in accordance with recognized standards.
Feedstock Type | Required CoC Documents | Recommended Approach | Key Standard(s) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary/Freshly Mined Material | Feedstock Production CoC + Characterization CoC OR Single Chain CoC | Single Chain CoC | ISO 22095:2020 or ASTM D4840-99 | Covers extraction through analysis; see Sections 5.3.1 & 5.3.2 |
Waste/Byproduct Material | Feedstock Production CoC + Characterization CoC OR Single Chain CoC | Single Chain CoC | ISO 22095:2020 or ASTM D4840-99 | Covers production/generation through analysis; see Sections 5.3.1 & 5.3.2 |
Commercial Feedstock | Bill of Lading (for producer) + Characterization CoC OR Single Chain CoC | BOL for producer; Single Chain or Characterization CoC for third-party analysis | ISO 22095:2020 or ASTM D4840-99 | See Section 5.3.3; BOL may substitute for Feedstock Production CoC |
When non-commercial feedstocks are used, the Project Proponent must provide either a single chain CoC or separate feedstock production and characterization CoCs.
Chains of custody must be created, implemented, and documented in accordance with recognized standards to ensure consistency and credibility.
Sub-requirements:
Sub-requirements:
This subsection applies if the Project Proponent is using commercially available feedstocks or where the feedstock producer has already carried out characterization.
For commercial feedstocks, simplified documentation is acceptable where sampling and analysis have already been completed by the commercial producer prior to delivery to the Project Proponent.
[/R-QHDC-0]Sub-requirements:
This section applies only if the feedstock constitutes a product that was not mined or quarried specifically for the Project. This section does not apply to feedstocks that are primary materials or commercially produced materials created specifically for sale.
When waste feedstocks are used for mineral carbonation, the counterfactual fate of the feedstock (the baseline scenario in the absence of the Project) may include naturally occurring weathering or exposure to environmental conditions. Quantifying this counterfactual weathering is necessary to avoid crediting carbon removal that would have occurred regardless of Project implementation. Counterfactual weathering scenarios vary depending on the intended disposal or use of the waste product.
For waste feedstocks, Project Proponents must quantify the counterfactual fate and the carbon removal that would occur through counterfactual feedstock weathering in the absence of the Project.
The following sections describe two dominant modes of counterfactual feedstock weathering. Project Proponents must apply the applicable section(s) to their Project scenario.
Conditional applicability: This subsection applies if the counterfactual fate of the feedstock is storage in open-air conditions, which would result in natural weathering of the feedstock surface when exposed to atmosphere and precipitation.
Geochemical modeling provides the scientific foundation for quantifying weathering rates under baseline storage conditions. Accurate modeling requires detailed characterization of feedstock properties, site conditions, and environmental parameters.
If the feedstock would have counterfactual surficial weathering under open-air storage, Project Proponents must calculate surficial weathering using geochemical modeling of feedstock weathering under storage conditions relevant to the source site.
Conditional applicability: This subsection applies if the counterfactual fate of the feedstock is discharge into surface waters (ocean or coastal systems), which would result in feedstock dissolution and alkalinity enhancement of the water column.
Geochemical modeling of feedstock dissolution and air-sea gas exchange quantifies the carbon removal from counterfactual OAE. Accurate modeling requires characterization of feedstock reactivity, dissolution environments, and ocean chemistry at the discharge site.
If the feedstock would have counterfactual weathering via ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE), Project Proponents must calculate weathering using geochemical modeling of feedstock dissolution and subsequent air-sea gas exchange relevant to the receiving ocean waters.
The timescale used for modeling counterfactual feedstock weathering must be justified and internally consistent with the Credit durability requirement of 1,000+ years. Different Project scenarios may support different modeling timescales based on documented site conditions and closure plans.
Project Proponents must establish and justify the timescale used for calculating counterfactual feedstock weathering.
Examples of justifiable alternative timescales include:
Isometric would like to thank following external reviewers of this Module:
Isometric Certifiedwould Protocols which are transferable between and applicablelike to different Protocols.
This appendix outlines requiredthe and recommendedvarious analytical techniques and measurements that may be used to satisfy the requirements and recommendations of this Module. The tables below summarize the analytical methods, the parameters they provide, and their purpose in calculation of CO2 removal and material characterization, and examples of acceptable standards. Required analyses will be pathway and project-specific., and Project Proponents are required to must refer to specific Isometric Protocols for any additional pathway-specific requirements. This appendix is intended to provide a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, overview of analytical methods relevant to carbon dioxide removal calculations and feedstock characterization. AnyAll analytical methods notused listed here shouldmust be submitted for approvalfeedstock validation and, where applicable, cross-referenced with an appropriate standard (e.g. ISO, EN, BSI, ASTM and EPA) or standardized operating procedure. Where a project utilizes a non-standardized methodology or SOP for the determination of a listed parameter, the Project Proponent is required to outline the relevant method within the PDD submittedsubmission to the VVB.
Carbonate feedstocks
Please note that commercially produced carbonate feedstocks are exempt from having to comply with geotechnical and radioactivity measurements.
Analysis | Parameters | Purpose | Example Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
X-ray diffraction (XRD), paired with Rietveld refinement (optional) | Mineralogy | Assessment of weathering potential | |
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) | Mineralogy | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), paired with Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDXS) | Mineralogy | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Electron microprobe (EMP or EPMA) | Mineralogy | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Light microscopy | Mineralogy | Assessment of weathering potential | No ISO |
Acid digestion, paired with | Major and trace elements | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Radiation levels | Gross alpha and beta activity | Assessment of feedstock safety | |
Particle size analysis | Particle size distribution | Assessment of weathering potential | Gravimetric: |
Brunauer Emmett-Teller (BET) | Surface area | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Dry combustion | Total carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) | Total inorganic carbon (TIC | Assessment of carbonation | Water content: |
Carbon isotopes | [math: \delta^{13}C] | Geochemical characterization | No ISO |
Fluid displacement test | Bulk density | Geotechnical characterization | |
Pycnometer test | Particle density | Geotechnical characterization | |
Incremental loading odometer test | Compressibility | Geotechnical characterization | |
Fall cone test | Shear strength | Geotechnical characterization | |
Unconfined compression test | Shear strength | Geotechnical characterization | |
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test | Shear strength | Geotechnical characterization | |
Direct shear test | Shear strength | Geotechnical characterization | |
Consolidated triaxial compression test | Shear strength | Geotechnical characterization | |
Permeability test | Permeability | Geotechnical characterization | |
Fall cone test or Casagrande method | Liquid and plastic limits | Geotechnical characterization |
Analysis | Parameters | Purpose | Example Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
Cation extraction | Cation exchange capacity (CEC) | Assessment of soil quality Determination of exchangeable cations | |
Total soil digest coupled with ICP-MS/OES | Major and trace elements | Assessment of soil quality Determination of weathering by cation mass balance | |
Calcimetry | Soil inorganic carbon | Determination of secondary carbonate formation | |
Ramped combustion coupled with infrared gas analysis | Soil inorganic carbon | Determination of secondary carbonate formation | No ISO |
Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) | Soil inorganic carbon | Determination of secondary carbonate formation | |
Dry combustion | Total carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur | Assessment of soil quality | |
Oven drying | Soil moisture | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Soil slurry measurement | Soil pH | Assessment of weathering potential | |
Carbon isotopes |
| Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | No ISO |
Particle size analysis via sieving or laser diffraction | Soil texture | Assessment of field heterogeneity | Laser diffraction:
Sieving: |
Analysis | Parameters | Purpose | Example Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
pH | pH | Porewater characterization | |
Titration | Alkalinity | Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Electrical conductivity | Electrical conductivity | Porewater characterization | |
Salinity | Salinity | Porewater characterization | No ISO |
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry | Major and trace elements | Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy | Major and trace elements | Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy | Major and trace elements | Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) | Major and trace elements
| Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Ion | Cations | Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | ISO |
Stable |
| Weathering/carbon dioxide removal calculation | No ISO |
| |||
Total suspended solids Dissolved solids | Fluid characterization |
Analysis | Parameters | Purpose | Example Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
Gas flux chamber | CO2, CH4, N2O fulx | Carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
Eddy covariance tower | CO2, CH4, N2O flux | Carbon dioxide removal calculation | |
| No ISO | ||
Gas chromatography (coupled with fluid equilibration, if applicable) | Dissolved gasses and/or instantaneous gas concentrations | Gas flux characterization | No ISO |
Analysis | Parameters | Purpose | Example Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
Sample digestion coupled with ICP-MS/OES | Plant uptake | Cation mass balance calculation | |
Static testing | Acid generation/neutralization potential | Characterization of waste material | |
Kinetic testing | Acid generation potential of sulfidic waste from extractive industries | Characterization of waste material | |
Weak acid dissociable cyanide | Weak acid dissociable cyanide | Characterization of waste material | |
Waste sampling | Waste sampling from extractive industries | Characterization of waste material |
Note: The CoC template provided within this Appendix has been provided as an example for Project Proponents to build off. Rows should be expanded and added as required.
It is the responsibility of the Project Proponent to ensure all information is correct and compliant with any relevant national or international standards.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY (CoC) & ANALYSIS REQUEST RECORD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Document Serial Number | |||||
1. PROJECT & PROPONENT ADMINISTRATION | |||||
Project Name | |||||
Project Proponent | |||||
Primary Contact (Name/Phone/Email) | |||||
P.O. / Work Order # | |||||
Batch ID / Lot Number | |||||
Submission Date | |||||
2. SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION & INSTRUCTION | |||||
Sample ID | Location (GPS/Site) | Collection Date | Sample Description (Matrix/Grain Size) | Sample Mass (Specific Units) | Analysis Requested (Method/Suite) |
3. HANDLING & STORAGE DETAILS | |||||
Action Log | [ ] Transport [ ] Storage [ ] Lab Analysis [ ] Deployment [ ] Other (Specify in Notes Section) | ||||
Container Type/Qty | |||||
Expected Results Date | |||||
Storage Requirement | |||||
4. CUSTODY TRANSFER LOG | |||||
Relinquished By (Sign & Print) | Received By (Sign & Print) | Date | Time | Transport Method / Tracking # | |
5. LABORATORY RECEIPT | |||||
Receipt Check | Status / Notes | ||||
Date Received | |||||
Temp/Condition | |||||
Internal Lab ID | |||||
Receiver Initial | |||||
Notes / Comments | |||||
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2020). Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM-2). Washington, D.C.: ITRC. Available at: https://ism-2.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/itrcismcompiled508092523.pdf↩
Gunning PJ, Hills CD, Carey PJ. (2010). Accelerated carbonation treatment of industrial wastes. Waste Management, (6):1081-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.005↩
Renforth, P. (2019) The negative emission potential of alkaline materials. Nature Communications 10, 1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09475-5↩
Nesbitt, HW, and Young, GM. (1982). Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites. Nature, 299(5885), 715-717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/299715a0↩↩2
McLennan, SM, Hemming, S, McDaniel, DK, Hanson, GN. (1993). Geochemical approaches to sedimentation, provenance, and tectonics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1130/SPE284-p21↩
Babechuk, MG, Widdowson, M, Kamber, BS. (2014). Quantifying chemical weathering intensity and trace element release from two contrasting basalt profiles, Deccan Traps, India. Chemical Geology, 363, 56-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.10.027↩
Babechuk, MG, and Fedo, CM. (2023). Analysis of chemical weathering trends across three compositional dimensions: applications to modern and ancient mafic-rock weathering profiles. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 60(7), 839-864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjes-2022-0053↩
Fedo, CM, and Babechuk, MG (2023). Petrogenesis of siliciclastic sediments and sedimentary rocks explored in three-dimensional Al2O3–CaO*+ Na2O–K2O–FeO+ MgO (A–CN–K–FM) compositional space. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 60(7), 818-838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjes-2022-0051↩
Thorpe, MT, Hurowitz, JA, Dehouck, E.(2019). Sediment geochemistry and mineralogy from a glacial terrain river system in southwest Iceland, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 263, 140–166,DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2019.08.003. ↩
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2020). Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM-2). Washington, D.C.: ITRC. Available at: https://ism-2.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/itrc_ism_compiled_508_092523.pdf↩↩2
Hosseini-Dinani, H., Mokhtari, A.R., Shahrestani, S. et al. Sampling Density in Regional Exploration and Environmental Geochemical Studies: A Review. Nat Resour Res 28, 967–994 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9431-2↩