1 / 33

Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?)

Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?). Why TIMS?. High-precision typically better than 0.2% Benchmark ages of reference materials LA-ICPMS SIMS EPMA No matrix correction / background calibration No need to assume concordance. Challenges with TIMS. Minimal spatial resolution

moriah
Télécharger la présentation

Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?)

  2. Why TIMS? • High-precision • typically better than 0.2% • Benchmark ages of reference materials • LA-ICPMS • SIMS • EPMA • No matrix correction / background calibration • No need to assume concordance

  3. Challenges with TIMS • Minimal spatial resolution • However, studies have successfully: • Broken off tips (Schärer & Allègre, 1982) • Used X-ray maps to guide micro-drilling of compositional domains (Corrie & Kohn, 2007) • Weeks of analysis time • Currently, no widely available Th–Pb spike* • Therefore only U–Pb (and Pb–Pb) ages • *Cottle and Peterman are currently preparing a calibrated U–Th–Pb spike specifically for monazite

  4. 6 samples analyzed in study

  5. Broad range in age and composition

  6. Method development • Iterative process • Typical single step dissolution accomplished at 180°C in 12M HCl for 24 hours • Our variables: • Acid strength (HCl) 12M, 6M and 3.1M • Initial T at 120, 100 and 80°C • Dissolution times of 12 and 6 hours

  7. Jefferson County Jefferson County Annealed; Pre-etch Annealed; Post-etch Amelia Amelia Not-annealed; etched Annealed; etched

  8. Conditions used for analysis • Parallel digestion of annealed (1000°C, 48 hours in air) with not-annealed grains (or fragments) • Starting T: 80°C • Acid: 3.1M HCl • Duration of step: initially 12 hours • After 5 steps, reduced time to 6 hours and started increased T by 10°C (to ensure sufficient dissolution to measure precisely via TIMS) • Geochemist rule of thumb—increase of 10°C nearly equivalent to doubling the step time

  9. Why 1000°C, 48 hours in air? Experiments demonstrate structural recovery if annealed in air. Recrystallization occurs if annealing is fluid-mediated.

  10. Structural recovery of monazite accomplished by simple heating; “defects completely disappear”

  11. Conditions used for analysis • Parallel digestion of annealed (1000°C, 48 hours in air) with not-annealed grains (or fragments) • Starting T: 80°C • Acid: 3.1M HCl • Duration of step: initially 12 hours • After 5 steps, reduced time to 6 hours and started increased T by 10°C (to ensure sufficient dissolution to measure precisely via TIMS) • Geochemist rule of thumb—increase of 10°C nearly equivalent to doubling the step time

  12. Amelia N Amelia A

  13. Age data presented • 238U–206Pb age spectra • 235U–207Pb, where appropriate • Plotted following 40Ar/39Ar convention • X-axis = percent of sample • Y-axis = age • Height of box = uncertainty

  14. Example age diagram Not shaded = not included Imprecise; ~10% of mnz Shaded = included in calc’ed age

  15. Compositional data presented • Data collected from column elutions via ICPMS with internal and external standards • Also follows 40Ar/39Ar convention • X-axis = percent of sample • Y-axis = compositional ratio • Used blank-corrected ratios (normalized to 31P) because each step dissolved different amounts of monazite (concentration therefore not useful)

  16. 4 selected ratios Reflect changes in compositional domains (as per EPMA data)

  17. Amelia – ages

  18. Annealed vs. not-annealed

  19. Burke – ages

  20. Annealed vs. not-annealed • *note change in scale on axes

  21. Jefferson County – ages

  22. Annealed vs. not-annealed • *note change in scale on axes

  23. Major findings (and how it may apply to your research)

  24. Annealing repairs dislocations and lattice damage induced by alpha-recoil and fission. Results in slower dissolution rate

  25. Not-annealed samples ( n = 3):heterogeneity in first step, largely homogeneous chemical spectra Amelia Burke Jefferson County

  26. Annealed samples (n = 6): complicated compositional spectra Amelia Burke Jefferson County These are the pairs to the not-annealed aliquots

  27. 3 additional samples Elk Mountain Madagascar 554 These samples do not have not-annealed aliquots

  28. Annealing affects chemistry… and age?

  29. Suggestions for your research, should you choose to use TIMS • Don’t anneal • Apparently induces recrystallization • Use multi-step TIMS or use x-ray maps to guide microdrilling • Single step TIMS will yield a precise age that may be quite inaccurate

More Related