improving tims monazite geochronology n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Improving TIMS monazite geochronology (?) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 135 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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