A New Multi-Mineral Age Reference Material for⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar, (U-Th)/He and Fission Track Dating Methods: The Limberg t3 Tuff

Abstract

The phonolitic Limberg t3 tephra (Kaiserstuhl Volcanic Complex, Germany) was previously dated by the conventional K/Ar method yielding inconsistent results. We have re‐dated this tephra layer with three independent methods. Fission Track (FT) external detector analyses on single apatite crystals (16.8 ± 1.3 Ma, 2s) and (U‐Th)/He measurements on titanite and apatite (16.5 ± 1.0 Ma, 2s and 16.8 ± 1.0 Ma, 2s, respectively) are in close agreement with laser Ar/Ar dates on incrementally heated single crystals of sanidine (16.3 ± 0.4 Ma, 2s). Due to very rapid cooling, the He, FT and Ar thermochronometers provide one single age representing the eruption event. The different minerals are characterised by favourable properties with respect to their chemical composition, grain size and shape. In particular for the t3 sanidine, homogeneity has been demonstrated by electron microprobe analysis and on a grain‐to‐grain and grain‐internal scale by single crystal incremental laser heating. Based on the agreement between independent methods and the mineral yield of this unit, the Limberg t3 tephra is proposed as multi‐method age reference material for single grain laser Ar/Ar, FT and (U‐Th)/He dating.

Europe's rare earth element resource potential: An overview of REE metallogenetic provinces and their geodynamic setting

“…One of the more well-known carbonatites of this age is the Miocene Kaiserstuhl Volcanic Complex (Keller, 1981;Kraml et al, 2006;Wang et al, 2014) in the Rhine Graben. It comprises volcanic rocks and dykes of alkaline silicate composition, as well as carbonatitic dykes, intrusions, and diatreme breccias.…”

Recalibration of U-doped standard glasses through uranium thin film for neutron-fluence measurements

“…For the case of Durango (Dur), it can be seen more dispersion in age distribution: FT age determined by metal activation monitor is slightly higher than U-doped glasses, however, it is easy to realize that this small portion of dispersion is related to only one observer (B.W), i.e., it is possible that this results is only due to criteria of analysis of the observer. Finally, considering the mean FT dating determined by U-thin films, there is no any significant difference of the reference age for these samples (FCT = 27.5 ± 0.24 Ma determined by K- 39 Ar dating of biotite [37]; Lim = 16.8 ± 1.0 Ma for apatite and 16.5 ± 1.0 Ma for titanite, both determined by (U-Th)/He dating [38]; Dur = 31.44 ± 0.18 Ma, 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating and 31.0 ± 1.0 Ma, (U-Th)/He dating [35]). For FCT the obtained FT age is 27.0 ± 0.9 Ma, for Lim the age is 17.1 ± 0.7 Ma and for Dur the age is 30.8 ± 1.0 Ma.…”

The Meso-Cenozoic thermo-tectonic evolution of the Eastern Pyrenees: an 40Ar/39Ar fission track and (U–Th)/He thermochronological study of the Canigou and Mont-Louis massifs

“…Typical errors associated with apatite and zircon helium ages following this procedure were 5-6 and 8%, respectively. During the course of these measurements, the following ages were obtained for apatite standard minerals: 32.4 ± 1.6 Ma for Durango (McDowell et al 2005), 16.8 ± 1.0 Ma for Lim-T3 (Kraml et al 2006); and for ziron standard minerals: 27.8 ± 0.8 Ma for Fish Canyon…”