2020
DOI: 10.5194/gchron-2020-19
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards <i>in-situ</i> U–Pb dating of dolomites

Abstract: Abstract. Recent U–Pb dating by laser ablation ICP-MS has demonstrated that reasonable precision (3–10 % 2σ) can be achieved for high-resolution dating of texturally distinct calcite phases. Absolute dating of dolomite, for which biostratigraphy and traditional dating techniques are very limited, remains challenging but may resolve many fundamental questions related to the timing of mineral-rock formation by syngenetic, diagenesis, hydrothermal, and epigenetic processes. In this study we explore the possibilit… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…210 µm for the HK13 fluorite (see Table A5). To correct for DF, a matrixmatch primary RM can be used if laser ablation generates similar crater aspect ratios between the reference material and unknown samples (Elisha et al, 2020;Guillong et al, 2020). Such a matrix-match RM is not yet available for fluorite U-Pb geochronology (Piccione et al, 2019).…”
Section: In Situ La-icp-ms U-pb Datingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…210 µm for the HK13 fluorite (see Table A5). To correct for DF, a matrixmatch primary RM can be used if laser ablation generates similar crater aspect ratios between the reference material and unknown samples (Elisha et al, 2020;Guillong et al, 2020). Such a matrix-match RM is not yet available for fluorite U-Pb geochronology (Piccione et al, 2019).…”
Section: In Situ La-icp-ms U-pb Datingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finding the right matrix-matched reference material (RM) is a major hurdle for LA analyses of carbonates because of the variety of mineralogy (calcite, dolomite, and aragonite), textures, composition (e.g., high-magnesium calcite, high common lead), and ages (e.g., low radiogenic lead in young samples). Textural differences such as microcrystalline, fine-and coarse-grained material, between the unknown and RMs can contribute to high uncertainties due to differences in ablation efficiency, down-hole fractionation, and differences in crater morphology (e.g., Guillong et al, 2020;Elisha et al, 2020). Observed deviations are potentially up to 20 % of the final intercept age depending on the degree of crater geometry mismatch and are related either to downhole fractionation and/or matrix effects (Guillong et al, 2020).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total crater depths, including the material excluded for analysis during the 7s "pre-ablation" vary from 97 to 153 µm in Pierre-Perthuis fluorite samples and from 231 to 266 µm for the HK13 fluorite (see Table A3 of Appendix A). To correct for DF, a matrix-match primary RM can be used if laser ablation generates similar crater aspect ratios between the reference material and unknown samples (Elisha et al, 2020;Guillong et al, 2020). Such a matrix-match RM is not yet available for fluorite U-Pb geochronology (Piccione et al, 2019).…”
Section: Msmentioning
confidence: 99%