Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS
<p>Estimations of the reproducibility of U–Pb ages from SHRIMP (Sensitive High-Resolution Ion MicroProbe) instruments are based on data from studies that are nearly 2 decades old. Since that time, refinement of analytical procedures and operational improvements have reduced the historically id...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Geochronology |
| Online Access: | https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/5/1/2023/gchron-5-1-2023.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797256806134710272 |
|---|---|
| author | C. W. Magee Jr. S. Bodorkos C. J. Lewis J. L. Crowley C. J. Wall R. M. Friedman |
| author_facet | C. W. Magee Jr. S. Bodorkos C. J. Lewis J. L. Crowley C. J. Wall R. M. Friedman |
| author_sort | C. W. Magee Jr. |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Estimations of the reproducibility of U–Pb ages from SHRIMP (Sensitive High-Resolution Ion MicroProbe)
instruments are based on data from studies that are nearly 2 decades old. Since
that time, refinement of analytical procedures and operational improvements
have reduced the historically identified uncertainties of SHRIMP U–Pb
analysis. This paper investigates 36 SHRIMP thermal
ionisation mass spectrometry (TIMS) double-dated “real-world”
geologic samples from a variety of igneous rock types to better understand
both geological and analytical sources of disagreement between the two
dating methods.</p>
<p>Geoscience Australia's (GA) use of high-precision chemical abrasion thermal
ionisation mass spectrometry (CA-TIMS) for chronostratigraphy in Australian
sedimentary basins has produced a substantial selection of precisely dated
zircons, which we can use to cross-correlate the SHRIMP and CA-TIMS ages
throughout the Phanerozoic. A total of 33 of the 36 ages were reported with
external SHRIMP uncertainties less than 1 % (95 % confidence). Six of
eight cases where the CA-TIMS age was outside the SHRIMP uncertainty
envelope were in samples where the 95 % confidence interval of the
reported SHRIMP age was below 0.66 % uncertainty, suggesting that SHRIMP
analyses of untreated zircon with smaller uncertainties are probably
overoptimistic.</p>
<p>The mean age offset between SHRIMP and TIMS ages is 0.095 %, but the
distribution appears bimodal. Geological explanations for age discrepancies
between SHRIMP and CA-TIMS are suggested by considering intrusive and
extrusive age results separately. All but one sample where the SHRIMP age is
more than 0.25 % older are volcanic. This offset could be explained by the
better single-grain age resolution of TIMS, allowing identification and
exclusion of antecrysts from the eruptive population, while SHRIMP does not
have a sufficient single-grain precision to deconvolve these populations –
leading to an apparent older SHRIMP age. In contrast, SHRIMP ages from
plutonic rocks – particularly plutonic rocks from the early Paleozoic – are
typically younger than the CA-TIMS ages from the same samples, most likely
reflecting Pb loss from non-chemically abraded SHRIMP zircons, while
chemical abrasion of zircons prior to TIMS analysis destroyed or corrected
these areas of Pb loss.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:27:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d58f6438cb0044f2a4cb07ce02b8ffbb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2628-3697 2628-3719 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:27:35Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Geochronology |
| spelling | doaj.art-d58f6438cb0044f2a4cb07ce02b8ffbb2024-03-19T22:30:20ZengCopernicus PublicationsGeochronology2628-36972628-37192023-01-01511910.5194/gchron-5-1-2023Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMSC. W. Magee Jr.0S. Bodorkos1C. J. Lewis2J. L. Crowley3C. J. Wall4R. M. Friedman5Geoscience Australia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston ACT 2609, AustraliaGeoscience Australia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston ACT 2609, AustraliaGeoscience Australia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston ACT 2609, AustraliaDepartment of Geosciences, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725, USAPacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, CanadaPacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada<p>Estimations of the reproducibility of U–Pb ages from SHRIMP (Sensitive High-Resolution Ion MicroProbe) instruments are based on data from studies that are nearly 2 decades old. Since that time, refinement of analytical procedures and operational improvements have reduced the historically identified uncertainties of SHRIMP U–Pb analysis. This paper investigates 36 SHRIMP thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (TIMS) double-dated “real-world” geologic samples from a variety of igneous rock types to better understand both geological and analytical sources of disagreement between the two dating methods.</p> <p>Geoscience Australia's (GA) use of high-precision chemical abrasion thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (CA-TIMS) for chronostratigraphy in Australian sedimentary basins has produced a substantial selection of precisely dated zircons, which we can use to cross-correlate the SHRIMP and CA-TIMS ages throughout the Phanerozoic. A total of 33 of the 36 ages were reported with external SHRIMP uncertainties less than 1 % (95 % confidence). Six of eight cases where the CA-TIMS age was outside the SHRIMP uncertainty envelope were in samples where the 95 % confidence interval of the reported SHRIMP age was below 0.66 % uncertainty, suggesting that SHRIMP analyses of untreated zircon with smaller uncertainties are probably overoptimistic.</p> <p>The mean age offset between SHRIMP and TIMS ages is 0.095 %, but the distribution appears bimodal. Geological explanations for age discrepancies between SHRIMP and CA-TIMS are suggested by considering intrusive and extrusive age results separately. All but one sample where the SHRIMP age is more than 0.25 % older are volcanic. This offset could be explained by the better single-grain age resolution of TIMS, allowing identification and exclusion of antecrysts from the eruptive population, while SHRIMP does not have a sufficient single-grain precision to deconvolve these populations – leading to an apparent older SHRIMP age. In contrast, SHRIMP ages from plutonic rocks – particularly plutonic rocks from the early Paleozoic – are typically younger than the CA-TIMS ages from the same samples, most likely reflecting Pb loss from non-chemically abraded SHRIMP zircons, while chemical abrasion of zircons prior to TIMS analysis destroyed or corrected these areas of Pb loss.</p>https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/5/1/2023/gchron-5-1-2023.pdf |
| spellingShingle | C. W. Magee Jr. S. Bodorkos C. J. Lewis J. L. Crowley C. J. Wall R. M. Friedman Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS Geochronology |
| title | Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS |
| title_full | Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS |
| title_fullStr | Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS |
| title_full_unstemmed | Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS |
| title_short | Examination of the accuracy of SHRIMP U–Pb geochronology based on samples dated by both SHRIMP and CA-TIMS |
| title_sort | examination of the accuracy of shrimp u pb geochronology based on samples dated by both shrimp and ca tims |
| url | https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/5/1/2023/gchron-5-1-2023.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cwmageejr examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims AT sbodorkos examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims AT cjlewis examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims AT jlcrowley examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims AT cjwall examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims AT rmfriedman examinationoftheaccuracyofshrimpupbgeochronologybasedonsamplesdatedbybothshrimpandcatims |