Abstract
Abstract. The same unetched and chemically etched apatite crystals from five rock samples were dated by the U–Pb method via laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA–ICP-MS). The objective of this study is to test whether chemical etching required for apatite fission track analysis impacts the precision and accuracy of apatite U–Pb geochronology. The results of this experiment suggest that etching has insignificant effects on the accuracy of apatite U–Pb ages obtained by LA–ICP-MS. Therefore, LA–ICP-MS is reliable for U–Pb analysis as part of apatite fission track and U–Pb double dating.
Highlights
Apatite, Ca5(PO4)3[F,Cl,OH], is the most common phosphate mineral in the Earth’s crust and can be found in practically all igneous and metamorphic rocks, in many ancient and recent sediments as well as in certain mineral deposits (Piccoli and Candela, 2002; Morton and Yaxley, 2007; Webster and Piccoli, 2015)
The LA–ICP-MS technique may be used to measure 238U for apatite fission track (AFT) dating, together with Pb isotopes needed for U–Pb dating (e.g., Chew and Donelick, 2012; Liu et al, 2014; Glorie et al, 2017; Bonilla et al, 2020; Nieto-Samaniego et al, 2020)
Hasebe et al (2009) previously performed an important experimental study, during which they demonstrated that chemical etching required for apatite and zircon fission track dating does not interfere with U analysis by LA–ICP-MS
Summary
Ca5(PO4)3[F,Cl,OH], is the most common phosphate mineral in the Earth’s crust and can be found in practically all igneous and metamorphic rocks, in many ancient and recent sediments as well as in certain mineral deposits (Piccoli and Candela, 2002; Morton and Yaxley, 2007; Webster and Piccoli, 2015) This accessory mineral is often used as a natural thermochronometer for fission track, helium, U– Th, and U–Pb dating (e.g., Zeitler et al, 1987; Wolf et al, 1996; Ehlers and Farley, 2003; Hasebe et al, 2004; Donelick et al, 2005; Chew and Donelick, 2012; Chew et al, 2014; Cochrane et al, 2014; Liu et al, 2014; Spikings et al, 2015; Glorie et al, 2017). The chosen samples have either emplacement or metamorphic ages ranging from the Cretaceous to the Neoproterozoic (see Table 1 for further details)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
