M. Corre, A. Agranier, M. Lanson, C. Gautheron, F. Brunet, S. Schwartz
{"title":"U and Th content in magnetite and Al spinel obtained by wet chemistry and laser ablation methods: implication for (U–Th) ∕ He thermochronometer","authors":"M. Corre, A. Agranier, M. Lanson, C. Gautheron, F. Brunet, S. Schwartz","doi":"10.5194/gchron-4-665-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Magnetite and spinel thermochronological (U–Th) / He dates\noften display significantly dispersed values. In the present study, we\ninvestigated the contribution of analytical (and standardization) errors to\nthis dispersion. U and Th content of magnetite (natural and synthetic) and\nnatural Al spinel samples with U and Th concentrations between 0.02 and 116 µg g−1 were analyzed using both wet chemistry and in situ laser\nablation sampling methods. New magnetite reference samples (NMA and NMB)\nwere synthesized, consisting of U- and Th-doped nano-magnetite powders, whose U and Th concentrations were determined using a wet chemistry method (U and Th\nof NMA and NMB are ∼40 µg g−1 and ∼0.1 µg g−1, respectively). We show that, for both U and Th analyses, the reproducibility obtained\nwith the wet chemistry protocol depends on the U and Th concentration. It is below 11 % for U–Th values higher than 0.4 µg g−1 and reaches 22 % for U–Th content lower than 0.1 µg g−1. This result implies that (U–Th) / He thermochronological ages cannot be more reproducible than 24 % for magnetite containing less than 0.1 µg g−1 of U and Th, thus\nexplaining part of the natural ages variability. U and Th data obtained by\nlaser ablation ICP-MS on natural magnetite and Al spinel samples were\ncalibrated using both silicate glass standards and synthetic magnetite\nsamples. The U and Th contents determined using NMA are consistent with\nthose obtained by means of the wet chemistry method, but they are overestimated by 30 %\nwhen using the glass standard samples only. These results highlight the\nimpact of the matrix effect on the determination of the U–Th content in\nmagnetite. We thus recommend the use of a well-characterized magnetite reference\nfor the calibration of the U–Th signals obtained by laser ablation. The\nscatter in the (U–Th) / He magnetite ages can be expected to be\n∼20 % if the U and Th contents are determined by laser\nablation. This level of precision is actually not significantly different\nfrom that obtained using the wet chemistry method, which paves the way for the\nuse of laser ablation for determining (U–Th) / He ages. In the absence of a\nspinel reference for U and Th calibration using LA-ICP-MS, silicate glass\nreferences, along with NMA, were used. U and Th contents were found to be\n∼30 % lower than the values obtained using wet chemistry.\nThis discrepancy underlines the importance of using a standard with a\ncomposition close to that of the mineral of interest. Although magnetite and\nAl spinel have related crystal structures, the magnetite standard is not\nappropriate for U and Th analysis in Al spinel using LA-ICP-MS.\n","PeriodicalId":12723,"journal":{"name":"Geochronology","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geochronology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-665-2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract. Magnetite and spinel thermochronological (U–Th) / He dates
often display significantly dispersed values. In the present study, we
investigated the contribution of analytical (and standardization) errors to
this dispersion. U and Th content of magnetite (natural and synthetic) and
natural Al spinel samples with U and Th concentrations between 0.02 and 116 µg g−1 were analyzed using both wet chemistry and in situ laser
ablation sampling methods. New magnetite reference samples (NMA and NMB)
were synthesized, consisting of U- and Th-doped nano-magnetite powders, whose U and Th concentrations were determined using a wet chemistry method (U and Th
of NMA and NMB are ∼40 µg g−1 and ∼0.1 µg g−1, respectively). We show that, for both U and Th analyses, the reproducibility obtained
with the wet chemistry protocol depends on the U and Th concentration. It is below 11 % for U–Th values higher than 0.4 µg g−1 and reaches 22 % for U–Th content lower than 0.1 µg g−1. This result implies that (U–Th) / He thermochronological ages cannot be more reproducible than 24 % for magnetite containing less than 0.1 µg g−1 of U and Th, thus
explaining part of the natural ages variability. U and Th data obtained by
laser ablation ICP-MS on natural magnetite and Al spinel samples were
calibrated using both silicate glass standards and synthetic magnetite
samples. The U and Th contents determined using NMA are consistent with
those obtained by means of the wet chemistry method, but they are overestimated by 30 %
when using the glass standard samples only. These results highlight the
impact of the matrix effect on the determination of the U–Th content in
magnetite. We thus recommend the use of a well-characterized magnetite reference
for the calibration of the U–Th signals obtained by laser ablation. The
scatter in the (U–Th) / He magnetite ages can be expected to be
∼20 % if the U and Th contents are determined by laser
ablation. This level of precision is actually not significantly different
from that obtained using the wet chemistry method, which paves the way for the
use of laser ablation for determining (U–Th) / He ages. In the absence of a
spinel reference for U and Th calibration using LA-ICP-MS, silicate glass
references, along with NMA, were used. U and Th contents were found to be
∼30 % lower than the values obtained using wet chemistry.
This discrepancy underlines the importance of using a standard with a
composition close to that of the mineral of interest. Although magnetite and
Al spinel have related crystal structures, the magnetite standard is not
appropriate for U and Th analysis in Al spinel using LA-ICP-MS.