4.6 Article

Experimental test of the cooling rate effect on blocking temperatures in stepwise thermal demagnetization

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
Volume 224, Issue 2, Pages 1117-1127

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggaa514

Keywords

Magnetic mineralogy and petrology; Palaeointensity; Palaeomagnetism; Remagnetization; Rock and mineral magnetism

Funding

  1. Boya Post-doctoral fellowship - Peking University
  2. Institute for Rock Magnetism (IRM) Visiting Researcher Fellowship
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41574063]
  4. Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Independent Research Fellowship [NE/P017266/1]
  5. NSFC [41774076, 41722402]
  6. Instrumentation and Facilities program of the National Science Foundation, Earth Sciences Division
  7. University of Minnesota
  8. NERC [NE/P017266/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most rocks acquire a thermoremanent magnetization (TRM) when they cool down, and this process affects palaeointensity estimates and unblocking temperatures in thermal demagnetization experiments. The relationship between cooling rates and blocking temperatures has been theoretically established, but experimental verification is limited due to the difficulty of accurately determining cooling rates. Experiments show that the cooling rate effect on blocking temperatures holds true for ideal magnetic recorders, but natural samples may deviate from theoretical predictions and affect palaeointensity estimates.
Upon cooling, most rocks acquire a thermoremanent magnetization (TRM); the cooling rate at which this happens not only affects palaeointensity estimates, but also their unblocking temperatures in stepwise thermal demagnetization experiments, which is important, for example, to estimate volcanic emplacement temperatures. Traditional single-domain (SD) theory of magnetic remanence relates relaxation times to blocking temperatures- the blocking temperature is the temperature at which the relaxation time becomes shorter than the experimental timescale-and therefore strictly only applies to remanence acquisition mechanisms at constant temperatures (i.e. viscous remanent magnetizations, VRMs). A theoretical framework to relate (constant) blocking temperatures to (time-varying) cooling rates exists, but this theory has very limited experimental verification-partly due to the difficulty of accurately knowing the cooling rates of geological materials. Here we present an experimental test of this 'cooling rate effect on blocking temperatures' through a series of demagnetization experiments of laboratory-induced TRMs with controlled cooling rates. The tested cooling rates span about 1 order of magnitude and are made possible through (1) extremely accurate demagnetization experiments using a low-temperature magnetic properties measurement system (MPMS) and (2) the use of a '1-step-only' stepwise thermal demagnetization protocol where the relaxation process is measured over time. In this way the relaxation time corresponding to the blocking temperature is measured, which can be done to much higher accuracy than measuring the blocking temperature directly as done in traditional stepwise thermal demagnetization experiments. Our experiments confirm that the cooling rate relationship holds to high accuracy for ideal magnetic recorders, as shown for a synthetic weakly interacting SD magnetoferritin sample. A SD-dominated low-Ti titanomagnetite Tiva Canyon Tuff sample, however, showed that natural samples are unlikely to be sufficiently 'ideal' to meet the theoretical predictions to high accuracy the experimental data agrees only approximately with the theoretical predictions, which may potentially affect blocking temperature estimates in stepwise thermal demagnetization experiments. Moreover, we find a strongly enhanced cooling rate effect on palaeointensities for even marginally non-ideal samples (up to 43 per cent increase in pTRM for a halving of the cooling rate).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available