4.3 Article

Radiometric dating of recent sediments: beyond the boundary conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALEOLIMNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 449-460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10933-012-9622-5

关键词

Radiometric dating; Boundary conditions; Non-ideal deposition; Pb-210 subsurface maxima; Non-diffusive depth penetration

资金

  1. IAEA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most mathematical models for radiometric dating of recent sediments are particular solutions of a unique physical problem: the advective-diffusive transport of a particle-bound radiotracer within a sediment profile that undergoes accretion. Regardless of the particular assumptions about fluxes, sedimentation rates and the diffusion term, all models assume ideal deposition as a boundary condition at the sediment water interface, i.e. new radioactive input will be deposited above the previously existing material. In sediments with very high porosities, this assumption may be unrealistic, because a fraction of the incoming flux may penetrate rapidly through the connected pore spaces. This process will be referred to as non-ideal deposition. This paper reviews evidence from literature data, discusses the basic processes involved, and establishes the mathematical basis to incorporate non-ideal deposition into one-phase radiometric dating models, as depth-distributed local sources. Through analytical and numerical solutions, this work demonstrates that such penetration patterns can explain excess Pb-210 subsurface maxima, often observed in sediment cores, as well as penetration of Cs-137 to depths greater than expected from sedimentation rates and diffusion. These ideas are illustrated using examples from the literature in which sediment porosities were > 90 %. Implications for radiometric dating include: (1) spurious accelerations in sedimentation rate inferred when applying the constant rate of supply model, and (2) erroneous chronologies, developed when using the maximum depth at which Cs-137 can be measured as a chronostratigraphic marker.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据