4.2 Article

A modified multi-elevated-temperature post-IR IRSL protocol for dating Holocene sediments using K-feldspar

期刊

QUATERNARY GEOCHRONOLOGY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 44-54

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2013.02.004

关键词

K-feldspar; Holocene; Aeolian sediments; Post-IR IRSL; Residual dose; Anomalous fading

资金

  1. Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [HKU 7035/07P, 7028/08P, HKU 7033/12P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A modified multi-elevated-temperature post-IR infra-red stimulated luminescence (MET-pIRIR) protocol is proposed for dating young samples of Holocene age using K-feldspar. The protocol utilizes a five-step MET-pIRIR measurement with a moderate preheating of 200 degrees C for 60 s, and a narrow IR stimulation temperature increment of 30 degrees C (i.e., the five measurement temperatures are 50, 80, 110, 140 and 170 degrees C). Using this method, the residual doses of the MET-pIRIR signals are generally less than 1 Gy. Holocene aeolian samples from Northern China were tested using the 30 degrees C-increment modified MET-pIRIR method. The results demonstrate that similar ages from 140 degrees C to 170 degrees C were obtained for our samples, which were consistent with the quartz optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages. Based on this observation, the measurement procedures are further simplified to a three-step pIRIR protocol. The first IR stimulation at elevated temperature (110 degrees C) is used to remove the fading affected signals. This is followed by two steps of IR stimulation at high temperatures (140 and 170 degrees C) for equivalent dose (De) measurement. Dating results consistent with the expected ages have been obtained at stimulation temperatures of 140 and 170 degrees C. It is suggested that the first IR stimulation can effectively remove the fading component. The three-step pIRIR method has minimized the experimental procedures, while keeping the age plateau test. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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