4.7 Article

Some observations on tunnelling of trapped electrons in feldspars and their implications for optical dating

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 25, 期 19-20, 页码 2503-2512

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.05.011

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anomalous fading in feldspars is now understood to be caused by the tunnelling of electrons from one defect site to another. Here we present some experimental observations concerning the phenomenon. The fading rates of a variety of feldspar crystals and K-feldspar separates from sediments are reported. It is found that (1) the fading rates of 77 K-feldspar extracts from sediments range from 1 to 10%/ decade, with an average value of about 5%/decade, (2) the fading rates of K-feldspars extracted from sediments derived largely from volcanic bedrock are not higher than those from non-volcanic bedrock as is widely thought, (3) the fading rates of 31 individual feldspars range from I to 35%/decade, (4) in plagioclase feldspars the fading rate increases with increasing Ca and/or Fe content, (5) the fading rate increases with laboratory radiation dose at large doses, (6) for samples for which the time elapsed since burial is long enough for their luminescence to be in saturation, the fading rate is correlated with the ratio of the field saturation intensity to the laboratory saturation intensity; extrapolation to zero fading rate shows that trap emptying as a result of thermal eviction is not significant, and that the mean thermal lifetime in temperate environments of electrons in traps relevant to dating is >= 4 Ma., and (7), different aliquots of a sample can have fading rates that differ by a factor as large as two even if the aliquots contain several thousands of grains, thus it is necessary to ensure when correcting ages for anomalous fading that the fading rate used is that applicable to the aliquots on which the equivalent dose is measured. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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