4.7 Article

U-Pb zircon dating by laser ablation-MC-ICP-MS using a new multiple ion counting Faraday collector array

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 677-686

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b504465k

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports U-Pb geochronological data for zircon obtained by laser ablation-multi-collector-ICP-MS using a new collector block design that includes three ion counters and twelve Faraday buckets. The collector configuration allows for simultaneous detection of ion signals from mass U-238 to Tl-203, an important factor for the achievement of highly precise and reproducible Pb-Pb and Pb-U ratios. The main advantage of the multiple ion counting system is the capability to readily measure low Pb ion signals (<1 x 10(6) counts per second) resulting from single spot analyses of <= 40 microns (and corresponding small sample volumes). The latter is an extremely important feature when deciphering multiple domains in complexly zoned zircon populations. A comparative study was conducted between analytical protocols involving non-Tl- and Tl-doped laser ablation runs with regards to evaluating the external reproducibility (i.e., relative standard deviation). The results indicate that the (2 sigma) external reproducibility for both analytical protocols varies between similar to 0.3-1.0% for the Pb-207/Pb-206, and ca. 1.3 to <3.0% for the Pb-206/U-238 (and Pb-207/U-235) values. The external reproducibility for the Pb/U values are relatively constant for the Tl-doped analyses, whereas those for the non-Tl runs are inversely correlated with the total absolute (Pb) count rates. The precision and accuracy of both analytical protocols were verified with the analysis of BR266 and 91500 zircon standards and zircons previously dated by ID-TIMS. The instrument configuration and Tl-doping protocol employed here are ideally suited for studies requiring the rapid analysis of a large number (n > 50) of zircon grains.

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