Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dating sedimentary carbonates using the U-Pb method can help improve the Phanerozoic timescale. Using a novel combination of laser-ablation, multi-collector, inductively-coupled-plasma, mass-spectrometry (LA–MC–ICP–MS) and thermal ionization multi-collector mass spectrometry (TIMS), U-Pb numerical ages were obtained on early-diagenetic calcite cements in Jurassic ammonites in which concentrations of U range from 0.47 to 5.3 ppm. The calcite cements of two ammonites, IS1 and IS2, from the uppermost Bifrons Zone of the Toarcian (179–180 Ma) of the UK, gave TIMS-normalized LA U–Pb dates of 164.9 ± 5.3 Ma and 166.7 ± 4.8 Ma respectively. Normalizing LA–ICP–MC–MS data to an in-house calcite standard gave a more precise date of 165.5 ± 3.3 Ma for IS1 cement. An unzoned ammonite, SS2, of Bajocian age (168–170 Ma) yield a TIMS-normalized LA U–Pb age of 158.8 ± 4.3 Ma for its early-diagenetic cement. Both the combined LA–MC–ICP–MS and TIMS approach, and the use of a calcite laser ablation standard can result in accurate ages of cements with uncertainties of 2–3% (2σ). The later, however, is more efficient and precise. These U-Pb dates of cements are 10 to 20 Myr younger than the numerical ages of the biostratigraphic intervals from which the ammonites derive. The U-Pb dates are taken to represent the time at which the aragonite shell of the ammonite inverted to calcite and released its U to precipitate in a late-diagenetic alteration of early-diagenetic fringing cements. Concentrations of U and Pb in a range of other pristine biogenic carbonates were found too low (U < 0.01 ppm) for meaningful dating using laser ablation method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: