Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
RATIONALE: Ar recoil effects during irradiation that affect fine-grained minerals (<50 μm), such as lunar rocks, glassy groundmass, supergene minerals (e.g., illite, glauconite, Mg-oxide, etc.). The second issue from neutron irradiation is the high radioactivity gain of iron-rich samples such as pyrite, and the third is the production of interference nuclides during irradiation. The inherent drawbacks of conventional K-Ar and current unspiked K-Ar dating make it difficult to assess the reliability of age results. METHODS: Ar. Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs), B4M muscovite and MMhb-1 hornblende, the widely used international standard minerals, were analyzed as unknowns to test the approach. Argon isotope analyses were carried out on a noble-gas mass spectrometer using laser fusion on microsamples (n × 0.01 to n × 0.2 mg). A new isochron - an "inverse isochron" for K-Ar dating - was designed. RESULTS: FCs and B4M yielded apparent and inverse isochron ages of 28.1 ± 0.1 and 28.0 ± 0.3 Ma, 18.2 ± 0.1 and 18.2 ± 0.5 Ma, which are consistent with the recommended ages, while the MMhb-1 presented lower apparent and inverse isochron ages (510.8 ± 4.8 and 512.3 ± 17.0 Ma) than the recommended ones. The initial argon compositions for the three standard minerals are 299.2 ± 205.3 (FCs), 294.0 ± 16.4 (B4M) and 290.9 ± 203.1 (MMhb-1), agreeing with that of air. CONCLUSIONS: Ar rising from irradiation and the drawbacks of K-Ar. By using laser fusion on multiple microaliquots from a same sample, this approach can produce accurate and precise K-Ar ages and give an inverse isochron. This new approach may provide an alternate dating method of geochronology based on argon isotopes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: