Reassessing the uranium decay constants for geochronology using ID-TIMS U–Pb data
As the internal precision of radiometric dates approaches the 0.1% level, systematic biases between different methods have become apparent. Many workers have suggested that calibrating other decay constants against the U–Pb system is a viable solution to this problem. We test this assertion empirica...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Geochimica et cosmochimica acta 2006-01, Vol.70 (2), p.426-445 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | As the internal precision of radiometric dates approaches the 0.1% level, systematic biases between different methods have become apparent. Many workers have suggested that calibrating other decay constants against the U–Pb system is a viable solution to this problem. We test this assertion empirically and quantitatively by analyzing U–Pb systematics of zircon and xenotime on the single- to sub-grain scale by high-precision ID-TIMS geochronology on 11 rock samples ranging from 0.1 to 3.3
Ga. Large statistically equivalent datasets give
207Pb/
206Pb dates that are systematically older than
206Pb/
238U dates by ∼0.15% in Precambrian samples to as much as ∼3.3% in Mesozoic samples, suggesting inaccuracies in the mean values of one or both of the U decay constants. These data are used to calculate a ratio of the U decay constants that is lower than the accepted ratio by 0.09% and is a factor of 5 more precise. Four of the samples are used to augment existing data from which the U–Pb and
40Ar/
39Ar systems can be compared. The new data support most previous observations that U–Pb and
207Pb/
206Pb dates are older than
40Ar/
39Ar by ⩽1%, though scatter in the amount of offset in samples as a function of age suggests that the bias is not entirely systematic, and may incorporate interlaboratory biases and/or geologic complexities. Studies that calibrate other decay schemes against U–Pb should include an assessment of inaccuracies in the U decay constants in addition to other systematic biases and non-systematic geologic uncertainty. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0016-7037 1872-9533 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.gca.2005.09.007 |