Articles | Volume 1, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-1-17-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-1-17-2019
Research article
 | 
26 Sep 2019
Research article |  | 26 Sep 2019

Resolving the effects of 2-D versus 3-D grain measurements on apatite (U–Th) ∕ He age data and reproducibility

Emily H. G. Cooperdock, Richard A. Ketcham, and Daniel F. Stockli

Related authors

Technical note: Rapid phase identification of apatite and zircon grains for geochronology using X-ray micro-computed tomography
Emily H. G. Cooperdock, Florian Hofmann, Ryley M. C. Tibbetts, Anahi Carrera, Aya Takase, and Aaron J. Celestian
Geochronology, 4, 501–515, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-501-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-501-2022, 2022
Short summary
Exposure dating of detrital magnetite using 3He enabled by microCT and calibration of the cosmogenic 3He production rate in magnetite
Florian Hofmann, Emily H. G. Cooperdock, A. Joshua West, Dominic Hildebrandt, Kathrin Strößner, and Kenneth A. Farley
Geochronology, 3, 395–414, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-395-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-3-395-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Helium diffusion systems
The Geometric Correction Method for zircon (U-Th)/He chronology: correcting systematic error and assigning uncertainties to alpha-ejection corrections and eU concentrations
Spencer D. Zeigler, Morgan Baker, James R. Metcalf, and Rebecca M. Flowers
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3046,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3046, 2024
Short summary
Technical note: In situ U–Th–He dating by 4He ∕ 3He laser microprobe analysis
Pieter Vermeesch, Yuntao Tian, Jae Schwanethal, and Yannick Buret
Geochronology, 5, 323–332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-323-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-323-2023, 2023
Short summary
A practical method for assigning uncertainty and improving the accuracy of alpha-ejection corrections and eU concentrations in apatite (U–Th) ∕ He chronology
Spencer D. Zeigler, James R. Metcalf, and Rebecca M. Flowers
Geochronology, 5, 197–228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-197-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-197-2023, 2023
Short summary
Cosmogenic 3He paleothermometry on post-LGM glacial bedrock within the central European Alps
Natacha Gribenski, Marissa M. Tremblay, Pierre G. Valla, Greg Balco, Benny Guralnik, and David L. Shuster
Geochronology, 4, 641–663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-641-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-641-2022, 2022
Short summary
A revised alpha-ejection correction calculation for (U–Th) ∕ He thermochronology dates of broken apatite crystals
John J. Y. He and Peter W. Reiners
Geochronology, 4, 629–640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-629-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-4-629-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

ASTM: E1441-11: Standard Guide for Computed Tomography (CT) Imaging, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, available at: https://doi.org/10.1520/E1441-11, 2011. 
Bargnesi, E. A., Stockli, D. F., Hourigan, J. K., and Hager, C.: Improved accuracy of zircon (U – Th)/ He ages by rectifying parent nuclide zonation with practical methods, Chem. Geol. 426, 158–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.01.017, 2016. 
Beucher, R., Brown, R. W., Roper, S. Stuart, F., and Persano, C.: Natural age dispersion arising from the analysis of broken cystals: Part II. Practical application to apatite (U-Th)  He thermochronometry, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 120, 395–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2013.05.042, 2013. 
Blott, S. J. and Pye, K.: Particle shape: a review and new methods of characterization and classification, Sedimentology, 55, 31–63, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00892.x, 2008. 
Brown, R. W., Beucher, R., Roper, S. Persano, C., Stuart, F., and Fitzgerald, P.: Natural age dispersion arising from the analysis of broken crystals. Part I: Theoretical basis and implications for the apatite (U-Th)  He thermochronometer, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 122, 478–497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2013.05.041, 2013. 
Download
Short summary
(U–Th) / He chronometry relies on accurate grain-specific size and shape measurements. Using > 100 apatite grains to compare assumed 2-D versus true 3-D grain shapes measured by a microscope and X-ray computed tomography, respectively, we find that volume and surface area both differ by ~ 25 % between the two techniques and directly affect mass and concentration measurements. But we found a very small effect on the FT correction (2 %) and no discernible impact on mean sample age or dispersion.