High-precision ID-TIMS cassiterite U–Pb systematics using a low-contamination hydrothermal decomposition: implications for LA-ICP-MS and ore deposit geochronology

Tapster, Simon; Bright, Joshua W. G.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2-425-2020

Articles | Volume 2, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2-425-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2-425-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 2, issue 2

Research article

|

18 Dec 2020

Research article |

| 18 Dec 2020

High-precision ID-TIMS cassiterite U–Pb systematics using a low-contamination hydrothermal decomposition: implications for LA-ICP-MS and ore deposit geochronology

Simon Tapster and Joshua W. G. Bright

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Dec 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Jan 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'cassiterite ID-TIMS publication in Chemical Geology', Marc Norman, 13 Feb 2020
RC1: 'Review of manuscript gchron-2019-22', Corey Wall, 18 Feb 2020
- AC1: 'Reponse to reviewers gchron-2019-22', Simon Tapster, 10 May 2020
RC2: 'Interactive comment on “High-precision ID-TIMS Cassiterite U-Pb systematics using a low-contamination hydrothermal decomposition: implications for LA-ICP-MS and ore deposit geochronology” by Simon Richard Tapster and Joshua William George Bright', Gavin Piccione, 13 Apr 2020
- AC1: 'Reponse to reviewers gchron-2019-22', Simon Tapster, 10 May 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (26 May 2020) by Brenhin Keller

AR by Simon Tapster on behalf of the Authors (01 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jun 2020) by Brenhin Keller

RR by Gavin Piccione (29 Jun 2020)

RR by Corey Wall (06 Jul 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors did an adequate improving on the original manuscript and is acceptable to be published as is. The authors took into account most of the suggestions made by the reviewer. In the final version, the authors should make sure to acknowledge the reviewers who helped improve this manuscript.

The final conclusions now represent what I think the paper is about, the development of a technique to successfully dissolve cassiterite. The case study to me still lacks an overall conclusion though. The variables involved in that age calculation results in too much uncertainty and does not result in an interpretation of ore formation different to what was previously known, but I understand why it is kept in this manuscript.

Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GChron? Yes
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? Yes Are substantial conclusions reached? Yes Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly
outlined? Yes, with modifications Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations
and conclusions? Yes Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently
complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? Yes, with modifications Do the authors give proper credit to related work and
clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Yes Does the title clearly reflect the
contents of the paper? Yes Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes Is the language
fluent and precise? Yes Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units
correctly defined and used? Yes Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated? Yes (stated above) Are
the number and quality of references appropriate? Yes Is the amount and quality of
supplementary material appropriate? Yes

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (07 Jul 2020) by Brenhin Keller

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (08 Jul 2020) by Klaus Mezger (Editor)

AR by Simon Tapster on behalf of the Authors (14 Jul 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

Cassiterite is the primary tin ore mineral and is associated with other elements needed for green technology. The mineral is deposited from hydrothermal fluids released from magmas. Because it is extremely acid resistant, there has been difficulty dissolving the mineral for isotopic analysis. To improve the understanding of the timing and models of formation processes, we use a novel method to dissolve and extract radiogenic isotopes of the uranium-to-lead decay scheme from cassiterite.