the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A comparison between in situ monazite Lu–Hf and U–Pb geochronology
Abstract. In complex metamorphic terranes, monazite U–Th–Pb dates can span a wide concordant range, leading to ambiguous geological interpretations (e.g., slow protracted cooling versus multiphase growth). We present in situ monazite Lu–Hf analysis as an independent chronometer to verify U–Th–Pb age interpretations. Monazite Lu–Hf dates were attained via laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry equipped with collision/reaction cell technology (LA-ICP-MS/MS). In situ Lu–Hf dates for potential reference monazites with uncertainties < 1.6 % agree with published U–Th–Pb dates, validating the approach. We demonstrate the method on complex metamorphic samples from the Arkaroola region of the northern Flinders Ranges, South Australia, which exhibit protracted thermal and monazite growth histories due to high geothermal gradient metamorphism. In situ Lu–Hf dates reproduce the main U–Pb monazite age populations, demonstrating the ability to reliably resolve multiple age populations from polymetamorphic monazite samples.
- Preprint
(1966 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gchron-2024-29', Nick Roberts, 08 Jan 2025
reply
Nice paper, well presented, with a useful and clear case study.
There is already a paper on this method. This has been cited, and uses different instrumentation. The case study described here is a nice addition.
There is no comment on the fact that older monazites will be easier to date (in terms of measurable radiogenic Hf that is). How young will this method be useful for using this instrumentation? That is concentration specific of course, but clearly unpicking the Alpine-Himalayan orogen is not going to be easy.
It is a shame that the study does not include any of the most commonly used monazite RMs, e.g. Stern, 44069, Manangotry, Moacyr/Bananeira.
Error propagation: at this stage, this is all that can be done, and covers the basics of the calculations. A comment on the fact that long-term reproducibility is not accounted for, and may also be a large contributor to the total age uncertainty would be prudent.
The paper relies on its predecessors to describe common Hf, Yb corrections etc. I am not suggestion repetition, but perhaps comments on the key issues and important considerations would be useful.
Figures – I didn’t see it stated that bars/ellipses are 2sigma.
Data – The tables should comprise mass spectrometer signals for at least some of the measurements, as per widely shared recommendations for U-Pb. The decimal places are too many for the ratios.
Line 30 – ‘orogens’ would be more accurate that ‘terranes’
Line 44 – It is not clear how the two listed ‘problems’ with the approach of Wu et al, “hinder exploring the application of Lu-Hf monazite to its full potential”.
Line 56 – Were spot sizes mixed during each session? Were they mixed between samples and RMs, and does this matter? If not, then this needs to be demonstrated. Different spot sizes will change the downhole fractionation patterns, but it is understandable on a quadropole instrument that the data may be too imprecise to measure any difference accurately.
Line 57 – The reality of this method, is that this spot size is commonly larger or similar to the total length of metamorphic monazites found in typical pelites metamorphosed at mid-crustal conditions. U-Th-Pb spots are typically 5 to 15 microns, which is why multiple domains can be dated from single grains.
Line 74 – Indistinguishable – using this method and instrumentation. This does not mean that the ideology can be applied to all minerals, all instruments and all conditions. A matrix-matched approach should always be strived for, even if this is not possible at first. Non-matrix-matching allows for poor ‘traceability’ of the method.
Line 80 – Were trace elements checked against any published monazite data, or are they only considered to be non-quantitative? Were the Ce contents measured with EMPA, or just assumed? What Ce value was used if assumed?
Line 268 - I personally would not call these established – but they have published ID U-Pb data, and that is the point.
Line 269 – Perhaps also list the accuracy in terms of %, i.e. “accurate to <1%”.
Line 288 – True, but many labs only work with Phanerozoic monazite RMs – and it is unclear how the accuracy will degrade with younger and younger samples/RMs with this method.
Line 295 – Yes, indeed. I would also make the point that the companion trace element data are critical to unpick multiple populations.
Line 300 - missing a “to”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-29-RC1
Data sets
Monazite Lu–Hf and U–Pb data Alexander T. De Vries Van Leeuwen https://doi.org/10.25909/27441327.v1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
180 | 38 | 6 | 224 | 7 | 4 |
- HTML: 180
- PDF: 38
- XML: 6
- Total: 224
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1