4.2 Article

40Ar/39Ar age of the Rotoiti Breccia and Rotoehu Ash, Okataina Volcanic Complex, New Zealand, and identification of heterogeneously distributed excess 40Ar in supercooled crystals

期刊

QUATERNARY GEOCHRONOLOGY
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 13-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quageo.2016.01.002

关键词

Rotoiti ignimbrite eruption; 40Ar/39Ar; Excess-40Ar; Taupo Volcanic Zone

资金

  1. University of Waikato
  2. Villum Foundation
  3. Villum Fonden [00007408] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Co-magmatic granitoid clasts erupted as part of the Rotoiti Ignimbrite (Rotoehu Tephra) contain euhedral K-feldspar and biotite crystals that protrude into miarolytic cavities and show textural evidence for growth in super-cooled conditions and are thus interpreted as growing during eruption. 40Ar/39Ar stepped heating experiments on single K-feldspar crystals reveal the presence of heterogeneously distributed excess 40Ar, preferentially released at lower temperature steps (most likely from fluid/melt inclusions), which cannot reliably be characterised by, or corrected for using isotope correlation diagrams due to mixing between three reservoirs of 40Ar (radiogenic, atmospheric and excess). This excess 40Ar component is common, but not ubiquitous, and an age population unmixing algorithm applied to single crystal fusion data identifies a younger group of K-feldspar and biotite crystals that appear to be largely unaffected by excess 40Ar. This population gives a statistically robust weighted mean age of 47.4 +/- 1.5 ka (1 sigma, n = 13) and an indistinguishable inverse isochron age of 50 3 ka for this historically difficult to date eruption. The weighted mean age is significantly younger than previous age estimates of the Rotoiti eruption obtained by K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating of bracketing lavas, but is indistinguishable from recent C-14 and (U-Th)/He dates and estimates based on orbital tuning and sedimentation rates constrained by C-14 ages. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据