JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for GEO-METAMORPHISM Archives


GEO-METAMORPHISM Archives

GEO-METAMORPHISM Archives


GEO-METAMORPHISM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GEO-METAMORPHISM Home

GEO-METAMORPHISM Home

GEO-METAMORPHISM  2003

GEO-METAMORPHISM 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Analyses of accessory phases with CAMECA and JEOL

From:

Joseph Pyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metamorphic Studies Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:52:08 -0400

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines) , mnz_EMP_dating_on_JEOL.pdf (78 lines) , Unknown Name (10 lines)

At 9:41 AM +0200 7/28/03, Dr H.MOURI wrote:
>Dear friends,
>Is there any body who could tell me if we can analyse accessory phases (such
>as monazite) using JEOL JXA-8200 for in situ dating and get reliable
>results? I know that we can do that with CAMECA SX50/100, but I have no idea
>about JEOL. Which type of machine is the best for this kind of work?
>Any information about this subject will be highly appreciated and thanks a
>million in advance.
>With kind regards
>Hassina

Dear Hassina (and others) -

        At RPI, myself and Frank Spear have been using a JEOL 733
Superprobe (ca. 1986) to analyze monazite, and we are pretty happy
with the results from a 15+ year old machine. I think that with a
JEOL 8200 you will do fine, provided you are careful in setting up
the analytical protocol.

        Both CAMECA and JEOL make EMPs that are adequate for the
chemical dating of Pb-rich phases, such as monazite, xenotime,
uraninite, thorite, etc. What is critical in determining whether the
machine will work to the user's desired level of precision is the
following:

1) Detector gas: Ar (or P10) generates escape peaks from second order
LREE lines (notably Ce and La) that are unfilterable using Pulse
Height discrimination un-filterable. The Ce escape peak is
particularly bad, as it overlaps Pb Mb (for Ce-rich minerals such as
monazite). Xe generates LREE escape peaks that, due to the energy
difference between Ar and Xe, may be filtered with Pulse Height
discrimination. Additionally, there is the problem of the Ar
absorption edge near the U Ma and Mb lines.

2) Rowland Circle Diameter: For large (160 mm) Rowland circles, the
above interference (Ce escape peak on Pb Mb) may not be problematic
(or as problematic), as the 160 mm circle may provide enough
wavelength resolution to resolve Pb Mb and Ce La (escape). For 140 mm
Rowland circles, the wavelength resolution is inadequate to remove
this interference. Conversely, the count intensity increases for a
140 mm Rowland circle, and even more so for a 100 mm Rowland circle
(so called "high intensity" spectrometers), but again, the wavelength
resolution decreases even more for the 100 mm circle, and both
avoiding interferences and placing background collection positions
for Pb and U can be quite difficult.

3) diffraction crystals: the more PET crystals, the better. If you
can analyze lead simultaneously on two PET crystals, your average
analytical precision increases by a factor of the square root of 2
(1.4). Likewise, three simultaneous analyses of lead using PET
crystals increases the precision of your mean analysis by a factor
of 1.7. At RPI, we have 4 PET crystals, and we analyze Th and U on
one PET crystal, Ce and Y on another PET crystal (these elements are
measured for interference corrections and as monitor elements), and
Pb simultaneously with the other 2 PET crystals.

4) X-ray collimation: Wide open settings produce the highest
intensity and highest analytical precision, therefore, but with the
lowest peak to background ratio. Narrow slit settings increase P/B
ratio, but at expense of intensity. Since this analysis is
essentially about maximizing Pb precision, you should open the slits
up.

There are a lot of other things to consider in producing chemical age
analyses on an EMP, but these are the major machine-related issues.
I've attached a preprint of an article we have written which
discusses estimation of precision and accuracy of EMP chemical ages
of monazite - maybe you will find this useful. Hope this all helps.

Regards,

Joe Pyle

PS apologies for the large file size - if you (or any other
interested parties) do not receive the file, let me know, and I can
post the article to my web site



____________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Joseph Pyle Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - 110 8th St., Troy, NY 12180 phone: (518) 276-4899 fax: (518) 276-6680 email: [log in to unmask] web page: http://www.rpi.edu/~pylej ____________________________________________________________________________

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager