Yue Guan, Jun-Yong Li, Allen K. Kennedy, De-Hong Du, Lan-Lan Tian, Wen-Li Xie and Xiao-Lei Wang
{"title":"利用CAMECA 1300HR3 LG-SIMS对磷灰石进行原位微束U-Pb定年","authors":"Yue Guan, Jun-Yong Li, Allen K. Kennedy, De-Hong Du, Lan-Lan Tian, Wen-Li Xie and Xiao-Lei Wang","doi":"10.1039/D5JA00266D","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Apatite is a U-bearing mineral commonly present in planetary materials and has been widely used for geochronological studies. However, precise <em>in situ</em> U–Pb dating of tiny apatite (grain size <15 μm) remains challenging due to its low abundance of uranium (U) and radiogenic lead (Pb). To address this issue, we have developed two micro-beam analytical methods (<em>i.e.</em>, 5 nA and 500 pA primary beams) using three apatite reference materials (BR5, AFG2, and Otter lake) and a CAMECA IMS 1300HR<small><sup>3</sup></small> large-geometry secondary ion mass spectrometry (LG-SIMS). The 5 nA method (mono) produces a larger sputter crater (12.5 × 12.5 × 4.1 μm) and achieves higher dating precision, with age errors (<em>n</em> = 20) of <0.5% (1σ) for BR5, <2.5% (1σ) for AFG2, and <0.7% (1σ) for Otter lake. In contrast, the 500 pA method (multi) produces a smaller sputter crater (5.3 × 5.3 × 1.4 μm) that results in lower dating precision, with age errors (<em>n</em> = 25) of <1.3% (1σ) for BR5, <4.1% (1σ) for AFG2, and <1.8% (1σ) for Otter lake. Both methods yield accurate ages within the uncertainties and are applicable for apatite U–Pb dating. For data reduction, we recommend the use of the Pb/U <em>vs.</em> UO<small><sub>2</sub></small>/U calibration protocol, because it introduces less age bias compared to those of Pb/U <em>vs.</em> UO/U and Pb/UO <em>vs.</em> UO<small><sub>2</sub></small>/UO protocols. The methodological approaches of this study enable high-precision <em>in situ</em> U–Pb dating of tiny apatite and they will expand the application of LG-SIMS in geochronological studies of (extra-) terrestrial apatite samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":81,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry","volume":" 10","pages":" 2753-2762"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In situ micro-beam U–Pb dating of apatite using CAMECA 1300HR3 LG-SIMS\",\"authors\":\"Yue Guan, Jun-Yong Li, Allen K. Kennedy, De-Hong Du, Lan-Lan Tian, Wen-Li Xie and Xiao-Lei Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D5JA00266D\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Apatite is a U-bearing mineral commonly present in planetary materials and has been widely used for geochronological studies. However, precise <em>in situ</em> U–Pb dating of tiny apatite (grain size <15 μm) remains challenging due to its low abundance of uranium (U) and radiogenic lead (Pb). To address this issue, we have developed two micro-beam analytical methods (<em>i.e.</em>, 5 nA and 500 pA primary beams) using three apatite reference materials (BR5, AFG2, and Otter lake) and a CAMECA IMS 1300HR<small><sup>3</sup></small> large-geometry secondary ion mass spectrometry (LG-SIMS). The 5 nA method (mono) produces a larger sputter crater (12.5 × 12.5 × 4.1 μm) and achieves higher dating precision, with age errors (<em>n</em> = 20) of <0.5% (1σ) for BR5, <2.5% (1σ) for AFG2, and <0.7% (1σ) for Otter lake. In contrast, the 500 pA method (multi) produces a smaller sputter crater (5.3 × 5.3 × 1.4 μm) that results in lower dating precision, with age errors (<em>n</em> = 25) of <1.3% (1σ) for BR5, <4.1% (1σ) for AFG2, and <1.8% (1σ) for Otter lake. Both methods yield accurate ages within the uncertainties and are applicable for apatite U–Pb dating. For data reduction, we recommend the use of the Pb/U <em>vs.</em> UO<small><sub>2</sub></small>/U calibration protocol, because it introduces less age bias compared to those of Pb/U <em>vs.</em> UO/U and Pb/UO <em>vs.</em> UO<small><sub>2</sub></small>/UO protocols. The methodological approaches of this study enable high-precision <em>in situ</em> U–Pb dating of tiny apatite and they will expand the application of LG-SIMS in geochronological studies of (extra-) terrestrial apatite samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry\",\"volume\":\" 10\",\"pages\":\" 2753-2762\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/ja/d5ja00266d\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/ja/d5ja00266d","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
In situ micro-beam U–Pb dating of apatite using CAMECA 1300HR3 LG-SIMS
Apatite is a U-bearing mineral commonly present in planetary materials and has been widely used for geochronological studies. However, precise in situ U–Pb dating of tiny apatite (grain size <15 μm) remains challenging due to its low abundance of uranium (U) and radiogenic lead (Pb). To address this issue, we have developed two micro-beam analytical methods (i.e., 5 nA and 500 pA primary beams) using three apatite reference materials (BR5, AFG2, and Otter lake) and a CAMECA IMS 1300HR3 large-geometry secondary ion mass spectrometry (LG-SIMS). The 5 nA method (mono) produces a larger sputter crater (12.5 × 12.5 × 4.1 μm) and achieves higher dating precision, with age errors (n = 20) of <0.5% (1σ) for BR5, <2.5% (1σ) for AFG2, and <0.7% (1σ) for Otter lake. In contrast, the 500 pA method (multi) produces a smaller sputter crater (5.3 × 5.3 × 1.4 μm) that results in lower dating precision, with age errors (n = 25) of <1.3% (1σ) for BR5, <4.1% (1σ) for AFG2, and <1.8% (1σ) for Otter lake. Both methods yield accurate ages within the uncertainties and are applicable for apatite U–Pb dating. For data reduction, we recommend the use of the Pb/U vs. UO2/U calibration protocol, because it introduces less age bias compared to those of Pb/U vs. UO/U and Pb/UO vs. UO2/UO protocols. The methodological approaches of this study enable high-precision in situ U–Pb dating of tiny apatite and they will expand the application of LG-SIMS in geochronological studies of (extra-) terrestrial apatite samples.