Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115 – 140 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemgeo Improved 206Pb/238U microprobe geochronology by the monitoring of a trace-element-related matrix effect; SHRIMP, ID–TIMS, ELA–ICP–MS and oxygen isotope documentation for a series of zircon standards Lance P. Black a,b,*, Sandra L. Kamo c,1, Charlotte M. Allen b, Donald W. Davis c,1, John N. Aleinikoff d, John W. Valley e, Roland Mundil f, Ian H. Campbell b, Russell J. Korsch a, Ian S. Williams b, Chris Foudoulis a a Minerals and Geohazards Division, Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia c Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S2C6 d U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 963, Denver, CO 80225, USA e Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, 1215 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706, USA f Berkeley Geochronology Center, 2455 Ridge Road, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA b Received 31 March 2003; accepted 13 January 2004 Abstract Precise isotope dilution – thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (ID – TIMS) documentation is given for two new Palaeozoic zircon standards (TEMORA 2 and R33). These data, in combination with results for previously documented standards (AS3, SL13, QGNG and TEMORA 1), provide the basis for a detailed investigation of inconsistencies in 206Pb/238U ages measured by microprobe. Although these ages are normally consistent between any two standards, their relative age offsets are often different from those established by ID – TIMS. This is true for both sensitive high-resolution ion-microprobe (SHRIMP) and excimer laser ablation – inductively coupled plasma – mass spectrometry (ELA – ICP – MS) dating, although the age offsets are in the opposite sense for the two techniques. Various factors have been investigated for possible correlations with age bias, in an attempt to resolve why the accuracy of the method is worse than the indicated precision. Crystallographic orientation, position on the grain-mount and oxygen isotopic composition are unrelated to the bias. There are, however, striking correlations between the 206Pb/238U age offsets and P, Sm and, most particularly, Nd abundances in the zircons. Although these are not believed to be the primary cause of this apparent matrix effect, they indicate that ionisation of 206Pb/238U is * Corresponding author. Minerals and Geohazards Division, Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. Fax: +61-2-6249-9971. E-mail address: Lance.Black@ga.gov.au (L.P. Black). 1 Jack Satterly Geochronology Laboratory, Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario, MSS3B1, Canada. 0009-2541/$ - see front matter. Crown Copyright D 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2004.01.003 116 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 influenced, at least in part, by a combination of trace elements. Nd is sufficiently representative of the controlling trace elements that it provides a quantitative means of correcting for the microprobe age bias. This approach has the potential to reduce age biases associated with different techniques, different instrumentation and different standards within and between laboratories. Crown Copyright D 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Zircon; U – Pb geochronology; SHRIMP; ELA – ICP – MS; Oxygen isotopes; Reference standards; Matrix effect 1. Introduction Over the past several decades, U –Pb dating of zircon has played a pivotal role in geochronology. Dating of relatively young (less than about 1000 Ma) zircon has mostly been based on the 238U – 206Pb decay scheme, because the relatively small amounts of 207Pb produced during those times render the 207 Pb/206Pb technique less effective. Derivation of those ages by microprobe analysis is significantly complicated by U+ and Pb+ ions being emitted in different proportions from the atomic abundances in their host mineral (Compston et al., 1984). In the case of secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), of which the sensitive high-resolution ion-microprobe (SHRIMP) is an example, the bias of 206Pb/238U for zircon can be as much as a factor of three. This enrichment of Pb over U must be corrected through concurrent measurement of a standard, which is a well-dated and well-behaved representative of the same (i.e., matrix-matched) mineral. Because the age of a standard is independently established (usually by isotope dilution – thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (ID – TIMS)), the degree of inter-element fractionation that occurs during microprobe analysis of the standard can be determined. The same fractionation factor is then applied to concurrently analysed zircon of unknown age using the (critical) assumption that its Pb and U emission was fractionated to the same extent as in the standard. Deviation from that assumption will result in an aberrant age. 206 Pb/238U fractionation during excimer laser ablation –inductively coupled plasma – mass spectrometry (ELA – ICP – MS) is also corrected using the assumption that standard and unknowns will have been similarly affected. Another important role for the standard is to assess the overall quality of the analytical session. Unlike ID – TIMS dating, during which micrograms or more of zircon are consumed, the nanograms of zircon expended during an individual microprobe analysis yield considerably lower precision. This can be improved by performing a large number of replicate analyses, which are then statistically combined. It has been established (e.g., Black et al., 2003a) for one SIMS instrument—SHRIMP II at the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University (RSES, ANU)—that the 206Pb/238U calibration is less well defined during some analytical sessions than in others. By comparing the quality of concurrent analyses of standards and unknowns, it is possible to discriminate between components of imprecision arising from the analytical process and those that reflect 206 Pb/238U heterogeneity within the unknown zircons. This makes it simpler to identify outliers of a geological nature, which could be a consequence of either open-system behaviour (e.g., Pb loss, producing younger ages) or the presence of older zircon (due to, for example, to the incorporation of pre-existing zircon into a magma). An ideal zircon standard should have uniform 206 Pb/238U on all scales at which it is analysed. The standard should also be both accurately and precisely dated by ID– TIMS. It is a distinct advantage if the standard is sufficiently abundant to be utilised indefinitely by different laboratories. This article introduces two new zircon standards, TEMORA 2 and R33. In combination with two standards that have recently been documented (TEMORA 1, Black et al., 2003b; QGNG, Black et al., 2003a), they are used in a series of SHRIMP and ELA – ICP –MS comparisons to test their consistency, L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Table 1 Chemical compositions of host rocks of three Palaeozoic zircon standards TEMORA 1a SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 LOI Total 47.84 2.71 16.59 3.35 10.48 0.28 4.07 9.31 3.38 0.42 0.52 0.52 99.59 Trace elements (ppm) As 2.8 Ba 278 Be 0.9 Ce 53.7 Cr <1 Cs 2.0 Cu 31 Dy 9.2 Er 5.2 Eu (ppb) 2500 F 1101 Ga 22.2 Gd 10.5 Ge 1.8 Ho 1.8 La 22 Li 3.5 Lu 0.6 Mo 1.3 Nb 27 Nd 35 Ni 8 Pb 4 Pr 7.5 Rb 10 Sb < 0.2 Sc 35 Sm 8.9 Sn < 1.0 Sr 362 Ta 1.5 Tb 1.7 Th 1.5 U 0.5 V 274 Y 51.7 Yb 4.3 TEMORA 2a 49.45 2.26 16.87 1.86 9.98 0.21 3.80 8.39 3.34 0.61 0.48 2.63 99.99 1.7 260 1.3 53.4 <1 1.7 20 5.4 3.2 2057 583 21.8 6.3 1.8 1.1 23.9 10.6 0.4 0.5 14 27 11 4 6.5 21 0.3 31 5.7 1.1 369 1.1 1.0 2.3 0.4 270 33.4 3.0 R33b 57.20 2.25 14.20 3.75 6.34 0.17 2.77 4.99 4.19 1.62 0.58 0.83 98.89 3.1 180 75.5 2.35 3.9 2710 12.9 3.03 29.1 1.04 117 Table 1 (continued ) TEMORA 1a Trace elements (ppm) Zn Zr CIPW norms Quartz Orthoclase Albite Anorthite Diopside Diopside (CaMg) Hedenbergite Hypersthene Enstatite Ferrosilite Olivine Forsterite Fayalite Magnetite Ilmenite Apatite 120 130 0.00 2.48 28.60 28.85 11.61 5.59 6.02 14.28 6.39 7.89 1.91 0.81 1.10 4.86 5.15 1.23 TEMORA 2a 110 136 1.27 3.60 28.26 29.24 7.74 3.46 4.29 19.03 7.86 11.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 4.29 1.14 R33b 96 467 12.49 9.68 35.85 15.32 4.82 2.92 1.90 9.82 5.62 4.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.55 4.35 1.37 a Analysis by XRF, total Fe as Fe2O3 by XRF, FeO by titrimetry, rest by ICP – MS. b Analysis of major elements by XRF, minor and trace elements by INAA; the assumptions of Irvine and Barragar (1971) for the allocation of total Fe between Fe2O3 and FeO have been used for the calculation of the norm of R33. with the aim of investigating the limits to precision and accuracy that can be achieved with microprobe dating. These results are then compared with previously acquired data for two other standards (AS3 and SL13). 48 2. Geological background of the new standards 71 0.54 21 12 168 2.1 4.3 1.57 7.46 2.1. TEMORA 2 In common with TEMORA 1 (Black et al., 2003b), TEMORA 2 zircon crystallised within the Middledale Gabbroic Diorite. This forms a small, high-level stock within the Palaeozoic Lachlan Orogen of Eastern Australia (Wormald, 1993). Both TEMORA samples come from the northern margin of the stock, but recent farming activity has disturbed the positions of the exposed boulders, and it is not possible to determine original field relationships. Dominant primary minerals are labradoritic plagioclase, pargasitic hornblende, 118 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 pyroxene and opaque minerals. The main difference between the two host rocks, which is described in more detail by Black et al. (2003b), is that the TEMORA 2 host is coarser-grained and more deuterically altered, although it too is extremely fresh. All original augite and hypersthene appears to have been replaced by secondary amphibole, and there has been extensive alteration of hornblende to chlorite. Secondary epidote is common. Opaque minerals consist of ilmenite and haematite. The TEMORA 2 host rock is somewhat more enriched in SiO2 (Table 1), is slightly quartz-normative, and is less oxidised than that of TEMORA 1. Despite their mafic nature, however, both rocks contain respectable concentrations of zircon. A distinct advantage of TEMORA 2 is that not only are its host boulders much more common, but they contain an order of magnitude more zircon (about 0.1 g/kg, compared with about 0.01 g/kg zircon in the TEMORA 1 host). 2.2. R33 R33 zircon is derived from coarse-grained, biotitehornblende monzodiorite in the interior of a 60 mthick dioritic dyke of the Braintree Complex, VT, northeastern USA. The complex intrudes biotite-grade sedimentary formations of Ordovician age in the Connecticut Trough, near Randolph, VT (Ratcliffe and Aleinikoff, 2000). The monzodiorite consists of phenocrysts of brown hornblende (25%), biotite (5%) and plagioclase (60%) in a diabasic interlocking texture. Late-stage interstitial overgrowths of quartzalbite and microcline are also present. 3. ID – TIMS documentation of the new standards It is crucial that the age of any potential microprobe standard be both accurately and precisely established by an independent technique, and not by an alternative form of microprobe dating. This section presents the ID – TIMS documentation for the age and homogeneity of the two new zircon standards (TEMORA 2 and R33). The data for R33 were obtained at two different laboratories, the Berkeley Geochronological Center (BGC), USA and the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), Canada. Most of the details of the analytical procedures can be found in Black et al. (2003a); some salient points are listed in the footnotes to Table 2. 3.1. TEMORA 2 TEMORA 2 was only analysed at the ROM, during four sessions from September 2000 until November 2001 (Fig. 1, Table 2). Twenty-one analyses were performed, giving a weighted mean 206Pb/ 238 U age of 416.50 F 0.22 Ma (MSWD = 0.78). The initial 12 analyses were obtained during the first two sessions shortly after a new ion-counting Daly detector system was installed. During this period, the dead time correction varied linearly with intensity, based on measurements of the SRM982 Pb standard. In July 2001, the magnet position was adjusted and the dead time correction was found to have changed to a constant value of 23.0 ns, independent of count rate. The detector configuration and performance characteristics are considered to have been stable from this point on, when the remaining nine analyses were undertaken. In August 2001, Faraday-cup data were acquired for a large, multigrain fraction and Dalydetector data from an aliquot derived therefrom. During the same session period, Faraday and Daly data were taken on a second large, multigrain fraction using a VG M354 mass spectrometer. This instrument showed the same mass discrimination for both Faraday and Daly detectors and a deadtime correction of 18.5 ns for Pb and U on the Daly detector. Data for five single grains were obtained in November 2001 concurrently with two other standards, TEMORA 1 and R33, in a ‘‘round robin’’ session (see below). The weighted mean age from the latter nine TEMORA 2 analyses, unaffected by detector bias, of 416.78 F0.33 Ma (MSWD = 0.56, probability of equivalence = 0.81) is considered to provide the best estimate of the age of TEMORA 2. In common with TEMORA 1 (Black et al., 2003b), when measurement errors alone are considered, the nine preferred TEMORA 2 analyses plot significantly below concordia (probability of concordance = 0.000). However, the probability of concordance increases to an acceptable value (0.54) if the uncertainties proposed by Mattinson (1987) for the U decay constants, and the 0.13% (1j) ROM Pb/U spike calibration uncertainty, are taken into account. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Because the main use of a standard for dating relatively young zircons by microprobe is to correct for analytical fractionation of 206Pb/238U, this isotopic ratio (and its associated age) should serve as the reference for that dating. The 206Pb/238U age of 416.78 F 0.33 Ma, based on the preferred nine ID – TIMS measurements, is chosen in this study as a benchmark for inter-comparison between the various standards that have been analysed in the ROM laboratory, because their relative ages are independent of spike-calibration (and also U decay constant) uncertainty). However, both spike-calibration and U decayconstant uncertainties need to be taken into account if the TEMORA 2 age is to be meaningfully compared with ages derived from other isotopic systems. In those instances, the reference age for TEMORA 2 becomes 416.8 F 1.3 Ma. 3.2. R33 3.2.1. BGC results R33 has been analysed in two different ID –TIMS laboratories, using different sample preparation procedures. At the BGC, individual grains were first set in resin and polished to almost half thickness, so that internal structures could be imaged using cathodoluminescence (CL). Unzoned or weakly zoned grains were chosen for analysis. After extraction from the resin, some grains were abraded only (Krogh, 1982), others were leached in NaOH and abraded (A/L), and the remainder were not treated by either process (Table 2). The polishing to half thickness before abrasion produced residual grains that were about one seventh the size of those analysed at the ROM, which has resulted in significantly worse precision for 207 Pb/206Pb and 207Pb/235U in the BGC data (Table 2). In addition, the sectioning of the crystals along the crystallographic c-axis has made it difficult to remove all of the surface material, as the following results show. Fig. 1C shows that A/L was the most successful procedure for limiting data spread. Perhaps surprisingly, data from the abraded grains disperse more widely than data from the two grains that were not treated at all. Even the eight A/L analyses show a significant spread in 206Pb/238U (MSWD = 3.2, probability of equivalence = 0.002). Based on the trend of these results, the oldest grain (f 422 Ma) possibly reflects 119 an inherited component; the youngest four ages were affected by Pb loss. A preferred 206Pb/238U age of 418.9 F 0.4 Ma (2j, MSWD = 1.0, probability = 0.43) is derived for zircon crystallisation using data from the other seven A/L grains, one of the untreated grains and one grain that was abraded only (Fig. 1D). 3.2.2. ROM results The R33 grains dated at the ROM were carefully selected under a binocular microscope and abraded only, prior to dissolution. The results (Table 2) were obtained over a few days (in November 2001) rather than over 1 or 2 years, as was the case with TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 data, respectively. In common with TEMORA 2 (and TEMORA 1—(Black et al., 2003b), the group of six R33 analyses appears to lie below concordia until spike-calibration and U decay-constant uncertainties are considered. When this is done, the probability of concordance of the dataset is high (0.75). These analyses produce mutually indistinguishable 206Pb/238U ages (MSWD = 0.31, probability of equivalence = 0.91) that combine to yield a weighted mean age of 419.26 F 0.39 Ma for R33. This age is indistinguishable (probability of equivalence = 0.21) from the BGC age derived above for R33. 3.3. Detailed ID – TIMS comparison of the three Palaeozoic standards The comparisons of ID – TIMS results for QGNG in Black et al. (2003a) and those reported above for R33 show that reasonable agreement can be obtained between different laboratories. However, these studies have also highlighted differences in detail within the data. Moreover, the TEMORA 2 results indicate the limits to accuracy from ion-counting ID –TIMS analyses using the Daly detector. Thus, TEMORA 2 yields a suggestion of variation of mean 206Pb/238U ages from 416.1 F 0.6 through 416.4 F 0.3 – 416.6 F 0.5 Ma for the three TEMORA 2 dating sessions prior to the round-robin experiment. As reported above, the first two of those results are believed to reflect slight biases due to deadtime instability. It is probably not possible to obtain accuracy of better than about one part per thousand because of limitations imposed by detector characteristics. In order to minimise any influences that might prohibit the maximum level of scrutiny, a single 120 Analysis No. of grains Weight (mg) U (ppm) Th/U PbCom (pg) 207 Pb/ Pb 204 206 Pb/238U F 2j 207 Pb/235U F 2j 207 Pb/206Pb F 2j 206 Pb/238U F 2j age (Ma) TEMORA 2 ROM analysed September 2000 ion-counting Daly; F/D = 0.0007 per AMU; deadtime correction 17 ns for Pb and 15 ns for U (linearly varying) sk13p84a 1 17 163 0.39 1.3 534.7 0.06669 F 0.00023 0.5071 F 0.0021 0.05515 F 0.00011 416.18 F 1.40 sk13p85a 1 17 271 0.35 1.3 877.2 0.06661 F 0.00020 0.5071 F 0.0017 0.05522 F 0.00013 415.71 F 1.19 sk13p86a 1 9 146 0.43 1.8 190.8 0.06671 F 0.00016 0.5075 F 0.0024 0.05518 F 0.00023 416.28 F 0.96 1 4 94 0.34 2.6 49.5 0.06667 F 0.00020 0.5067 F 0.0098 0.05512 F 0.00105 416.07 F 1.21 sk13p87a ROM analysed January 2001 ion-counting Daly; F/D = 0.0007 per AMU; deadtime correction 17 ns for Pb and 15 ns for U (linearly varying) sk14p07a 1 30 136 0.50 0.5 1821.8 0.06668 F 0.00019 0.5072 F 0.0017 0.055171 F 0.00013 416.09 F 1.15 sk14p08a 1 27 201 0.37 0.6 2225.7 0.06671 F 0.00016 0.5074 F 0.0014 0.055165 F 0.00008 416.28 F 0.98 1 14 83 0.45 0.7 390.5 0.06673 F 0.00015 0.5071 F 0.0020 0.055118 F 0.00019 416.39 F 0.93 sk14p09a a sk14p10 1 10 309 0.41 0.5 1514.8 0.06660 F 0.00016 0.5069 F 0.0014 0.055204 F 0.00011 415.61 F 0.96 a sk14p11 1 19 133 0.42 1.2 524.3 0.06675 F 0.00015 0.5080 F 0.0015 0.055198 F 0.00013 416.55 F 0.91 1 9 82 0.44 0.8 239.0 0.06665 F 0.00022 0.5062 F 0.0025 0.055086 F 0.00022 415.96 F 1.30 sk14p12a sk14p13a 1 11 97 0.44 0.8 348.5 0.06679 F 0.00014 0.5092 F 0.0017 0.055288 F 0.00013 416.80 F 0.85 a 1 11 160 0.50 1.5 296.3 0.06678 F 0.00016 0.5077 F 0.0021 0.055146 F 0.00019 416.71 F 0.95 sk14p14 ROM analysed August 2001; F/D = 0.0007 per AMU; deadtime correction 23 ns for Pb and 20.5 ns for U (constant) sk14p96a m 770 173 0.40 23.6 1349.8 0.06667 F 0.00017 0.5079 F 0.0013 0.05525 F 0.00011 416.08 F 1.03 m 50b 173 0.40 0.4 4818.3 0.06681 F 0.00015 0.5078 F 0.0013 0.05513 F 0.00009 416.89 F 0.88 sk14p98a ROM analysed August 2001 on M354 ion-counting Daly; no F/D; deadtime correction 18.5 ns (constant) a m 650 157 0.40 6.5 3740.7 0.06674 F 0.00016 0.5082 F 0.0013 0.05523 F 0.00010 416.50 F 0.96 sk14p97 sk14p99a m 40c 157 0.40 0.5 3624.6 0.06676 F 0.00013 0.5084 F 0.0012 0.05523 F 0.00007 416.58 F 0.80 ROM analysed November 2001 ion-counting Daly; F/D = 0.0007 per AMU; deadtime correction 23 ns for Pb and 20.5 ns for U (constant) sk15p07a 1 34 130 0.51 0.5 2341.0 0.06681 F 0.00014 0.5078 F 0.0014 0.05513 F 0.00009 416.88 F 0.85 sk15p08a 1 9 232 0.40 0.9 566.6 0.06687 F 0.00017 0.5083 F 0.0015 0.05513 F 0.00012 417.27 F 1.01 1 6 320 0.43 0.7 670.3 0.06685 F 0.00017 0.5083 F 0.0016 0.05515 F 0.00015 417.16 F 1.00 sk15p09a 4 270 0.33 0.5 544.7 0.06677 F 0.00063 0.5066 F 0.0048 0.05503 F 0.00044 416.66 F 3.82 sk15p11a,d 1 sk15p12a,d 1 3 187 0.40 0.4 339.8 0.06687 F 0.00028 0.5088 F 0.0027 0.05518 F 0.00019 417.30 F 1.66 207 Pb/235U F 2j age (Ma) 207 Pb/206Pb F 2j age (Ma) 416.5 F 1.4 416.5 F 1.2 416.8 F 1.6 416.2 F 6.6 418.4 F 4.6 420.9 F 5.1 419.4 F 9.5 417.0 F 42.9 416.6 F 1.2 416.7 F 1.0 416.5 F 1.3 416.4 F 1.0 417.1 F 1.0 415.9 F 1.7 417.9 F 1.2 416.9 F 1.4 % Disc q 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.861 0.745 0.459 0.150 419.2 F 5.3 418.9 F 3.1 417.0 F 7.8 420.5 F 4.3 420.3 F 5.1 415.7 F 8.9 423.9 F 5.4 418.2 F 7.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 1.2 0.9 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.733 0.874 0.467 0.736 0.663 0.615 0.701 0.576 417.0 F 0.8 417.0 F 0.9 422.1 F 4.4 417.4 F 3.7 1.5 0.1 0.698 0.757 417.3 F 0.9 417.4 F 0.8 421.4 F 4.2 421.7 F 2.7 1.2 1.3 0.724 0.859 417.0 F 0.9 417.3 F 1.0 417.3 F 1.1 416.2 F 3.2 417.6 F 1.8 417.5 F 3.8 417.5 F 4.7 418.1 F 5.9 413.6 F 18.1 419.4 F 7.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.779 0.708 0.588 0.634 0.748 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Table 2 ID – TIMS U – Pb isotopic compositions for Palaeozoic zircon standards TEMORA 2 and R33 AMU; deadtime correction 23 ns for Pb and 20.5 ns for U (constant) 0.06724 F 0.00014 0.5121 F 0.0012 0.05524 F 0.00006 419.5 F 0.8 0.06717 F 0.00018 0.5115 F 0.0015 0.05523 F 0.00012 419.1 F 1.1 0.06716 F 0.00016 0.5113 F 0.0015 0.05522 F 0.00010 419.0 F 1.0 0.06716 F 0.00015 0.5111 F 0.0013 0.05520 F 0.00009 419.0 F 0.9 0.06721 F 0.00016 0.5112 F 0.0015 0.05517 F 0.00010 419.3 F 0.9 0.06726 F 0.00017 0.5117 F 0.0015 0.05518 F 0.00011 419.6 F 1.0 0.06774 F 0.00028 0.06726 F 0.00015 0.06725 F 0.00030 0.06721 F 0.00015 0.06714 F 0.00029 0.06704 F 0.00015 0.06710 F 0.00020 0.06708 F 0.00027 0.06699 F 0.00026 0.06700 F 0.00027 0.06628 F 0.00024 0.06656 F 0.00048 0.06586 F 0.00026 0.06447 F 0.00025 0.5178 F 0.0167 0.5105 F 0.0093 0.5162 F 0.0218 0.5120 F 0.0022 0.5095 F 0.0033 0.5118 F 0.0045 0.5110 F 0.0140 0.5194 F 0.0195 0.5093 F 0.0050 0.5120 F 0.0061 0.5041 F 0.0035 0.5014 F 0.0079 0.5011 F 0.0032 0.4859 F 0.0044 0.05544 F 0.00166 0.05505 F 0.00094 0.05567 F 0.00223 0.05525 F 0.00017 0.05504 F 0.00028 0.05537 F 0.00044 0.05522 F 0.00144 0.05616 F 0.00197 0.05514 F 0.00050 0.05542 F 0.00061 0.05516 F 0.00033 0.05464 F 0.00071 0.05518 F 0.00028 0.05466 F 0.00044 422.5 F 1.7 419.6 F 0.9 419.6 F 1.9 419.3 F 1.0 418.9 F 1.8 418.3 F 1.0 418.7 F 1.2 418.5 F 1.3 418.0 F 1.6 418.1 F 1.7 413.7 F 1.5 415.4 F 3.0 411.2 F 1.6 402.7 F 1.6 419.8 F 0.8 419.5 F 1.0 419.3 F 1.0 419.2 F 0.9 419.3 F 1.0 419.6 F 1.0 421.8 F 2.2 421.6 F 4.8 421.1 F 3.9 420.2 F 3.8 419.2 F 4.2 419.4 F 4.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.909 0.701 0.811 0.777 0.764 0.763 423.7 F 13.6 418.8 F 7.6 422.6 F 17.9 419.8 F 1.8 418.1 F 2.8 419.7 F 3.7 419.1 F 11.4 424.8 F 16.0 418.0 F 4.1 419.8 F 5.0 414.5 F 2.9 412.6 F 6.5 412.4 F 2.7 402.1 F 3.6 429.9 F 67.5 414.2 F 38.5 439.2 F 89.4 422.3 F 7.7 414.0 F 10.7 427.2 F 18.3 421.3 F 57.9 458.8 F 78.7 418.0 F 19.1 429.1 F 24.0 418.7 F 12.6 397.4 F 29.5 419.6 F 10.7 398.5 F 17.1 1.8 1.3 4.7 0.7 1.2 2.1 0.6 9.6 0.0 2.6 1.2 4.3 2.0 1.0 0.520 0.470 0.510 0.620 0.700 0.380 0.500 0.560 0.490 0.440 0.590 0.560 0.670 0.530 Model Th/U calculated from radiogenic 208Pb/206Pb ratio and 207Pb/206Pb age assuming concordance. 207 Pb/204Pb corrected for fractionation and spike; Pb/U ratios corrected additionally for blank and initial Pb (Stacey and Kramers, 1975). % disc is percent discordance for the given 207Pb/206Pb age. U concentrations calculated from crystal weight (estimated from crystal dimensions). Rho is the correlation coefficient of radiogenic 207Pb/235U vs. 206Pb/238U. Uncertainties of individual ratios and ages do not include decay constant uncertainties. Decay constants from Jaffey et al. (1971). ROM laboratory: PbCom is total common Pb (assuming blank isotopic composition for all of 206Pb/204Pb = 18.221, 207Pb/204Pb = 15.612, 208Pb/204Pb = 39.36. m signifies multiple grains. BGC laboratory: PbCom is total common Pb (analytical Pb blank is 1.3 F 0.8 pg, with 206Pb/204Pb = 18.57 F 0.55, 207Pb/204Pb = 15.52 F 0.3, 208Pb/204Pb = 37.96 F 0.89. a Abraded only. b 1/15th aliquot of sk14p96. c 1/15th aliquot of sk14p97. d No chemical processing. e Abraded and leached. f No abrasion or leaching. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 R33 ROM analysed November 2001 ion-counting Daly; F/D = 0.0007 per sk15p13a 1 36 237 0.61 0.5 4180 sk15p14a 1 32 398 0.60 0.8 3648 1 20 353 0.64 0.6 2980 sk15p15a 1 20 160 0.75 0.7 1128 sk15p16a sk15p17a 1 14 189 0.56 0.6 1058 a 1 12 312 0.64 0.7 1298 sk15p18 BGC analysed March, April and May 2000 RS33Z07e 1 2.3 73 0.94 1.9 36.10 RS33Z03e 1 0.6 149 0.66 0.8 43.04 e 1 1.8 162 0.90 6.4 26.36 RS33Z06 e RS33Z01 1 3.9 126 0.81 0.7 182.7 9.0 123 0.66 1.4 201.5 RS33Z19f 1 RS33Z04e 1 2.8 107 0.66 0.9 91.40 RS33Z08e 1 2.8 61 0.82 2.3 32.90 e RS33Z05 1 0.8 170 0.90 2.1 30.89 4.2 134 0.94 1.2 125.3 RS33Z14a 1 3.6 102 0.85 0.9 115.3 RS33Z02e 1 R33Z18f 1 15.0 129 0.87 1.7 282.2 a 1 4.5 103 0.96 1.8 76.00 R33Z16 R33Z17a 1 3.8 273 0.80 1.8 146.3 4.8 138 0.44 1.8 95.98 RS33Z13a 1 121 122 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Fig. 1. ID – TIMS analytical data for two Palaeozoic zircon standards. The ellipses and error bars represent F 2j precision. (A) 207 Pb/235U – 206Pb/238U concordia diagram for TEMORA 2 showing all 21 ROM analyses. The dark ellipse at the centre represents the weighted mean. (B) All of the individual 206Pb/238U ages (in time sequence) for TEMORA 2. (C) 207Pb/235U – 206Pb/238U concordia diagram for the BGC analyses of R33, depicting the range of results obtained following different pre-treatment procedures. (D) 206Pb/238U ages from the BGC data. Nine ages with F 2j uncertainties represented by the white bars, and encompassing a combination of untreated, abraded only and abraded/ leached grains, yield a preferred age of 418.9 F 0.4 Ma. The black bar appears to represent a slightly older inherited component, whereas the four grey bars reflect Pb loss. (E) 207Pb/235U – 206Pb/238U concordia diagram for the six ROM analyses of R33. (F) Individual 206Pb/238U ages as determined at the ROM for R33. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 operator (SLK) dating session was set up at the ROM in November 2001, during which TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2 and R33 were analysed. This approach removes inter-laboratory and operator differences, and minimises any instrument-generated effects. The TEMORA 1 results from this ‘‘round robin’’ session are the last six analyses reported by Black et al. (2003b), the TEMORA 2 results are the last five analyses listed in Table 2 of this article, and the R33 data are those discussed above. The TEMORA 1 206 Pb/238U age of 416.64 F 0.45 Ma is in excellent agreement with that derived from the previous 15 analyses (416.78 F 0.28 Ma), so all of these analyses have been averaged. It is proposed that the most appropriate 206Pb/238U reference ages for the standards, especially when they are to be used for detailed inter-comparison, are 416.75 F 0.24 Ma (TEMORA 1, 21 analyses), 416.78 F 0.33 Ma (TEMORA 2, 9 analyses) and 419.26 F 0.39 Ma (R33, 6 analyses). 4. SHRIMP documentation of the new standards Analytical procedures are summarised and referenced in Black et al. (2003a). The data reside in OZCHRON, Geoscience Australia’s (GA) geochronological database (www.ga.gov.au/oracle/ozchron), or are available on request from the senior author. Data were reduced using SQUID software (Ludwig, 2002). For three of the analytical sessions, the exponent in the algorithm used to correct for fractionation in Pb/U has been set at 2.0 (Claoué-Long et al., 1995). However, the observed exponent (1.6 for Z3627—November 2000, 1.8 for Z3673— July 2001 and Z3627—September 2001) has been used in the four instances where it was found to differ significantly from the commonly accepted value of 2.0 (see caption of Fig. 2 for explanation of the Z-prefixed numbers). Very few of the individual analyses that comprise an analytical session have been discarded. When such culling has occurred, it has rarely been on a purely statistical basis. Independent criteria used to identify anomalous analyses include dramatically changing, atypically low and/or unstable secondary ion emission, abnormally high common Pb and/or U, a poorly focussed analytical spot, and movement of the sample stage during analysis. Rejected analyses are identified on Fig. 2, which shows each of the individual ages for every analytical 123 session. All uncertainties are cited at the 2j level, unless stated otherwise. Whereas Black et al. (2003a) used data calibrated against QGNG for their examination of zircon standards, TEMORA 1 has now been included in SHRIMP inter-comparisons often enough (e.g., in seven of the eight sessions reported herein) for it to be used as the primary reference standard in this study. The major advantage of this approach is that whereas the ID – TIMS analyses of QGNG are significantly dispersed (Black et al., 2003a), those of TEMORA 1 are not (Black et al., 2003b). Six different multi-day sessions (Fig. 2, Table 3) are newly reported. The RSES-GA SHRIMP II in Canberra was used for five of these, with the other session being undertaken on the Perth SHRIMP II. Data from two of the sessions reported by Black et al. (2003a) are also presented here, but these are now referenced to TEMORA 1 instead of QGNG. Only one of the eight sessions (Z 3627, September 2001, Fig. 2A) includes all four of the main zircon standards under discussion (TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2, R33 and QGNG), with the remaining seven sessions including either two or three of these standards. 4.1. TEMORA 2 TEMORA 2 has been jointly analysed with TEMORA 1 on two occasions, with essentially identical results for both sessions (Fig. 2, Table 3). It is possible to derive two slightly different weighted mean ages from the first of those sessions (Z3407, April 2000, Fig. 2E), depending on whether one or both of the two TEMORA 2 analyses identified by SQUID as statistical outliers are rejected. One of those analyses can be independently identified as anomalous because it was obtained from an abnormally deep crater within the zircon (following an episode of instrumental instability). Rejection of only that analysis produces a grouping that is at the limits of being significantly scattered (MSWD = 1.34, probability of equivalence = 0.05). Rejection of both outlying analyses increases the probability of equivalence to the considerably more acceptable value of 0.28 (MSWD = 1.10 from 51 analyses). The resultant age is increased by 0.4 to 418.1 F 2.2 Ma, which is regarded as the best estimate from this session for the age of TEMORA 2. 124 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 125 Fig. 2. Calibrated ages for individual analyses during each of the six SHRIMP sessions (time sequence is from left to right). All error bars represent F 2j precision. TEMORA 1 has been used as the calibration standard for all but one of the sessions. Errors shown for the other zircon suites have been augmented to take account of the uncertainty of the TEMORA 1 calibration. The latter is represented by the calculated 2j spotto-spot error of Ludwig (2002). Numbers prefixed by the letter Z are catalogue references for individual grain-mounts, which usually contain grains from more than one zircon standard (e.g., Z3673 contains grains from the TEMORA 1, R33 and QGNG standards). Very few analyses have been excluded from the weighted mean ages (see bottom right of each diagram). Those few outliers are either terminated by small circles, or lie beyond the confines of the diagrams. The information included in this diagram and data from Black et al. (2003a) is used to construct Figs. 3 and 4. (A) Z3627 (September 2001), (B) Z3673 (February 2001), (C) Z3673 (July 2001), (D) Z3673 (June 2001), (E) Z3407 (April 2000), (F) Z3627 (November 2000). The second direct comparison between the two TEMORA standards was made on grain-mount Z3627 in September 2001 (Fig. 2A). Only one TEMORA 2 analysis (yielding a very young age of f 340 Ma, and being independently identifiable by an abnormally low secondary beam intensity) is rejected, resulting in a weighted mean age of 418.1 F 2.4 Ma. The estimates from the two sessions are clearly within error of each other and can therefore be combined to give a combined TEMORA 1-calibrated age of 418.1 F 1.6 Ma for TEMORA 2. That value and the age derived from ID – TIMS dating 126 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Table 3 Summary of SHRIMP 206 Pb/238U ages for the zircon standards (calibrated to the ID – TIMS age of 416.75 Maa for TEMORA 1) Session QGNG Z3406 Z3219 Z3673 Z3407 Z3627 Z3673 Z3673 1841.2 F 5.5 Ma 1844.8 F 6.6 Ma 1839.8 F 12.9 Ma (August 2000) (May 1999) (June 2001) (April 2000) (September 2001) (July 2001) (February 2001) 1841.3 F 9.5 Ma 1838.6 F 12.3 Ma 1844.3 F 10.3 Ma Weighted mean 1842.2 F 3.3 Ma TIMS age 1842.0 F 3.1 Mab Probability of equivalence 0.93 Calibrated against TEMORA 2 at 416.78 Mac Z3627 (November 2000) TEMORA 2 418.1 F 2.2 Ma 418.1 F 2.4 Ma 418.1 F 1.6 Ma 416.78 F 0.33 Ma 0.11 R33 418.6 F 2.4 Ma 421.7 F 3.1 Ma 420.2 F 2.6 Ma 419.9 F 1.5 Ma 419.26 F 0.39 Ma 0.41 (417.1 F 3.0 Ma) a Black et al. (2003b). b Black et al. (2003a). c The TEMORA 2-calibrated age for R33 cannot be directly compared with the TEMORA 1-calibrated ages because, this study when combined with that of Black et al. (2003a), demonstrates that the standards do not necessarily have equivalent Pb/U ionisation on SHRIMP. (416.78 F 0.33 Ma) are not significantly different at the 95% confidence level, although the agreement between them is marginal (probability of equivalence = 0.11). Possible reasons for this discrepancy will be discussed below. 4.2. R33 R33 can be calibrated against TEMORA 1 for three different sessions. Interpretation of the February 2001 session on Z3673 (Fig. 2B) is straightforward, with the removal of all of the statistical outliers (for both the TEMORA 1 standard and R33) being independently justifiable. An age of 420.2 F 2.6 Ma is calculated from 47 of the 48 analyses of R33 (MSWD = 1.13, probability of equivalence = 0.25). Although SQUID identifies three statistical outliers within the TEMORA 1 analyses from the July 2001 session on Z3673 (Fig. 2C), there is no independent evidence to support their rejection, and they have all been retained within the dataset. All 42 of the individual R33 ages are within error of each other (MSWD = 0.6, probability of equivalence = 0.98), and yield a weighted mean age of 421.7 F 3.1 Ma from this session. Just one statistical outlier is rejected from the 47 TEMORA 1 analyses from the September 2001 session on Z3627 (Fig. 2A). All 50 of the R33 ages are within error of each other (MSWD = 1.15, probability of equivalence = 0.22) and produce a weighted mean age of 418.6 F 2.4 Ma. As was the case with TEMORA 2, the three weighted mean ages reported above for R33 are within error of each other (MSWD = 1.3, probability of equivalence = 0.28). They yield a combined SHRIMP age for R33 of 419.9 F 1.5 Ma, which is well within error of the ID – TIMS age of 419.26 F 0.39 Ma (MSWD = 0.68, probability of equivalence = 0.41). 4.3. QGNG Black et al. (2003a) reported two SHRIMP comparisons between TEMORA 1 and QGNG, using the latter as the reference standard. The same data are reported here, but with TEMORA 1 as the reference (Table 3). Together with the four newly reported sessions that incorporate both of those standards, this now yields a total of six comparisons between TEMORA 1 and QGNG. There has been little culling of data for derivation of QGNG ages. Only 5 of the entire 299 analyses of the associated TEMORA 1 standard have been rejected, and only 1 of those rejections is on purely statistical grounds. In addition, only one of the 290 QGNG analyses has been rejected, because of its very low UO/U. Individual analyses are graphically represented in Fig. 2(A – D) and in Black et al. (2003a). A summary of the results is given in Table 3. The six sessions produce a set of L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 mutually indistinguishable ages (MSWD = 0.29, probability of equivalence = 0.93) and a weighted mean age of 1842.2 F 3.3 Ma for QGNG. This is in excellent agreement (MSWD = 0.008, probability of equivalence = 0.93) with the ID – TIMS 206Pb/238U age of 1842.0 F 3.1 Ma, an agreement that was noted by 127 Black et al. (2003a) for their much smaller dataset. The new data therefore support the contention of those authors that QGNG and TEMORA 1 behave consistently during SHRIMP analysis. Perhaps surprisingly, that consistency occurs despite the slight (f 0.5%) discordance and heterogeneity of the QGNG ID – TIMS analyses (Black et al., 2003a). 4.4. Calibration of TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 against R33 The ages reported above have been derived by calibration against TEMORA 1. An intriguing aspect of those results is that they yield a 206Pb/ 238U SHRIMP age for TEMORA 2 that is only marginally within error of that given by ID – TIMS dating (418.1 F 1.6 and 416.8 F 0.3 Ma, respectively). This possible anomaly can be further examined by using R33 as the reference standard, partly because that option permits a different combination of SHRIMP inter-comparisons. For example, the use of R33 as reference, eliminates the Z3407 (April 2000) session as a source of information, but allows the November 2000 session on Z3627 (during which TEMORA 1 was not analysed) to be utilised (Fig. 2F, Table 3). Weighted mean ages are derived for TEMORA 1 (415.3 F 1.4 Ma from three sessions) and TEMORA 2 (418.3 F 1.8 Ma from two sessions). These results do not agree within error (probability of equivalence = 0.009) even though the ID – TIMS data demonstrate that TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 are of indistinguishable age. 4.5. Summary of SHRIMP results Fig. 3. Diagram showing the relative deviations of the 206Pb/238U ages derived by micro-beam analysis for each of the individual standards from their respective 206Pb/238U ID – TIMS ages. TEMORA 1 has been used as the calibration standard for both SHRIMP and ELA – ICP – MS analyses (it therefore plots at zero offset). Any rectangle to the right of TEMORA 1 represents a microprobe age that exceeds its corresponding ID – TIMS age, and those to the left of TEMORA 1 indicate the reverse. Uncertainties represent F 2 standard errors of the mean. The dispersion of the ages is significant for both microprobe techniques (see text). The SHRIMP dating has produced both expected and unexpected results. There is a fixed 206Pb/238U age-relationship between any two of the four standards within the limits of analytical error. However, the derived SHRIMP ages are not always consistent with those determined by ID –TIMS. QGNG yields ages that are compatible with those obtained for TEMORA 1, but the TEMORA 2 age appears to be offset by about 0.3% from its ID – TIMS age. When previously reported results (Black et al., 2003a) for the SL13 and AS3 standards are also taken into account, the range of this variation is considerably enlarged (Fig. 3). Possible reasons for these biases are discussed below. 128 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 5. ELA –ICP –MS dating Laser ablation was conducted by a pulsed ArF LambdaPhysik LPX 120I UV Excimer Laser operated at a constant energy of 100 mJ, at 5 Hz, with a spot diameter of 29 Am. The excellent resulting tophat cross-sectional shape of the ablated hole suggests that fluence generated by this laser (k = 193 nm) and optical system was constant during drilling to a depth of approximately 20 Am. The ablated material was carried by Ar –He –H gas via a custom-built flow homogeniser to an Agilent 7500s quadrupole ICP –MS. The ICP –MS and laser conditions were those listed in Eggins and Shelley (2002), with RF power of 1250 W. Initial conditions for the analytical session (RF power, gas flow and torch position) were set such that counts on ThO/Th < 0.3%. This parameter was chosen because ThO is extremely stable in a plasma relative to other molecules due to a very high metaloxide bond strength. Because of this, it can be confidently assumed that production of any other molecule entering the lens system and detector is at this rate or less. At the beginning of the main analytical session, a 29-Am spot scanned across the NIST 612 standard (38.5 ppm Pbtot) yielded 40,000 cps on 208Pb with background counts of 400 cps, as compared with 20 cps on the isotope-absent mass of 220. Whereas Pb backgrounds are low, Hg backgrounds are high with calculated 204Hg/204Pb = 49.9, making Hg-corrections to 204Pb untenable. Raw count rates for 17 masses were recorded in time-resolved mode by peak hopping. The integration time for the isotopes was 50 ms for 206Pb, 207Pb and 208 Pb, 25 ms for 232Th, 235U and 238U, and 5 ms for 29 Si, 31P 91Zr, 178Hf and 7 REEs, resulting in a total mass sweep of 315 ms. Counts were collected in both pulse counting and analogue mode with the transition at 1 106 cps. Data were acquired for 20 s with the laser off and 40 s with the laser on, giving approximately 120 mass scans for a penetration depth of ca. 20 Am. Pairs of the primary zircon standard and a single NIST 610 were analysed in a round robin of pairs of the of the three zircon standards studied in the main analytical session. Washout time was 12 s. Corrections were made for background, instrumental mass-bias drift, depth-dependent elemental fractionation and common Pb. The three to four mass scans required for the counts to reach a maximum after laser triggering were discarded. Depth-dependent inter-element fractionations of Pb, Th and U, documented by previous workers (i.e., Hirata and Nesbitt, 1995; Horn et al., 2000), were corrected by reference to standard zircon Temora 1 (206Pb/238U = 0.066809, 208Pb/232U = 0.0020840 and 207 Pb/206Pb = 0.055115; Black et al., 2003b) and 232 Th/238U to NIST 610 (1.01874). Using the most critical of these ratios as an example, the average factor required to raise the 206Pb/238U of the standard TEMORA zircon from the measured value (the average of 35 ablations over the analytical session) to the accepted value of 0.066809 for each mass scan was calculated from multiple measurements of the standard. This factor was then applied to the appropriate mass scan for each of the unknowns, making the assumption that there is no variation in the correction factor among zircons. As an indication of the significance of down hole fractionation, the 206 Pb/238U in the average of NIST610 (n = 19) increased by about 8.5% from the top to the bottom of the ablated hole, whereas in TEMORA 1 (n = 35), the ratio increased by 34%. Thus, the down-hole mass fractionation factor for TEMORA 1 is four times that of NIST 610. Comparatively, there is little 207 Pb/206Pb fractionation with decrease of 0.18% in TEMORA 1 and 0.13% in NIST 610. 232Th/238U increased 1.3% in NIST 610 and 2.3% in TEMORA 1, although the Th/U in TEMORA is not expected to be constant. The magnitude of these down hole changes re-emphasises the importance of the mass scan-by-mass scan data reduction method which was applied to all appropriate U, Th and Pb ratios. Co-aspiration of standard solution was not used to measure mass fractionation. First, as the particle size distribution of this nebulised material must differ significantly from that of the ablated material, a mass fractionation factor obtained by this method cannot represent mass fractionation in ablated zircon. Second, difficulties in consistent nebulisation, and third, the complications of making a dry-plasma wet (O and OH interferences and changes in ion energy distribution even after desolvation) far exceed that of repeatedly measuring the down hole fractionation in a standard zircon (Huang et al., 2000; Horn et al., 2000). During the main session the standard error for the NIST 610 glass monitor was 0.44% for L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 206 Pb/238U and 0.11% for 207Pb/206Pb. Other isotope ratios of interest had uncertainties lying between these limits. Because the ID – TIMS and SHRIMP analyses reveal a very high degree of isotopic homogeneity, virtually all of the dispersion between individual ELA – ICP – MS analyses is attributed to analytical effects rather than real sample heterogeneity. Consequently, in common with the SHRIMP results reported above, the favoured data treatment is to reject only those ELA –ICP – MS analyses that can be independently identified as being anomalous. The ages have not been corrected for common Pb because of the isobaric interference at mass 204 noted above. The extremely low levels of common Pb identified within these standards by ID – TIMS analysis (see above and in Black et al., 2003a,b) justify the decision to use uncorrected data. The centrepiece of the ELA – ICP –MS study is a single 6-h analytical session in November 2001 that comprised about 36 alternating analyses each of TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2, R33 and QGNG. This analytical format enables the latter three standards to be directly referenced to TEMORA 1, as was done for most of the SHRIMP comparisons. A link to the AS3 standard (the SHRIMP 206Pb/238U characteristics of which were reported by Black et al., 2003a) is provided by an earlier session that included 15 129 analyses each of AS3 and TEMORA 2. The latter is now the primary standard of choice, with TEMORA 1 being used in the round-robin session for historical reasons. 5.1. 207 Pb/206Pb Although the primary focus of this study is Pb/238U dating, the accompanying 207Pb/206Pb information is useful as a guide to the feasibility of applying ELA – ICP –MS to the dating of old rocks. Even though this parameter can be strongly influenced by common Pb, the latter is effectively absent in the zircons under review (Table 2 and Black et al., 2003a,b) when compared with the precision of the individual analyses. Because of its enhanced radiogenic Pb levels, QGNG provides more precise 207Pb/206Pb ages than do any of the other standards being reviewed here. All 36 analyses of QGNG yield a combined age of 1843.2 F 4.1 Ma (MSWD = 13), which is younger than the corresponding ID – TIMS age of 1851.6 F 0.6 Ma (Black et al., 2003a). In contrast, 15 analyses of AS3 produce an average age of 1100 F 8 Ma (MSWD = 21), which is within error of the ID – TIMS age of 1099.1 F 0.5 Ma (Paces and Miller, 1993). Considerably reduced precision for 207Pb/206Pb dating of young zircon does not permit a comparable level of 206 Table 4 Summary of the ELA – ICP – MS dating of the zircon standards (calibrated against the TEMORA 1 ID – TIMS age of 416.75 Maa) Standard Age F 2j (Ma) MSWD Number of analyses ID – TIMS age (Ma) Pb/206Pb ages QGNG AS3 1843.2 F 4.1 1100 F 8 13 21 36 of 36 15 of 15 1851.6 F 0.6b 1099.1 F 0.5c Pb/238U ages QGNG TEMORA 2 R33 AS3 1870 F 10 412.8 F 2.7 411.9 F 2.6 1123 F 12d 36 35 36 15 1842.0 F 3.1b 416.78 F 0.33 419.26 F 0.39 1099.0 F 0.7c 207 206 1.14 1.15 0.45 0.80 of of of of 36 36 36 15 The MSWD values for the 207Pb/206Pb ages are based on measurement errors alone, whereas those reported for the 206Pb/238U ages have been referenced to the concurrent analyses of the TEMORA 1 standard (see text). a Black et al. (2003b). b Black et al. (2003a). c Paces and Miller (1993). d Based on the results of this study, zircons calibrated against TEMORA 2 cannot be directly compared with those calibrated against other standards, including TEMORA 1. A conversion factor of approximately + 0.95% is required for more meaningful comparison of this result with the TEMORA 1-calibrated analyses (see text). 130 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 scrutiny for the Palaeozoic standards (Table 4). Nevertheless, the preferred ELA –ICP –MS 207Pb/206Pb age for TEMORA 2 of 420 F 16 Ma (MSWD = 60) agrees with its ID –TIMS age of 416.78 F 0.33 Ma. R33 behaves similarly, with its preferred ELA – ICP – MS age of 421 F 17 Ma (MSWD = 78) agreeing with the ID –TIMS age of 419.26 F 0.39 Ma. Overall, the data are consistent with no major fractionation between Pb isotopes during ELA – ICP –MS analysis, although the certainty of this conclusion is limited by relatively large errors and low probabilities of equivalence. 5.2. 206 Pb/238U 5.2.1. TEMORA 1 All but one of the 35 analyses of TEMORA 1, which has been used as the reference standard, define a moderately coherent distribution. The exception is an analysis that yields a considerably older age (f 470 Ma), which is three times as far from the mean as any of the other individual ages. This analysis also has by far the highest common Pb component, as determined by the 208Pb method. The data are significantly scattered (MSWD = 24), even in the absence of that analysis, and this scatter is taken to provide an indication of instrumental uncertainties beyond those contributing to normal counting statistics. In common with the SHRIMP data-processing procedure, this component of excess scatter, which equates with a coefficient of variation of 1.88%, is added in quadrature to the counting error uncertainties of the individual analyses of the other concurrently analysed standards. If that procedure is appropriate, it is to be expected that with few if any exceptions, the data for each of those standards will exhibit no degree of excess scatter. 5.2.2. QGNG The grouping of all 36 individual analyses of QGNG, which is not significantly scattered (MSWD = 1.14, probability of equivalence = 0.27), yields a 206Pb/238U age of 1870 F 10 Ma. This age is significantly older (probability of equivalence =0.000) than its corresponding 206Pb/238U ID –TIMS age of 1842.0 F 3.1 Ma. Another important aspect of the ELA – ICP – MS data is that, as a group, they are reversely discordant when calibrated against TEMORA 1 (see Table 4; the mean 206Pb/238U age exceeds the mean 207Pb/206Pb age). Application of any common Pb correction would only exacerbate this anomaly. 5.2.3. TEMORA 2 As a group, all 36 of the TEMORA 2 analyses fulfil the requirements of a single population at the 95% confidence level, but barely so (MSWD = 1.36, probability of equivalence = 0.075). There are no dramatic statistical outliers, and these data produce a mean age of 413.4 F 2.6 Ma, which is significantly different from the ID – TIMS age (416.78 F 0.33 Ma, probability of equivalence = 0.022). An alternative option is to reject an analysis with very high P (more than 700 ppm in excess of the next highest value), which presumably reflects the accidental analysis of an apatite inclusion. This data combination is preferred because not only is it independently justifiable, but it also reduces the scatter to a more acceptable level (MSWD = 1.15, probability of equivalence = 0.25). The resultant age of 412.8 F 2.7 Ma (MSWD = 1.15) is even further from the ID –TIMS age (probability of equivalence = 0.003). 5.2.4. R33 None of the 36 analyses of R33 are statistical outliers, which is confirmed by an MSWD of 0.45 (probability of equivalence = 0.99). The resultant age is 411.9 F 2.6 Ma, which is clearly not in agreement with the ID –TIMS value of 419.26 F 0.39 Ma (probability of equivalence = 0.000). 5.2.5. AS3 AS3 was analysed well before the round-robin experiment was performed, and before the complications observed above were identified. Consequently, the AS3 data have an additional component of uncertainty, because they were calibrated against TEMORA 2, rather than TEMORA 1. The TEMORA 2-calibrated age for the 15 individual analyses is 1123 F 12 Ma (MSWD = 0.80, probability of equivalence = 0.67, after the individual ages have been augmented by 1.88%). This age is significantly older (probability of equivalence = 0.000) than the 206Pb/238U age as determined by ID – TIMS (1099.0 F 0.7 Ma; Paces and Miller, 1993). However, the difference between the ELA – L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 131 Table 5 Offset of the SHRIMP and ELA – ICP – MS 206Pb/238U ages (calibrated against the 416.75 Maa TEMORA 1 reference standard) from their ID – TIMS ages Standard ID – TIMS age (Ma) SHRIMP age (Ma) SHRIMP offset (%) ELA – ICP – MS age (Ma) ELA – ICP – MS offset (%) TEMORA 2 R33 QGNG AS3 SL13 416.78 F 0.33 419.26 F 0.39 1842.0 F 3.1b 1099.0 F 0.7c 572.1 F 0.4d 418.1 F 1.6 419.9 F 1.5 1842.2 F 3.3b 1087.5 F 2.5c 577.4 F 2.0d 0.31 F 0.39 0.15 F 0.37 0.01 F 0.25 1.05 F 0.24 0.92 F 0.36 411.8 F 2.1 412.5 F 1.5 1873 F 11 1140 + 12* 0.95 F 0.65 1.75 F 0.63 1.50 F 0.57 3.18 F 1.27 A positive offset indicates that a SHRIMP or ELA – ICP – MS age is greater than that derived by ID – TIMS, and a negative offset indicates the reverse. a Black et al. (2003b). b Black et al. (2003a). c Paces and Miller (1993). d Claoué-Long et al. (1995). * Adjusted upwards by 0.95% to compensate for calibration of AS3 against TEMORA 2, rather than TEMORA 1 (see text). ICP – MS and ID – TIMS results is even more marked than this. It is shown below that the ELA –ICP– MS technique yields inconsistent results for TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2, which necessi- tates an adjustment if ages calibrated against those standards are to be inter-compared. An upward adjustment of about 0.8% is required to convert TEMORA 2- to TEMORA 1-calibrated ages, which Table 6 Oxygen isotopic data for the three Palaeozoic zircon standards Run sample Weight (mg) Amol CO2 Yield (Amol/mg) d13C d18O raw d18O corrected Reference standard 1 UWG-2 2 UWG-2 3 UWG-2 4 UWG-2 5 UWG-2 1.89 1.71 1.31 1.69 1.50 26.5 22.9 17.3 21.1 19.6 14.0 13.4 13.2 12.5 13.1 27.91 27.93 27.90 27.93 27.90 5.60 5.64 5.67 5.66 5.70 5.80 F 03 R33 16 R33 17 R33 2.64 2.33 23.2 20.5 8.8 8.8 27.93 27.90 5.37 5.44 5.50 5.57 TEMORA 2 19 2000-84-4522 20 2000-84-4522 21 2000-84-4522 2.71 2.43 3.41 21.0 18.8 29.4 7.7 7.7 8.6 27.89 27.94 27.90 8.07 8.06 8.08 8.20 8.19 8.21 TEMORA 1 22 9884-4520 23 9884-4520 24 9884-4520 2.94 3.10 3.16 22.7 27.0 26.9 7.7 8.7 8.5 27.88 27.91 27.87 7.83 7.76 7.81 7.96 7.89 7.94 Reference standard 25 UWG-2 26 UWG-2 1.75 1.60 24.1 20.9 13.8 13.1 27.89 27.94 5.67 5.73 1 UWG-2 was not used for the calculation of the weighted mean composition of the reference standard at the beginning of the session. The other four analyses at that time combine to yield a d18O value of 5.67 F 0.03. Analyses were then corrected by 0.13x(Valley et al., 1995). d13C provides a secondary check on the quality of the analyses. results in a revised for AS3. 140 F 17 79 F 15 131 F 25 103 F 14 188 F 35 3.21 F 0.07 5.7 F 0.6 3.5 F 0.6 4.55 F 0.86 6.4 F 1.3 11.4 F 2.9 nm 3.20 F 0.29 1.98 F 0.39 2.17 F 0.41 3.9 F 1.1 7.5 F 2.5 0.39 F 0.02 Pb/238U age of 1134 F 14 Ma 6. Oxygen isotopes The age anomalies recorded above (Fig. 3, Table 5) are a significant impediment to precise microprobe analysis, unless their causes can be identified and a method of compensation established. Of particular concern are the different microprobe 206 Pb/ 238 U results for the two closely related All uncertainties are F 2 standard errors of the mean. nm = not measured. 3.57 F 0.32 3.12 F 0.20 4.44 F 0.44 20.3 F 1.4 13.2 F 3 0.26 F 0.01 f 0.13 < 0.013 < 0.11 f 0.16 0.38 < 0.05 196 F 17 165 F 9 219 F 21 288 F 23 363 F 38 25 F 5 0.92 F 0.01 0.98 F 0.01 1.12 F 0.02 1.25 F 0.04 1.20 F 0.11 0.900 F 0.005 132 F 36 54 F 10 100 F 20 188 F 26 233 F 54 18.3 F 0.3 228 F 56 130 F 21 148 F 20 212 F 23 360 F 80 210 F 3 TEMORA 1 TEMORA 2 R33 QGNG AS3 SL13 206 5.2.6. Summary of 206Pb/238U ELA –ICP –MS results The ELA – ICP – MS 206Pb/238U ages in their entirety are inconsistent with the ID – TIMS ages. The two Proterozoic standards (QGNG and AS3) give ages that are too old, and TEMORA 2 and R33 yield ages that are too young (Fig. 3, Table 5). Notably, there is a f 1.5% difference in the offset of AS3 from QGNG. This offset from the expected age (against a common reference— TEMORA 1) is in the opposite sense from the offset found for SHRIMP (Fig. 3, Table 5). The offset is larger than the measurement error for the ELA – ICP –MS technique. 1.12 F 0.12 0.71 F 0.13 1.04 F 0.19 0.81 F 0.16 0.40 F 0.10 0.12 F 0.01 Dy (ppm) Eu (ppm) Sm (ppm) Nd (ppm) Ce (ppm) La (ppm) P (ppm) HfO2 (wt.%) Th (ppm) U (ppm) Standard Table 7 Average trace element concentrations for the zircon standards (determined by ELA – ICP – MS) 93 F 8 61 F 7 97 F 13 50 F 5 84 F 12 2.90 F 0.04 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 Lu (ppm) 132 Table 8 Correlation between ion-probe age offsets and trace element concentrations Species U Th P HfO2 Ce Nd Sm Eu Eu# Dy Lu SHRIMP ELA – ICP – MS Slope Correlation coefficient Slope Correlation coefficient negative negative negative negative negative negative negative negative negative negative negative 0.74 0.91 0.93 0.65 0.59 0.98 0.99 0.14 0.94 0.92 0.65 positive positive positive positive positive positive positive negative negative positive negative 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.57 0.74 0.94 0.91 0.72 0.21 0.60 0.23 Age offset is taken as the ordinate and elemental abundance as the abscissa, for the definition of the slope of the regression. La concentrations are mostly too low to provide convincing data arrays. Eu# excludes the data for AS3, which has a prominent negative Eu anomaly. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 133 6 3 A SHRIMP B ELA-ICP-MS 2 4 R33 1 QGNG 0 TEMORA 2 AS3 -1 Offset (%) Offset (%) SL13 TEMORA 1 2 AS3 QGNG 0 TEMORA 2 TEMORA 1 -2 -2 R33 -4 -3 0 100 200 300 0 400 100 200 C SHRIMP 4 QGNG R33 1 QGNG Offset (%) Offset (%) D ELA-ICP-MS 2 0 TEMORA 2 -1 -2 2 AS3 TEMORA 2 0 TEMORA 1 -2 AS3 TEMORA 1 R33 -4 -3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sm (ppm) Sm (ppm) 6 3 E SHRIMP F ELA-ICP-MS 4 SL13 TEMORA 2 1 Offset (%) Offset (%) 400 6 3 2 300 P (ppm) P (ppm) QGNG 0 R33 2 0 AS3 QGNG TEMORA 2 -1 TEMORA 1 AS3 -2 -2 TEMORA 1 R33 -4 -3 0 2 4 6 Nd (ppm) 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Nd (ppm) Fig. 4. Correlations between P, Sm and Nd abundances, and the 206Pb/238U age difference between ID – TIMS and microprobe analysis. Uncertainty in the age offset is dominated by the component arising from microprobe analysis, with the ID – TIMS component being essentially negligible. The high precision for the age offset of TEMORA 1 reflects the ID – TIMS age alone for this reference standard. The ellipses represent F 2 standard errors of the mean. Dashes define lines of best fit. (A) Age offset vs. P for SHRIMP, (B) age offset vs. P for ELA – ICP – MS, (C) age offset vs. Sm for SHRIMP, (D) age offset vs. Sm for ELA – ICP – MS, (E) age offset vs. Nd for SHRIMP, (F) age offset vs. Nd for ELA – ICP – MS. 134 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 TEMORA standards. Oxygen isotope studies were undertaken at the University of Wisconsin, partly to see if there is any relationship with age bias (and also to investigate its potential as an oxygen-isotope standard). Fractions of the TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2 and R33 standards were soaked in HF overnight to remove radiation-damaged zones (if present) and silicate impurities. They were subsequently ground to fine powder, divided into f 2 – 3 mg aliquots, and analysed by a CO2 laser using BrF5 reagent, as discussed by Valley et al. (1995). A round-robin format of analysis minimises some sources of analytical uncertainty. d18 O data are corrected to VSMOW via the UWG-2 standard. The difference between TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 (Table 6), although small, is significant. However, it is most unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to provide an explanation for the microprobe age anomalies, especially as R33 has a very different oxygen isotopic composition, but appears to have an intermediate microprobe age offset. The oxygen isotopes record a typical mantle signature (5.5x) for R33. In contrast, even though their host rocks are of considerably more mafic composition (Table 1), the elevated d18O (f 8.1x) of the TEMORA zircons is indicative of a crustal contribution (Valley, 2003), either by the incorporation of sedimentary rocks into the host magma, or via hydrothermal alteration. The precision of the analyses indicates TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2 and R33 have potential as oxygen-isotope standards, but micro-beam analysis will first be required to determine if they have any small-scale ( < 50 Am) heterogeneity. 7. Trace-element compositions ELA – ICP – MS trace-element documentation of the standards was undertaken to determine whether the age offsets for both ELA – ICP – MS and SHRIMP might result from a matrix effect. Concentration data for R33, QGNG, TEMORA 1, TEMORA 2 and AS3 were derived using NIST 610 as the reference standard (results previously based on NIST 612 were used for SL13) and by using Zr as an internal standard. This means that the ratio of element/zirconium background-corrected counts from the unknown were divided by that in the standard for the same depth interval, multiplied by the known element/zirconium in the standard glass, and by the assumed stoichiometric abundance of Zr in unknown zircon. The latter value was assumed to be 67.22% minus the HfO2 abundance (estimated initially at 65% ZrO2). Use of an internal standard in this manner generally negates the problems of using a different matrix (glass) for the standard than the target material (zircon). NIST 610 concentrations are taken from Pearce et al. (1997). Seven rare earth elements (REE), as well as Si, Zr, P and Hf (Table 7), were measured during the same Table 9 Regression parameters for the microprobe age offsets, and P, Nd and Sm abundances Regression Slope ELA – ICP – MS Age offset vs. Nd Age offset vs. Sm Age offset vs. P Age offset vs. Th SHRIMP Age offset Age offset Age offset Age offset vs. vs. vs. vs. Nd Sm P Th 1.17 F 0.58 0.79 F 0.86 0.024 F 0.032 0.023 F 0.023 0.277 F 0.095 0.170 F 0.077 0.0052 F 0.0033 0.0072 F 0.0047 Intercept MSWD Probability of fit 3.8 F 1.8 4.4 F 4.6 5.2 F 7.1 3.0 F 2.9 2.0 3.5 9.0 4.6 0.110 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.90 F 30 0.97 F 45 1.08 F 75 0.97 F 66 0.60 0.28 3.7 2.7 0.660 0.840 0.005 0.027 All uncertainties are 95% confidence limits (t j). Age offset is taken as the ordinate, and elemental abundance as the abscissa, for the definition of the slope of the regression. Where the probability of fit is less than 0.05, the uncertainties on the slope and the intercept have been augmented by MMSWD. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 analyses as the U, Th and Pb isotopes. If a single trace element is responsible for the 206Pb/238U anomalies, Hf might be expected to be the suspect, because of its relative abundance in zircon. But the correlation of age offset with HfO2 content is very weak (Table 8). In contrast, there is a much better linear correlation between the 206Pb/238U anomalies and P abundance (Fig. 4, Tables 8 and 9). For the ELA –ICP– MS data, the MSWD of 9 for the whole group is reduced to 0.4 (probability of fit = 0.69) if R33 is omitted. In the case of the equivalent SHRIMP comparison, the MSWD of 3.7 for the whole group is reduced to 1.2 (probability of fit = 0.31) if QGNG is not considered. A striking feature of the two comparisons is that the ELA –ICP – MS trend is positively correlated, whereas the SHRIMP trend is negative. More striking examples of the same relationship will be demonstrated below for Sm and Nd. Two of the seven analysed REE, Sm and Nd, correlate well with the age offsets observed for both forms of microprobe dating (Table 8). Although the correlation of ELA – ICP – MS age bias with Sm abundance is not within error of a straight line, it is reasonably close to being so (MSWD = 3.5). All five analyses from the equivalent (i.e., Sm) SHRIMP comparison are well aligned (MSWD = 0.28, probability of fit = 0.84). Neither set of Nd data requires culling to achieve an acceptable measure of linearity at the 95% confidence level. For the ELA –ICP – MS data, all five analyses yield an MSWD of 2.0 (probability of fit = 0.11). In the case of the SHRIMP data, the corresponding parameters are 0.60 and 0.66. Therefore, Nd is the only element to provide a quantitative match of the analysed elements with the ion-probe age biases on both instruments. Other than the Pb isotopes themselves, Th and U are the only other trace elements to have been routinely measured in the past as part of the SHRIMP U/ Pb dating process. Consequently, it is important to see if the concentrations of U and Th might also correlate with the age biases, particularly if efforts are to be made to correct for them with historical data. However, although both elements are reasonably well correlated with the age biases (as demonstrated by their correlation coefficients in Table 8), those correlations are not as well defined (Table 9) as those for Nd or Sm. That additional degree of uncertainty 135 considerably reduces the worth of a matrix correction based on either U or Th. 8. Discussion The new ID –TIMS and SHRIMP dating together with results previously reported by Black et al. (2003a,b) provide a sound basis for the assessment of 206Pb/238U dating by microprobe. It has been shown (e.g., Compston, 1999; Black et al., 2003a) that the SL13 standard yields variable data, consistent with it being heterogeneous on the 30-Am scale of SHRIMP analysis. In contrast, SHRIMP analyses of each of the QGNG, AS3, TEMORA 1, TEMORA, 2 and R33 zircon standards show no signs of chronic heterogeneity. Despite this consistency, their relative ages as determined by SHRIMP analysis in some cases deviate from ages determined by ID – TIMS. The same is true for ages derived by ELA – ICP –MS analysis. Moreover, both methods commonly yield nominal 95% age uncertainties of about 0.5%, which permit the age offsets to be assessed with reasonable rigour. The data even reveal that zircon from adjacent rocks of very similar composition and age, such as the mafic hosts of the TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 zircon, can have different microprobe age offsets. Several different processes have been cited as possible causes of 206Pb/238U bias in SHRIMP ages. Although Black and Jagodzinski (2003) have shown that actual errors almost always exceed those predicted from counting statistics, these are of a relatively random nature, and cannot be responsible for systematic offsets. Wingate and Compston (2000) demonstrated that 206Pb/238U emission on SHRIMP varies with crystal orientation for baddeleyite, another Zrrich mineral. They were unable, however, to detect any orientation-related differences in zircon. The results of the current study are even more unlikely to be a consequence of crystallographic orientation, because the grains (many of which were fragments) were oriented randomly on the analytical mount. Stern and Amelin (2003) presented a strong case from studies on the Ottawa SHRIMP II for another source of analytical error. Those authors have identified a significant variation, especially approaching the edges of the grain-mount, in 206Pb/238U ionisation in the same (horizontal) plane that the primary beam impacts the 136 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 target. This effect is not thought to be important for the current study, because of the analytical sequence used for seven of the eight sessions. The zircon standards on all of the grain-mounts were set in parallel rows, which, for the seven Canberra sessions, were oriented horizontally. For each of the standards, analysis commenced at the same edge of the mount, and proceeded at roughly the same rate to the opposite edge, with random infilling thereafter. Even if the effect reported by Stern and Amelin (2003) is present in our data, this sampling strategy should eliminate any systematic bias arising from it, because all standards will have been similarly affected. Williams and Hergt (2000) report another effect that can produce a systematic offset of zircon ages during SHRIMP analysis. They established a threshold value of about 2500 ppm U, above which 206 Pb/238U ages increase at a rate of between 1.5% and 2.0% for every additional 1000 ppm of U. Fletcher et al. (2000) and Rasmussen and Fletcher (2002) also report a correlation between apparent SHRIMP 206Pb/238U ages and U content for xenotime and monazite, respectively. However, U contents are considerably below 2500 ppm for all the standards studied above. The new results document a matrix effect of a different kind, one that is correlated with the abundance of a variety of elements, including P, Sm and particularly Nd. These elements, particularly Nd and Sm, are unlikely to be primarily responsible for this effect because of their low concentrations. It is therefore proposed that P, Sm and Nd are only proxy indicators of the matrix effect, contributing to it, but far from being its sole cause. The correlation noted above would be expected both within and between standards whether Nd is the primary cause of bias or whether it is a proxy Fig. 5. Diagrams showing the concentration of Nd for each of the individual ELA – ICP – MS spot ages used in the main inter-comparative experiment. (A) QGNG, (B) R33, (C) TEMORA 2, (D) TEMORA 1. Unlike the strong correlation that exists between Nd concentration and 206 Pb/238U age between the different standards (Fig. 4), there is no such correlation within any of those zircon standards using individual spot ages. The significance of this is discussed in the text. L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 element. However, Fig. 5 shows that the age variation within each standard is decoupled from Nd concentrations for individual ELA– ICP – MS analyses (there are also no correlations between age and the other analysed trace elements). This would be most surprising if the measured individual Nd and/or age variations are real. The lack of correlation on Fig. 5 is far more likely to indicate that either (or both) age or trace-element variations at the 30– 50Am level are due to random instrumental factors (of about F 5%, if only the age is varying). However, the correlations obtained between standards (Fig. 4 and Table 9) indicate that a sufficiently large number of analyses can be made to obtain a meaningful average. Based on the data summarised in Tables 8 and 9, it seems that the microprobe age offsets are governed by a combination of trace elements. From our limited dataset, Nd is shown to be the most representative of the analysed trace elements for delineating this apparent matrix effect. Apart from Hf, the most abundant trace elements in zircon are the heavy REE and Y (Hoskin and Schaltegger, 2003), and these are charge-balanced, at least in part, by P substitution into the Si-site; the so-called ‘‘xenotime’’ substitution mechanism. The correlation of age biases with P abundance (Table 9) indicates that the observed matrix effect is a function of REE + Y and P substitution. It is possible that the lattice strain induced by such ‘‘xenotime’’ coupled substitution (Finch et al., 2001) affects secondary ion formation and mass bias. For the SHRIMP comparison, all 11 of the analysed trace elements are negatively correlated with age offset, though to different extents (Table 8). For the ELA –ICP– MS comparison, only two of the trends are not positively correlated. One exception is the Eu trend, where the regression is controlled by the AS3 analysis. The latter can be shown from the data in Table 7 to be anomalously low in Eu, and therefore unrepresentative of the REE as a group. Omitting the AS3 analysis produces a slope that is too poorly defined (R = 0.02) to determine its sense. This might be a consequence of the variability of the Eu anomaly for the different zircon standards, making it a particularly unreliable index of total REE content. The other exception is Lu, although its negative slope is also poorly defined (R = 0.15). 137 Trace-element abundances are therefore considered to be the primary cause of the age offsets between the different zircon standards. It is interesting to speculate whether they might also play a role in the reported heterogeneity of 206Pb/238U within SL13. Black et al. (2003a) have proposed that the variation of SHRIMP ages for SL13 might be due to an incomplete isotopic resetting during metamorphism of an originally much older zircon. An alternative mechanism is also possible: the SHRIMP age spread for SL13 might be more apparent than real, resulting from a different manifestation of the matrix effect documented above. Perhaps, all of that zircon is of one age (572 Ma) on the volume of SHRIMP analysis, but near stoichiometric Zr(Hf)SiO4 crystals might be particularly sensitive to matrix effects induced by variation of trace-element concentrations. Rare areas of extreme 206Pb/238U enrichment in SL13 are genuine, and are not an aberration resulting from a matrix effect. A matrix effect of the type shown here offers a possible explanation for the common dispersion of SHRIMP 206Pb/238U ages beyond ranges expected from counting statistics alone. Compston (2001) has attributed all such variation to genuine heterogeneity in 206Pb/238U, whereas it might reflect, at least in part, previously unaccounted for matrix effects. This and previous studies (e.g., Black et al., 2003a) have shown that under normal operating conditions, the Canberra SHRIMP II and ELA – ICP –MS are capable of producing weighted mean 206 Pb/238U ages at a precision of about 0.5% (95% confidence level), although the individual analyses used to derive those means are typically significantly scattered. These same studies have also demonstrated that some zircon standards yield SHRIMP ages up to 1.0% deviant from their ID – TIMS ages, while average ELA –ICP – MS age biases can be up to several percent deviant (Fig. 3). The accuracy of the ages is, therefore, much worse than the quoted precision, which incorporates all known sources of random error. The occurrence of systematic error related to trace-element substitution has now been demonstrated. Although the adoption of a single standard should reduce this effect, without making appropriate correction it will not be possible to compare the ages of different zircons calibrated against that standard at the f 0.5% level, because 138 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 those unknown zircons themselves could have substantially different trace-element compositions. Even the TEMORA 1 and TEMORA 2 zircons have been shown to behave differently in this respect, although they are petrographically, spatially and temporally very closely related. Based on the observations reported above, it is believed that an accuracy of no better than f F 1% can be achieved for SHRIMP and f F 3.0% for ELA –ICP – MS dating of zircon if there is no correction for matrix effects. Current data indicate that correction for matrix mismatch between a standard and unknowns is best defined from Nd concentrations according to the following formulae (where the uncertainties represent 95% confidence limits): SHRIMP II: 206 Pb=238 U corrected age ¼ ð206 Pb=238 U measured ageÞ ð1 Cs =100Þ where C S =[ 0.277 F 0.095] * [ppm Nd]+[0.90 F 0.30] [SOS]. ELA –ICP – MS: 206 Pb=238 U corrected age ¼ ð206 Pb=238 U measured ageÞ ð1 CICP 100Þ where C I C P =[1.17 F 0.58] * [ppm Nd] [3.8 F 1.8] [SOICP]. SOS and SOICP are the age offsets in percent of the standard used relative to TEMORA 1 for SHRIMP II and ELA – ICP –MS, respectively. The error in the correction factors (CS and CICP) is about 30% for SHRIMP, and will result in a loss of age precision proportional to the difference between Nd concentration in the sample versus TEMORA 1. However, the corrected values will be more accurate. An intriguing aspect of this study is the different senses of the trace element vs. age-offset trends for the ELA –ICP – MS (positive) and the SHRIMP (negative) results. The most trace-element-enriched crystal lattices (e.g. AS3) lead to anomalously high measurements of 206Pb/238U by ELA – ICP – MS, but low 206 Pb/238U by SHRIMP. It should be emphasised that the results obtained above are not necessarily representative of other microprobes, especially those produced by different manufacturers or those with different primary ion sources. It is also possible that different results will be achieved from the use of different primary ion species, for example O, rather than the O2 that was used to produce the results reported in this study. 9. Conclusions 1. A series of zircon standards yield micro-beam 206 Pb/238U data that are in some cases deviant from precise ID – TIMS age determinations. This applies to both SHRIMP and ELA – ICP –MS data. 2. With the exception of the single metamorphic zircon (SL13), any one of the standards shows a consistent relationship with any other, but that relationship can be different for different pairs of standards. The sense of the relationships is reversed for the two microprobe techniques; that is, a standard yielding younger SHRIMP ages commonly yields older ELA – ICP –MS ages. 3. Unless the reasons for those differences are identified and quantified, the nominal f 0.5% precision generated by the datasets will not truly reflect the accuracy of microprobe dating which, without such correction, is no better than F 1% for SHRIMP and about F 3% for ELA– ICP – MS dating. 4. Although the oxygen isotopic compositions for three of the standards are significantly different from each other, they do not correlate with bias in206Pb/238U. Neither do crystal orientation effects nor the position of analysed zircon on the grainmount. 5. There are distinct linear correlations between the bias in206Pb/238U, and P, Sm and especially Nd abundances. The sense of those correlations is also mirrored, but generally not as definitively, by other trace elements. 6. The bias in 206Pb/238U is attributed to a matrix effect resulting from compositional differences in the host zircon. It is believed that the age bias is probably caused by the ‘‘xenotime’’ substitution mechanism, and consequent lattice strain. 7. Although Nd, Sm and P are not considered to be the primary cause of this effect, they are among the trace elements contributing to it, and Nd in particular provides a quantitative means of correct- L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 ing for the bias generated by both SHRIMP and ELA –ICP– MS. 8. This measurable matrix-dependence provides a means of unifying the microprobe and ID –TIMS data for the standards without having to resort to explanations involving isotopic disturbance. 9. Such a matrix effect will not be confined to the zircon standards, but will be present to an independent extent in the unknown zircons. This effect can be accounted for in ELA– ICP – MS analysis by corrections based on the intensity of a Nd+ peak. Future work is required to identify any Nd-bearing molecular ions in the vicinity of the SHRIMP mass spectrum used for U – Pb isotopic dating (204 – 254 amu), so that this correction can also be quantitatively applied to that technique. Acknowledgements K.A. Armstrong, S. Ridgway and G. Kuehlich provided invaluable laboratory support in the separation of the zircon separates. A host of students helped in the acquisition of overnight SHRIMP data. Ian Fletcher is thanked for supplying data from the experiment performed by University of Western Australia staff on the Perth SHRIMP II. The chemical analyses were performed by D. Siems, J. Budahn, W. Pappas, E. Webber and J. Pyke. Oxygen isotope analyses are made by Mike Spicuzza at the University of Wisconsin. The ELA – ICP –MS data reduction procedure was developed by J.M. Palin. Useful discussions on the content of this article have been held with many colleagues, including Helen Degeling, John Sheraton, Geoff Fraser, Jon Claoué-Long and Andrew Cross. Nick Ratcliffe (USGS) introduced JNA to the Braintree Complex monzodiorite (source of R33), and Morrie Duggan (ex GA) introduced LPB and CF to the Middledale Gabbroic Diorite (source of the TEMORA zircons). Chris Pigram, Chief of Minerals and Geohazards Division, Geoscience Australia, has continued to be an enthusiastic supporter of this research. The authors are grateful for critical reviews of an early version of the manuscript Trevor Ireland, Mark Harrison and Steve Eggins. L.P.B., C.F. and R.J.K. publish with the permission of the Chief Executive Officer, Geoscience Australia. [PD] 139 References Black, L.P., Jagodzinski, E.A., 2003. Importance of establishing sources of uncertainty for the derivation of reliable SHRIMP ages. Austr. J. Earth Sci. 50, 503 – 512. Black, L.P., Kamo, S.L., Williams, I.S., Mundil, R., Davis, D.W., Korsch, R.J., Foudoulis, C., 2003a. The application of SHRIMP to phanerozoic geochronology: a critical appraisal of four zircon standards. Chem. Geol. 200, 171 – 188. Black, L.P., Kamo, S.L., Allen, C.M., Aleinikoff, J.N., Davis, D.W., Korsch, R.J., Foudoulis, C., 2003b. TEMORA 1: a new zircon standard for phanerozoic U – Pb geochronology. Chem. Geol., 155 – 170. Claoué-Long, J.C., Compston, W., Roberts, J., Fanning, C.M., 1995. Two carboniferous ages: a comparison of SHRIMP zircon dating with conventional zircon ages and 40Ar/39Ar analysis. In: Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Aubrey, M.-P., Hardenbol, J. (Eds.), Geochronology Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. Special Publication, vol. 54. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa, OK, 3 – 21. Compston, W., 1999. Geological age by instrumental analysis: the 29th Hallimond Lecture. Mineral. Mag. 63 (3), 297 – 311. Compston, W., 2001. Effect of Pb loss on the ages of reference zircons QGNG and SL 13, and of volcanic zircons from the Early Devonian Merrions and Turondale Formations, New South Wales. Austr. J. Earth Sci. 48, 797 – 803. Compston, W., Williams, I.S., Meyer, C., 1984. U – Pb geochronology of zircons from lunar breccia 73217 using a high massresolution ion microprobe. J. Geophys. Res. 89, B525 – B534. Eggins, S.M., Shelley, J.M.G., 2002. Compositional heterogeneity in NIST SRM 610 – 617 glasses. Geostand. Newsl. 26, 269 – 286. Finch, R.J., Hanchar, J.M., Hoskin, P.W.O., Burns, P.C., 2001. Rare-earth elements in synthetic zircon: Part 2. A single-crystal X-ray study of xenotime substitution. Am. Mineral. 86, 681 – 689. Fletcher, I.R., Rasmussen, B., McNaughton, N.J., 2000. SHRIMP U – Pb geochronology of authigenic xenotime and its potential for dating sedimentary basins. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 47, 845 – 859. Hirata, T., Nesbitt, R.N., 1995. U – Pb isotope geochronology of zircon; evaluation of the laser probe-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry technique. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 59, 2491 – 2500. Horn, I., Rudnick, R.L., McDonough, W.F., 2000. Precise elemental and isotope ratio determination by simultaneous solution nebulization and laser ablation – ICP – MS: application to U – Pb geochronology. Chem. Geol. 164, 281 – 301. Hoskin, P.W.O, Shaltegger, U., 2003. The composition of zircon and igneous and metamorphic petrogenesis. In: Hanchar, J.M., Hoskin, P.W.O. (Eds.), Zircon. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, vol. 53. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, DC, 27 – 62. Huang, M., Kojima, H., Shirasaki, T., Hirabayashi, A., Koizumi, H., 2000. Study on solvent loading effect on inductively coupled plasma and microwave-induced plasma sources with a microlite nebulizer. Anal. Chim. Acta 413, 217 – 222. Irvine, T.N., Barragar, W.R.A., 1971. A guide to the chemical clas- 140 L.P. Black et al. / Chemical Geology 205 (2004) 115–140 sification of the common volcanic rocks. Can. J. Earth Sci. 8, 523 – 548. Jaffey, A.H., Flynn, K.F., Glendenin, L.F., Bentley, W.C., Essling, A.M., 1971. Precision measurements of half-lives and specific activities of 235U and 238U. Phys. Rev. C 4, 1889 – 1906. Krogh, T.E., 1982. Improved accuracy of Pb/U ages by the creation of more concordant systems using an air abrasion technique. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46, 637 – 649 http:// www.bgc.org/kl/html. Ludwig, K.R., 2002. SQUID 1.02, a User’s Manual. Berkeley Geochronology Center Special Publication, vol. 2. 2455 Ridge Road, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA. Mattinson, J.M., 1987. U – Pb ages of zircons: a basic examination of error propagation. Chem. Geol. (Isotope Geology) 66, 151 – 162. Paces, J.B., Miller, J.D., 1993. Precise U – Pb ages of Duluth Complex and related mafic intrusions, northeastern Minnesota: geochronological insights into physical, petrogenetic, paleomagnetic, and tectonomagmatic processes associated with the 1.1 Ga midcontinent rift system. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 13997 – 14013. Pearce, N.J.G., Perkins, W.T., Westgate, J.A., Gorton, M.P., Jackson, S.E., Neal, C.R., Cenery, S.P., 1997. A compilation of new and published major and trace element data for NIST SRM 610 and NIST SRM 612 glass reference materials. Geostand. Newsl. 21, 115 – 144. Rasmussen, B., Fletcher, I.R., 2002. Indirect dating of mafic intrusions by SHRIMP U – Pb analysis of monazite in contact metamorphosed shale: an example from the Palaeoproterozoic Capricorn Orogen, Western Australia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 197, 287 – 299. Ratcliffe, N.M., Aleinikoff, J.N., 2000. Silurian age of the Braintree Complex, VT: bearing on the age of the Cram Hill and Shaw Mountain formations. Abstr. Programs-Geol. Soc. Amer. 32 (1), A-68. Stacey, J.S., Kramers, J.D., 1975. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26, 207 – 221. Stern, R.A., Amelin, Y., 2003. Assessment of errors in SIMS zircon U – Pb geochronology using a natural zircon standard and NIST SRM 610 glass. Chem. Geol. 197, 111 – 142. Valley, J.A., 2003. Oxygen isotopes in zircon. In: Hanchar, J.M., Hoskin, P.W.O. (Eds.), Zircon. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, vol. 53. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1 – 40. Valley, J.W., Kitchen, N., Hohn, M.J., Niendorf, C.R., Spicuzza, M.J., 1995. UWG-2, a garnet standard for oxygen isotope ratios: strategies for high precision and accuracy with laser heating. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 59, 5223 – 5231. Williams, I.S., Hergt, J.M., 2000. U – Pb dating of Tasmanian dolerites: a cautionary tale of SHRIMP analysis of high-U zircon. In: Woodhead, J.D., Hergt, J.M., Noble, W.P. (Eds.), Beyond 2000: New Frontiers in Isotope Geoscience, Lorne, 2000, Abstracts and Proceedings, pp. 185 – 188 University of Melbourne, Australia. Wingate, M.T.D., Compston, W., 2000. Crystal orientation effects during ion microprobe U – Pb analysis of baddeleyite. Chem. Geol. 168, 75 – 97. Wormald, R.J., 1993. The petrology and geochemistry of mid to late Palaeozoic magmatism in the Temora region, New South Wales. PhD thesis, Department of Geology, La Trobe University (unpublished).