The Experts below are selected from a list of 4341 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Andrea Buffagni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Intercalibration of the Hellenic Evaluation System for Mediterranean rivers of type R-M1 and R-M2 at Northern and Central Greece
Ecological Indicators, 2013Co-Authors: Ch. Ntislidou, Andrea Buffagni, Vassilia Artemiadou, L. Kanli, Maria LazaridouAbstract:Abstract The present paper deals with the Intercalibration of the Hellenic Evaluation System (HESY) boundaries for the ecological quality of Greek rivers (Northern and Central Greece) [small size and mid altitude (type R-M1) and medium size and low altitude (type R-M2)] with the officially quality boundaries set by the European Commission and the quality boundaries of the multimetric indices STAR_ICMi and ICMi7RM based on the Mediterranean Guadalmed benchmark database. Benthic macroinvertebrates were used as biological elements for the HESY and the multimetric indices STAR_ICMi and ICMi7RM. The Hellenic dataset of benthic macroinvertebrates came from previous data of the Laboratory of Zoology, Department of Biology (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), consisting of 129 samples (41 reference samples) from Northern and Central Greece. Both the multimetric indices performed well against the stressor gradient and indicated strong relationship to the Hellenic Evaluation System. Therefore, they could both be used for the Intercalibration process and the assessment of the ecological quality in Northern and Central Greece. Moreover, the use of the HESY in Greek territory (a) can produce comparable results to the STAR_ICMi, which is also used by the Central European and Baltic GIG, assessment method and (b) may be considered reliable in other river types (e.g. R-M3) for which there has not been an Intercalibration process or even Intercalibration metrics in Europe, due to the lack of reference conditions.
-
Bringing European river quality into line: an exercise to intercalibrate macro-invertebrate classification methods
Hydrobiologia, 2011Co-Authors: Cathy Bennett, Sebastian Birk, Roger Owen, Andrea Buffagni, Stefania Erba, Nicolas Mengin, John Murray-bligh, Gisela Ofenböck, Isabel Pardo, Wouter BundAbstract:The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires Intercalibration to be performed to ensure that ecological status, as defined by the boundary values of national biological assessment systems, is consistent with the definitions outlined in the WFD and comparable between Member States (MS). This article describes an Intercalibration of 17 national river macro-invertebrate assessment methods from the Central and Baltic regions of Europe. We explore the hypothesis that Intercalibration should be successful if ratios of the observed biota to that expected in reference condition are used to compare assessments of different national assessment systems. National boundaries expressed as ecological quality ratios (EQRs) were converted to values of a common multi-metric for the purpose of comparison. Twelve MS for the High/Good boundary and nine MS for the Good/Moderate boundary (and four MS who subsequently harmonised their boundaries) were within ±0.05 EQR units of the Intercalibration boundaries and were deemed to be of comparable ecological standard. The use of a reference-based approach was deemed to be successful given that all the critical pre-requisites for Intercalibration were satisfied. The boundaries derived from this Intercalibration represent the first common interpretation of the ecological status of rivers based on macro-invertebrate assessment methods across Europe.
-
The validation of common European class boundaries for river benthic macroinvertebrates to facilitate the Intercalibration process of the Water Framework Directive
Hydrobiologia, 2009Co-Authors: Stefania Erba, Wouter Bund, Mike T. Furse, Raffaella Balestrini, Andreas Christodoulides, Thomas Ofenböck, Jean-gabriel Wasson, Andrea BuffagniAbstract:The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all the water bodies in Europe be protected and enhanced to achieve Good Ecological Status by 2015. The Intercalibration of the biological monitoring results of Member States has to be carried out in relation to classification tasks to guarantee a common understanding of ‘Good Ecological Status’ at a European level. An Intercalibration exercise was carried out within the framework of different Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs), each composed of a group of countries that share similar river types and have a discrete geographical range. By means of the Intercalibration exercise, common European boundaries were proposed for river invertebrate assessment methods within each GIG. The purpose of this study was to validate the boundaries proposed for the formal Intercalibration exercise. A benchmark data set was used, which comprised data, collected in different European countries that satisfied WFD requirements. The data set included a set of reference sites and provided evidence of a high degree of comparability among countries. The STAR Intercalibration Common Metric index (STAR_ICMi) was calculated for benchmark samples and was selected as the index in which national assessment boundaries were expressed. It was applied for the Intercalibration exercise in two GIGs. For the STAR_ICMi, the coefficient of variation was also calculated, demonstrating a comparable variability with indices that are based on species level identification. A fixed percentile of reference samples STAR_ICMi values was selected as the boundary between High and Good status. The range from this fixed percentile to the lowest possible value was divided into four equal parts to obtain the remaining class boundaries. The resulting High/Good and Good/Moderate boundaries were compared to the boundaries proposed by GIGs and proved to be in line with those defined in the Intercalibration exercise. Even if, for the Intercalibration exercise, some procedures to check the Member States (MS) data sets where put into practice, it is the responsibility of each state to guarantee the WFD compliancy of their reference conditions and methods. Accordingly, the process of validation explained in this article, or similar ones, can be an important step forward and demonstrate the comparability of the actual boundaries.
-
Intercalibration and comparison major results and conclusions from the star project
Hydrobiologia, 2006Co-Authors: Andrea Buffagni, Mike FurseAbstract:The main results of the STAR project on the Intercalibration of boundaries of European assessment systems and comparison between assessment methods are summarized here. The main findings are outlined in the context of the Water Framework Directive that requires reliable instructions to be set up on how to use and harmonise assessment systems and methods for European rivers. The main papers published on these subjects by STAR partners are reviewed, with focus on major questions addressed and approaches used for investigation. The need for broad coverage of geographic ranges and pressure gradients, together with the goal of providing outcomes appropriate to the effective application of the WFD are emphasized. Extensive datasets from a wide range of countries, stream types and sites and a large number of methods, metrics and approaches are compared and tested and various cross-cutting themes emerged. Among these, the value of the use of benchmarking systems for comparison and Intercalibration is highlighted. Two ways of looking for comparability of assessment systems results were analyzed: a) by adopting identical sampling techniques across Europe and b) by harmonizing the classification results of the national assessment systems. In addition, the need, in the Intercalibration process, for a proper definition of the criteria for reference conditions is underlined. This is because their imprecision now represents one of the major weaknesses of the whole Intercalibration process. Direct and indirect approaches to Intercalibration are considered and commented on for their potential use in distinct circumstances. Finally, the use common metrics for the Intercalibration process, which make comparability across Europe valid, is tested and indeed encouraged.
-
Intercalibration and comparison – major results and conclusions from the STAR project
Hydrobiologia, 2006Co-Authors: Andrea Buffagni, Mike FurseAbstract:The main results of the STAR project on the Intercalibration of boundaries of European assessment systems and comparison between assessment methods are summarized here. The main findings are outlined in the context of the Water Framework Directive that requires reliable instructions to be set up on how to use and harmonise assessment systems and methods for European rivers. The main papers published on these subjects by STAR partners are reviewed, with focus on major questions addressed and approaches used for investigation. The need for broad coverage of geographic ranges and pressure gradients, together with the goal of providing outcomes appropriate to the effective application of the WFD are emphasized. Extensive datasets from a wide range of countries, stream types and sites and a large number of methods, metrics and approaches are compared and tested and various cross-cutting themes emerged. Among these, the value of the use of benchmarking systems for comparison and Intercalibration is highlighted. Two ways of looking for comparability of assessment systems results were analyzed: a) by adopting identical sampling techniques across Europe and b) by harmonizing the classification results of the national assessment systems. In addition, the need, in the Intercalibration process, for a proper definition of the criteria for reference conditions is underlined. This is because their imprecision now represents one of the major weaknesses of the whole Intercalibration process. Direct and indirect approaches to Intercalibration are considered and commented on for their potential use in distinct circumstances. Finally, the use common metrics for the Intercalibration process, which make comparability across Europe valid, is tested and indeed encouraged
Xiaoxiong Xiong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sensitivity of Intercalibration Uncertainty of the CLARREO Reflected Solar Spectrometer Features
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2015Co-Authors: Xiaoxiong Xiong, Constantine Lukashin, Zhonghai Jin, Brian Wenny, James J. ButlerAbstract:The Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) mission was recommended by the National Research Council in 2007 to conduct highly accurate and International System of Unit-traceable decadal change observations and provide an on-orbit Intercalibration standard with high accuracy for relevant Earth observing sensors. The goal of reference Intercalibration is to enable rigorous observations of critical climate change variables, including reflected broadband radiation, cloud properties, and changes in surface albedo, including snow and ice albedo feedback, to be made consistently among different sensors. This requires the CLARREO Reflected Solar Spectrometer (RSS) to provide highly accurate spectral reflectance measurements to establish an on-orbit reference with a radiometric accuracy requirement better than 0.3% $(\mathrm{k} =2) $ for existing sensors. In this paper, MODTRAN-simulated top-of-atmosphere spectral data and spectral measurements from the SCIAMACHY instrument on Envisat are used to determine sensitivity of Intercalibration uncertainty on key design parameters of the CLARREO spectrometer: spectral range, sampling and resolution. Their impact on Intercalibration uncertainty for MODIS and VIIRS imagers is estimated for various surface types (ocean, vegetation, desert, snow, deep convective clouds, clouds and all-sky) . Results indicate that for the visible to near-infrared spectral region (465–856 nm) , the RSS instrument under current design concept produces uncertainties of 0.16% for the spectral range and 0.3% for the sampling and resolution. However, for the water vapor absorption bands in the short wavelength infrared region (1242–1629 nm) , the same requirement is not met for sampling and resolution due to their high sensitivity to the influence of atmospheric water vapor.
-
Foreword to the Special Issue on Intercalibration of Satellite Instruments
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2013Co-Authors: Gyanesh Chander, Tim J. Hewison, Xiaoxiong Xiong, Xiangqian Wu, William J. BlackwellAbstract:This forty papers in this special issue focus on how Intercalibration and comparison between sensors can provide an effective and convenient means of verifying their postlaunch performance and correcting their measurement differences.
-
Overview of Intercalibration of Satellite Instruments
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2013Co-Authors: Gyanesh Chander, Tim J. Hewison, Xiaoxiong Xiong, Xiangqian Wu, William J. BlackwellAbstract:Intercalibration of satellite instruments is critical for detection and quantification of changes in the Earth's environment, weather forecasting, understanding climate processes, and monitoring climate and land cover change. These applications use data from many satellites; for the data to be interoperable, the instruments must be cross-calibrated. To meet the stringent needs of such applications, instruments must provide reliable, accurate, and consistent measurements over time. Robust techniques are required to ensure that observations from different instruments can be normalized to a common scale that the community agrees on. The long-term reliability of this process needs to be sustained in accordance with established reference standards and best practices. Furthermore, establishing physical meaning to the information through robust Systeme International d'unites traceable calibration and validation (Cal/Val) is essential to fully understand the parameters under observation. The processes of calibration, correction, stability monitoring, and quality assurance need to be underpinned and evidenced by comparison with “peer instruments” and, ideally, highly calibrated in-orbit reference instruments. Intercalibration between instruments is a central pillar of the Cal/Val strategies of many national and international satellite remote sensing organizations. Intercalibration techniques as outlined in this paper not only provide a practical means of identifying and correcting relative biases in radiometric calibration between instruments but also enable potential data gaps between measurement records in a critical time series to be bridged. Use of a robust set of internationally agreed upon and coordinated Intercalibration techniques will lead to significant improvement in the consistency between satellite instruments and facilitate accurate monitoring of the Earth's climate at uncertainty levels needed to detect and attribute the mechanisms of change. This paper summarizes the state-of-the-art of postlaunch radiometric calibration of remote sensing satellite instruments through Intercalibration.
-
Assessment of Spectral Band Impact on Intercalibration Over Desert Sites Using Simulation Based on EO-1 Hyperion Data
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2013Co-Authors: P. Henry, G. Chander, Bertrand Fougnie, C. Thomas, Xiaoxiong XiongAbstract:Since the beginning of the 1990s, stable desert sites have been used for the calibration monitoring of many different sensors. Many attempts at sensor Intercalibration have been also conducted using these stable desert sites. As a result, site characterization techniques and the quality of Intercalibration techniques have gradually improved over the years. More recently, the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites has recommended a list of reference pseudo-invariant calibration sites for frequent image acquisition by multiple agencies. In general, Intercalibration should use well-known or spectrally flat reference. The reflectance profile of desert sites, however, might not be flat or well characterized (from a fine spectral point of view). The aim of this paper is to assess the expected accuracy that can be reached when using desert sites for Intercalibration. In order to have a well-mastered estimation of different errors or error sources, this study is performed with simulated data from a hyperspectral sensor. Earth Observing-1 Hyperion images are chosen to provide the simulation input data. Two different cases of Intercalibration are considered, namely, Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus with Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Environmental Satellite MEdium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) with Aqua MODIS. The simulation results have confirmed that Intercalibration accuracy of 1% to 2% can be achieved between sensors, provided there are a sufficient number of available measurements. The simulated Intercalibrations allow explaining results obtained during real Intercalibration exercises and to establish some recommendations for the use of desert sites for Intercalibration.
William J. Blackwell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Foreword to the Special Issue on Intercalibration of Satellite Instruments
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2013Co-Authors: Gyanesh Chander, Tim J. Hewison, Xiaoxiong Xiong, Xiangqian Wu, William J. BlackwellAbstract:This forty papers in this special issue focus on how Intercalibration and comparison between sensors can provide an effective and convenient means of verifying their postlaunch performance and correcting their measurement differences.
-
Overview of Intercalibration of Satellite Instruments
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2013Co-Authors: Gyanesh Chander, Tim J. Hewison, Xiaoxiong Xiong, Xiangqian Wu, William J. BlackwellAbstract:Intercalibration of satellite instruments is critical for detection and quantification of changes in the Earth's environment, weather forecasting, understanding climate processes, and monitoring climate and land cover change. These applications use data from many satellites; for the data to be interoperable, the instruments must be cross-calibrated. To meet the stringent needs of such applications, instruments must provide reliable, accurate, and consistent measurements over time. Robust techniques are required to ensure that observations from different instruments can be normalized to a common scale that the community agrees on. The long-term reliability of this process needs to be sustained in accordance with established reference standards and best practices. Furthermore, establishing physical meaning to the information through robust Systeme International d'unites traceable calibration and validation (Cal/Val) is essential to fully understand the parameters under observation. The processes of calibration, correction, stability monitoring, and quality assurance need to be underpinned and evidenced by comparison with “peer instruments” and, ideally, highly calibrated in-orbit reference instruments. Intercalibration between instruments is a central pillar of the Cal/Val strategies of many national and international satellite remote sensing organizations. Intercalibration techniques as outlined in this paper not only provide a practical means of identifying and correcting relative biases in radiometric calibration between instruments but also enable potential data gaps between measurement records in a critical time series to be bridged. Use of a robust set of internationally agreed upon and coordinated Intercalibration techniques will lead to significant improvement in the consistency between satellite instruments and facilitate accurate monitoring of the Earth's climate at uncertainty levels needed to detect and attribute the mechanisms of change. This paper summarizes the state-of-the-art of postlaunch radiometric calibration of remote sensing satellite instruments through Intercalibration.
Donald J. Depaolo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intercalibration of standards absolute ages and uncertainties in 40ar 39ar dating
Chemical Geology, 1998Co-Authors: Paul R. Renne, Carl C. Swisher, Alan L. Deino, Daniel B. Karner, Thomas L. Owens, Donald J. DepaoloAbstract:The 40Ar/39Ar dating method depends on accurate Intercalibration between samples, neutron fluence monitors, and primary 40Ar/40K (or other external) standards. The 40Ar/39Ar age equation may be expressed in terms of Intercalibration factors that are simple functions of the relative ages of standards, or equivalently are equal to the ratio of radiogenic to nucleogenic K-derived argon (40Ar/39ArK) values for one standard or unknown relative to another. Intercalibration factors for McClure Mountain hornblende (MMhb-1), GHC-305 biotite, GA-1550 biotite, Taylor Creek sanidine (TCs) and Alder Creek sanidine (ACs), relative to Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs), were derived from 797 analyses involving 11 separate irradiations with well-constrained neutronfluence variations. Values of the Intercalibration factors are RFCsMMhb-1 = 21.4876 ± 0.0079; RFCsGA-1550 = 3.5957 ± 0.0038; RFCsTCs = 1.0112 ± 0.0010; RFCsACs = 0.04229 ± 0.00006, based on the mean and standard error of the mean resulting from four or more spatially distinct co-irradiations of FCs with the other standars. Analysis of 35 grains of GHC-305 irradiated in a single irradiation yields RFCsGHC-305 = 3.8367 ± 0.0143. Results at these levels of precision essentially eliminate Intercalibration as a significant source of error in 40Ar/39Ar dating. Data for GA-1550 (76 analyses, 5 fluence values), TCs (54 analyses, 4 fluence values), FCs (380 analyses, 40 fluence values) and ACs (86 analyses, 11 fluence values) yield MSWD values showing that the between-grain dispersion of 40Ar∗/39ArK values is consistent with analytical errors alone, whereas MMhb-1 (167 analyses, 4 irradiations) and GHC-305 (34 analyses, 1 fluence value) are heterogeneous and therefore unsuitable as standards for small sample analysis. New K measurements by isotope dilution for two primary standards, GA-1550 biotite (8 analyses averaging 7.626 ± 0.016 wt%) and intralaboratory standard GHC-305 (10 analyses averaging 7.570 ± 0.011 wt%), yield values slightly lower and more consistent than previous data obtained by flame photometry, with resulting 40Ar/40K ages of 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma and 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GA-1550 and GHC-305, respectively. Combining these data with the Intercalibration approach described herein and using GA-1550 as the primary standard (1.343 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗; [McDougall, I., Roksandic, Z., 1974. Total fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages using HIFAR reactor. J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 21, 81–89.]) yields ages of 523.1 ± 4.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 1.1 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.28 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.28 for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.012 Ma for ACs (errors are full external errors, including uncertainty in decay constants). Neglecting error in the decay constants, these ages and uncertainties are: 523.1 ± 2.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 0.7 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.54 for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.16 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.16 Ma for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs. Using GHC-305 as the primary standard (1.428 ± 0.004 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗), ages are 525.1 ± 2.3 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GHC-305, 99.17 ± 0.48 Ma for GA-1550, 28.46 ± 0.15 Ma for TCs, 28.15 ± 0.14 Ma for FCs, and 1.199 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs, neglecting decay constant uncertainties. The approach described herein facilitates error propagation that allows for straightforward inclusion of uncertainties in the ages of primary standards and decay constants, without which comparison of 40Ar/39Ar dates with data from independent geochronometers is invalid. Re-examination of 40K decay constants would be fruitful for improved accuracy.
-
Intercalibration of standards, absolute ages and uncertainties in 40Ar/39Ar dating
Chemical Geology, 1998Co-Authors: Paul R. Renne, Carl C. Swisher, Alan L. Deino, Daniel B. Karner, Thomas L. Owens, Donald J. DepaoloAbstract:The 40Ar/39Ar dating method depends on accurate Intercalibration between samples, neutron fluence monitors, and primary 40Ar/40K (or other external) standards. The 40Ar/39Ar age equation may be expressed in terms of Intercalibration factors that are simple functions of the relative ages of standards, or equivalently are equal to the ratio of radiogenic to nucleogenic K-derived argon (40Ar/39ArK) values for one standard or unknown relative to another. Intercalibration factors for McClure Mountain hornblende (MMhb-1), GHC-305 biotite, GA-1550 biotite, Taylor Creek sanidine (TCs) and Alder Creek sanidine (ACs), relative to Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs), were derived from 797 analyses involving 11 separate irradiations with well-constrained neutronfluence variations. Values of the Intercalibration factors are RFCsMMhb-1 = 21.4876 ± 0.0079; RFCsGA-1550 = 3.5957 ± 0.0038; RFCsTCs = 1.0112 ± 0.0010; RFCsACs = 0.04229 ± 0.00006, based on the mean and standard error of the mean resulting from four or more spatially distinct co-irradiations of FCs with the other standars. Analysis of 35 grains of GHC-305 irradiated in a single irradiation yields RFCsGHC-305 = 3.8367 ± 0.0143. Results at these levels of precision essentially eliminate Intercalibration as a significant source of error in 40Ar/39Ar dating. Data for GA-1550 (76 analyses, 5 fluence values), TCs (54 analyses, 4 fluence values), FCs (380 analyses, 40 fluence values) and ACs (86 analyses, 11 fluence values) yield MSWD values showing that the between-grain dispersion of 40Ar∗/39ArK values is consistent with analytical errors alone, whereas MMhb-1 (167 analyses, 4 irradiations) and GHC-305 (34 analyses, 1 fluence value) are heterogeneous and therefore unsuitable as standards for small sample analysis. New K measurements by isotope dilution for two primary standards, GA-1550 biotite (8 analyses averaging 7.626 ± 0.016 wt%) and intralaboratory standard GHC-305 (10 analyses averaging 7.570 ± 0.011 wt%), yield values slightly lower and more consistent than previous data obtained by flame photometry, with resulting 40Ar/40K ages of 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma and 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GA-1550 and GHC-305, respectively. Combining these data with the Intercalibration approach described herein and using GA-1550 as the primary standard (1.343 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗; [McDougall, I., Roksandic, Z., 1974. Total fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages using HIFAR reactor. J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 21, 81–89.]) yields ages of 523.1 ± 4.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 1.1 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.28 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.28 for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.012 Ma for ACs (errors are full external errors, including uncertainty in decay constants). Neglecting error in the decay constants, these ages and uncertainties are: 523.1 ± 2.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 0.7 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.54 for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.16 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.16 Ma for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs. Using GHC-305 as the primary standard (1.428 ± 0.004 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗), ages are 525.1 ± 2.3 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GHC-305, 99.17 ± 0.48 Ma for GA-1550, 28.46 ± 0.15 Ma for TCs, 28.15 ± 0.14 Ma for FCs, and 1.199 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs, neglecting decay constant uncertainties. The approach described herein facilitates error propagation that allows for straightforward inclusion of uncertainties in the ages of primary standards and decay constants, without which comparison of 40Ar/39Ar dates with data from independent geochronometers is invalid. Re-examination of 40K decay constants would be fruitful for improved accuracy.
Paul R. Renne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Intercalibration of standards absolute ages and uncertainties in 40ar 39ar dating
Chemical Geology, 1998Co-Authors: Paul R. Renne, Carl C. Swisher, Alan L. Deino, Daniel B. Karner, Thomas L. Owens, Donald J. DepaoloAbstract:The 40Ar/39Ar dating method depends on accurate Intercalibration between samples, neutron fluence monitors, and primary 40Ar/40K (or other external) standards. The 40Ar/39Ar age equation may be expressed in terms of Intercalibration factors that are simple functions of the relative ages of standards, or equivalently are equal to the ratio of radiogenic to nucleogenic K-derived argon (40Ar/39ArK) values for one standard or unknown relative to another. Intercalibration factors for McClure Mountain hornblende (MMhb-1), GHC-305 biotite, GA-1550 biotite, Taylor Creek sanidine (TCs) and Alder Creek sanidine (ACs), relative to Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs), were derived from 797 analyses involving 11 separate irradiations with well-constrained neutronfluence variations. Values of the Intercalibration factors are RFCsMMhb-1 = 21.4876 ± 0.0079; RFCsGA-1550 = 3.5957 ± 0.0038; RFCsTCs = 1.0112 ± 0.0010; RFCsACs = 0.04229 ± 0.00006, based on the mean and standard error of the mean resulting from four or more spatially distinct co-irradiations of FCs with the other standars. Analysis of 35 grains of GHC-305 irradiated in a single irradiation yields RFCsGHC-305 = 3.8367 ± 0.0143. Results at these levels of precision essentially eliminate Intercalibration as a significant source of error in 40Ar/39Ar dating. Data for GA-1550 (76 analyses, 5 fluence values), TCs (54 analyses, 4 fluence values), FCs (380 analyses, 40 fluence values) and ACs (86 analyses, 11 fluence values) yield MSWD values showing that the between-grain dispersion of 40Ar∗/39ArK values is consistent with analytical errors alone, whereas MMhb-1 (167 analyses, 4 irradiations) and GHC-305 (34 analyses, 1 fluence value) are heterogeneous and therefore unsuitable as standards for small sample analysis. New K measurements by isotope dilution for two primary standards, GA-1550 biotite (8 analyses averaging 7.626 ± 0.016 wt%) and intralaboratory standard GHC-305 (10 analyses averaging 7.570 ± 0.011 wt%), yield values slightly lower and more consistent than previous data obtained by flame photometry, with resulting 40Ar/40K ages of 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma and 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GA-1550 and GHC-305, respectively. Combining these data with the Intercalibration approach described herein and using GA-1550 as the primary standard (1.343 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗; [McDougall, I., Roksandic, Z., 1974. Total fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages using HIFAR reactor. J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 21, 81–89.]) yields ages of 523.1 ± 4.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 1.1 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.28 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.28 for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.012 Ma for ACs (errors are full external errors, including uncertainty in decay constants). Neglecting error in the decay constants, these ages and uncertainties are: 523.1 ± 2.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 0.7 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.54 for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.16 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.16 Ma for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs. Using GHC-305 as the primary standard (1.428 ± 0.004 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗), ages are 525.1 ± 2.3 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GHC-305, 99.17 ± 0.48 Ma for GA-1550, 28.46 ± 0.15 Ma for TCs, 28.15 ± 0.14 Ma for FCs, and 1.199 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs, neglecting decay constant uncertainties. The approach described herein facilitates error propagation that allows for straightforward inclusion of uncertainties in the ages of primary standards and decay constants, without which comparison of 40Ar/39Ar dates with data from independent geochronometers is invalid. Re-examination of 40K decay constants would be fruitful for improved accuracy.
-
Intercalibration of standards, absolute ages and uncertainties in 40Ar/39Ar dating
Chemical Geology, 1998Co-Authors: Paul R. Renne, Carl C. Swisher, Alan L. Deino, Daniel B. Karner, Thomas L. Owens, Donald J. DepaoloAbstract:The 40Ar/39Ar dating method depends on accurate Intercalibration between samples, neutron fluence monitors, and primary 40Ar/40K (or other external) standards. The 40Ar/39Ar age equation may be expressed in terms of Intercalibration factors that are simple functions of the relative ages of standards, or equivalently are equal to the ratio of radiogenic to nucleogenic K-derived argon (40Ar/39ArK) values for one standard or unknown relative to another. Intercalibration factors for McClure Mountain hornblende (MMhb-1), GHC-305 biotite, GA-1550 biotite, Taylor Creek sanidine (TCs) and Alder Creek sanidine (ACs), relative to Fish Canyon sanidine (FCs), were derived from 797 analyses involving 11 separate irradiations with well-constrained neutronfluence variations. Values of the Intercalibration factors are RFCsMMhb-1 = 21.4876 ± 0.0079; RFCsGA-1550 = 3.5957 ± 0.0038; RFCsTCs = 1.0112 ± 0.0010; RFCsACs = 0.04229 ± 0.00006, based on the mean and standard error of the mean resulting from four or more spatially distinct co-irradiations of FCs with the other standars. Analysis of 35 grains of GHC-305 irradiated in a single irradiation yields RFCsGHC-305 = 3.8367 ± 0.0143. Results at these levels of precision essentially eliminate Intercalibration as a significant source of error in 40Ar/39Ar dating. Data for GA-1550 (76 analyses, 5 fluence values), TCs (54 analyses, 4 fluence values), FCs (380 analyses, 40 fluence values) and ACs (86 analyses, 11 fluence values) yield MSWD values showing that the between-grain dispersion of 40Ar∗/39ArK values is consistent with analytical errors alone, whereas MMhb-1 (167 analyses, 4 irradiations) and GHC-305 (34 analyses, 1 fluence value) are heterogeneous and therefore unsuitable as standards for small sample analysis. New K measurements by isotope dilution for two primary standards, GA-1550 biotite (8 analyses averaging 7.626 ± 0.016 wt%) and intralaboratory standard GHC-305 (10 analyses averaging 7.570 ± 0.011 wt%), yield values slightly lower and more consistent than previous data obtained by flame photometry, with resulting 40Ar/40K ages of 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma and 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GA-1550 and GHC-305, respectively. Combining these data with the Intercalibration approach described herein and using GA-1550 as the primary standard (1.343 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗; [McDougall, I., Roksandic, Z., 1974. Total fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages using HIFAR reactor. J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 21, 81–89.]) yields ages of 523.1 ± 4.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 1.1 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.96 Ma for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.28 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.28 for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.012 Ma for ACs (errors are full external errors, including uncertainty in decay constants). Neglecting error in the decay constants, these ages and uncertainties are: 523.1 ± 2.6 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.2 ± 0.7 Ma for GHC-305, 98.79 ± 0.54 for GA-1550, 28.34 ± 0.16 Ma for TCs, 28.02 ± 0.16 Ma for FCs, and 1.194 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs. Using GHC-305 as the primary standard (1.428 ± 0.004 × 10−9 mol/g of 40Ar∗), ages are 525.1 ± 2.3 Ma for MMhb-1, 105.6 ± 0.3 Ma for GHC-305, 99.17 ± 0.48 Ma for GA-1550, 28.46 ± 0.15 Ma for TCs, 28.15 ± 0.14 Ma for FCs, and 1.199 ± 0.007 Ma for ACs, neglecting decay constant uncertainties. The approach described herein facilitates error propagation that allows for straightforward inclusion of uncertainties in the ages of primary standards and decay constants, without which comparison of 40Ar/39Ar dates with data from independent geochronometers is invalid. Re-examination of 40K decay constants would be fruitful for improved accuracy.