2025/03/18 by Dawid Szymanowski, Jörn‐Frederik Wotzlaw, Maria Ovtcharova +18 · 1 voice
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Computer Science · #Geological and Geochemical Analysis #Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping #earthquake and tectonic studies
paper · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-1001
openalex publication_date 2025/03/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
Abstract. The highest precision and accuracy in U–Pb geochronology is achieved using isotope dilution thermal ionisation mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS), a technique which owes its reliability to precise Pb and U isotope ratio analysis, a largely unified framework of lab protocols, and common isotopic tracers with accurately determined compositions. However, while hardware and protocol developments have steadily improved the analytical precision, the level to which ID-TIMS U–Pb dates from different laboratories agree remains largely unquantified. To better assess both internal repeatability and interlaboratory reproducibility of this method, we have conducted an experiment in which a large batch of natural zircon was dissolved, mixed with a newly prepared 205Pb–233U–235U tracer, and distributed as solution to participating laboratories. Thus prepared, pre-spiked, homogeneous PLES535 solution underwent the full sample preparation and analysis process separately in each lab, allowing a maximally unbiased comparison of the entire analytical procedure on a sample of unknown age. The results from 14 instruments at 11 institutions demonstrate internal repeatability of individual labs at 5 to 10 U–Pb analyses, with MSWD values generally indicative of single age populations. Lab weighted-mean 206Pb/238U and 207Pb/235U ages for the 337 Ma zircon solution agree within 0.05 % and 0.09 % (two standard deviations), respectively. This underscores the reliability of the participating laboratories for precise and accurate zircon U–Pb analyses, while highlighting the need for continued exchange on lab protocols and method improvement. We identify likely reasons for the remaining interlaboratory bias and discuss ways forward toward the goal of 0.01 % reproducibility.