Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by CLAUER, N. Articles by HILLIER, S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

How reliable is the K-Ar glauconite chronometer? A case study of Eocene sediments from the Isle of Wight

¹ Centre de Géochimie de la Surface (CNRS/ULP), 1 rue Blessig , 67084 Strasbourg, France, ² Department of Mineralogy, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK, and ³ Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK

^* E-mail: nclauer{at}illite.u-strasbg.fr

(Received 15 April 2003; revised 15 September 2004)

K-Ar ages of Eocene glauconite pellets from the Isle of Wight are related to quantified amounts of older glauconite pellets and to occurrences of detrital mica/illite particles that might have been added to synsedimentary pellets during reworking processes. Addition of older glauconite did not significantly bias the K-Ar dates, as the results most often provide the expected stratigraphic reference ages or even significantly lower ages. Alternatively, K-Ar dates significantly greater than those suggested by the stratigraphy appear to result from non-glauconized detrital mica in the pellets which is not always removable, even by high-gradient magnetic separation.

Unexpected ‘old’ K-Ar glauconite ages do not result from misapplication of the method, but from inability to systematically identify and remove the ‘contaminant’ particles from glauconite splits. Analysis of highly evolved glauconite separates is definitely appropriate for reliable isotopic age determinations, but it might not be enough for the final selection, as long-lasting diagenesis might have taken over the synsedimentary process. Much if not all depends on the separation and characterization of the separates, but also on the completion of the glauconitization process which effects cannot always be anticipated.

KEYWORDS: glauconite, sedimentary reworking, K-Ar dating, Eocene, Isle of Wight, UK

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. SANDLER and Y. HARLAVAN Early diagenetic illitization of illite-smectite in Cretaceous sediments (Israel): evidence from K-Ar dating Clay Minerals, June 1, 2006; 41(2): 637 - 658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. HUGGETT and R. W. OB. KNOX Clay mineralogy of the Tertiary onshore and offshore strata of the British Isles Clay Minerals, March 1, 2006; 41(1): 5 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]