Inter-laboratory calibration of low-field magnetic and anhysteretic susceptibility measurements

被引:58
|
作者
Sagnotti, L
Rochette, P
Jackson, M
Vadeboin, F
Dinarès-Turell, J
Winkler, A
Maher, B
Moreno, E
Hanesch, M
Scholger, R
Jude, R
Shaw, J
McIntosh, G
Osete, ML
Matzka, J
Petersen, N
Larrasoaña, JC
O'Reagan, M
Roberts, AP
Mullender, T
Peters, C
Mohamed, KJ
Rey, D
Hannam, J
Heller, F
Frederichs, T
Bleil, U
机构
[1] Ist Nazl Geofis & Vulcanol, Via Vigna Murata 605, I-00143 Rome, Italy
[2] Univ Aix Marseille 3, CEREGE, F-13545 Aix En Provence 4, France
[3] Univ Minnesota, Inst Rock Magnetism, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[4] Univ Lancaster, Lancaster, England
[5] Univ Leoben, Leoben, Austria
[6] Univ Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[7] Univ Madrid, Madrid, Spain
[8] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Munich, Germany
[9] Univ Southampton, Southampton, Hants, England
[10] Univ Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
[11] Univ Vigo, Vigo, Spain
[12] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Inst Geophys, Zurich, Switzerland
[13] Univ Bremen, Bremen, Germany
关键词
rock magnetism; magnetic susceptibility; anhysteretic remanent magnetization; calibration; instrumentation; relative paleointensity;
D O I
10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00063-3
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
Inter-laboratory and absolute calibrations of rock magnetic parameters are fundamental for grounding a rock magnetic database and for semi-quantitative estimates about the magnetic mineral assemblage of a natural sample. Even a dimensionless ratio, such as anhysteretic susceptibility normalized by magnetic susceptibility (K-a/K) may be biased by improper calibration of one or both of the two instruments used to measure K-a and K. In addition, the intensity of the anhysteretic remanent magnetization (ARM) of a given sample depends on the experimental process by which the remanence is imparted. We report an inter-laboratory calibration of these two key parameters, using two sets of artificial reference samples: a paramagnetic rare earth salt, Gd2O3 and a commercial "pozzolanico" cement containing oxidized magnetite with grain size of less than 0.1 mum according to hysteresis properties. Using Gd2O3 the 10 Kappabridges magnetic susceptibility meters (AGICO KLY-2 or KLY-3 models) tested prove to be cross-calibrated to within 1%. On the other hand, Kappabridges provide a low-field susceptibility value that is ca. 6% lower than the tabulated value for Gd2O3, while average high-field susceptibility values measured on a range of instruments are indistinguishable from the tabulated value. Therefore, we suggest that Kappabridge values should be multiplied by 1.06 to achieve absolute calibration. Bartington Instruments magnetic susceptibility meters with MS2C sensors produce values that are 2-13% lower than Kappabridge values, with a strong dependence on sample centering within the sensor. The K-a/K ratio of ca. 11, originally obtained on discrete cement samples with a 2G Enterprises superconducting rock magnetometer and a KLY-2, is consistent with reference parameters for magnetites of grain size <0.1 mum. On the other hand, K-a values from a 2G Enterprises magnetometer and K values from a Bartington Instruments MS2C loop sensor for u-channel and discrete cement samples, will produce average K-a/K values that are unrealistically high if not properly corrected for the nominal volume detected by the sensors for these instruments. Inter-laboratory measurements of K and K-a for standard paleomagnetic plastic cubes filled with cement indicate remarkable differences in the intensity of the newly produced ARMs (with a standard deviation of ca. 21%), that are significantly larger than the differences observed from the calibration of the different magnetometers employed in each laboratory. Differences in the alternating field decay rate are likely the major source of these variations, but cannot account for all the observed variability. With such large variations in experimental conditions, classical interpretation of a "King plot" of K-a versus K would imply significant differences in the determination of grain size of magnetite particles on the same material. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:25 / 38
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A European inter-laboratory test of airflow resistivity measurements
    Garai, M
    Pompoli, F
    ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA, 2003, 89 (03): : 471 - 478
  • [32] AN INTER-LABORATORY COMPARISON OF RADIOCARBON MEASUREMENTS IN TREE RINGS
    BAXTER, M
    NATURE, 1982, 298 (5875) : 619 - 623
  • [33] Inter-laboratory relative fluorescence intensity measurements using FlowCal 575 calibration beads: A baseline study
    Waxdal, MJ
    Monical, MC
    Palini, AG
    CYTOMETRY, 1998, 33 (02): : 213 - 218
  • [34] MAGNETIC-SUSCEPTIBILITY AND PHOTO-MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS ON ZNS - MNS UNDER LOW-FIELD CONDITIONS WITH A SQUID MAGNETOMETER
    HEIDRICH, H
    PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI A-APPLIED RESEARCH, 1981, 67 (01): : 163 - 170
  • [35] Static weak magnetic field measurements based on low-field nuclear magnetic resonance
    Wang, Xiaofei
    Zhu, Maohua
    Xiao, Kangda
    Guo, Jun
    Wang, Li
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, 2019, 307
  • [36] LOW-FIELD DC AND AC MAGNETIC-SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GRANULAR SUPERCONDUCTORS
    POLLINI, A
    MOTA, AC
    VISANI, P
    HELVETICA PHYSICA ACTA, 1988, 61 (1-2): : 198 - 198
  • [37] Experience in evaluating the data of inter-laboratory comparisons for calibration and verification laboratories
    N. Yu. Efremova
    A. G. Chunovkina
    Measurement Techniques, 2007, 50 : 584 - 592
  • [38] Volume calibration of 1000 μl micropipettes. Inter-laboratory comparison
    Elsa Batista
    Eduarda Filipe
    Bodo Mickan
    Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2008, 13 : 261 - 266
  • [39] Report on inter-laboratory comparison of guarded hot plate measurements
    Natl Physical Lab, Middlesex, United Kingdom
    J Therm Insul Build Envelopes, (289-300):
  • [40] INTER-LABORATORY VARIATION OF VITAMIN-D METABOLITE MEASUREMENTS
    JONGEN, MJM
    VANDERVIJGH, WJF
    VANBERESTEYN, ECH
    VANDENBERG, H
    BOSCH, R
    HOOGENBOEZEM, T
    VISSER, TJ
    NETELENBOS, JC
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY, 1982, 20 (10): : 753 - 756