Earth-prints repository, logo   Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia

Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
 
|earth-prints home page | roma library | bologna library | catania library | milano library | napoli library | palermo library

Earth-prints >
Affiliation >
INGV >
Papers Published / Papers in press >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/3994

Title: Inter-laboratory calibration of low-field magnetic and anhysteretic susceptibility measurements
Authors: Sagnotti, L.*
Rochette, P.*
Jackson, M.*
Vadeboin, F.*
Dinarès-Turell, J.*
Winkler, A.*
"Mag-Net" Science Team, *
Keywords: Rock magnetism
Magnetic susceptibility
Anhysteretic remanent magnetization
Calibration
Instrumentation
Relative
Issue Date: 12-Jun-2003
Publisher: Elsevier
Title of journal: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors
Series/Report no.: 1 / 138 (2003)
Abstract: 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 (Ka/K) may be biased by improper calibration of one or both of the two instruments used to measure Ka 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 m 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 MS2B sensors produce values that are 2–13% lower than Kappabridge values, with a strong dependence on sample centering within the sensor. The Ka/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 m. On the other hand, Ka 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 Ka/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 Ka 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 Ka versus K would imply significant differences in the determination of grain size of magnetite particles on the same material.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/3994
DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00063-3
Appears in Collections:04.05.08. Instruments and techniques
Papers Published / Papers in press
04.05.07. Rock magnetism

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
08062312204606199.pdf327.5KbAdobe PDFView/Open
  • Bartington Instruments Ltd., 2002. Operation Manual for MS2
  • Magnetic Susceptibility System. OM408 Issue 27, Oxford, UK,
  • 67 pp.
  • Brachfeld, S., 1999. Separation of geomagnetic paleointensity
  • and paleoclimate signals in sediments: examples from North
  • America and Antarctica. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota.
  • Dunlop, D.J., 2002. Theory and application of the Day plot
  • (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr /Hc). 1. Theoretical curves and tests
  • using titanomagnetite data. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (B3), DOI:
  • 10.1029/2001JB000487.
  • Dunlop, D.J., Özdemir, Ö., 1997. Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals
  • and Frontiers. Cambridge University Press, New York, 573 pp.
  • Holtzberg, F., Huber, D.L., Lefever, R.A., Longo, J.M., McGuire,
  • T.R., Methfessel, S., 1970. Crystallographic, magnetic and
  • electrical properties of trivalent oxides with Mn2O3 structure.
  • In: Landolt-Börnstein, Group III: Magnetic and Other Properties
  • of Oxides and Related Compounds, vol. 4a. Springer, Berlin,
  • pp. 94–98.
  • Hunt, C.P., Moskowitz, B.M., Banerjee, S.K., 1995. Magnetic
  • properties of rocks and minerals, rock physics and phase
  • relations—a handbook of physical constant. AGU Ref. Shelf 3,
  • 189–204.
  • Jackson, M., 2000. Wherefore Gadolinium? Magnetism of the rare
  • earths. IRM Q. 10 (3), 1–7.
  • King, J.W., Banerjee, S.K., Marvin, J.A., Özdemir, Ö., 1982.
  • A comparison of different magnetic methods for determining
  • the relative grain size of magnetite in natural materials: some
  • results from lake sediments. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 59, 404–
  • 419.
  • Snowball, I., Hunt, C., Moskowitz, B., 1994. Initial inter-laboratory
  • calibration effort: a lesson in trial and error? IRM Q. 4 (1), 6–8.
  • Tauxe, L., Wu, G., 1990. Normalized remanence in sediments
  • of the western equatorial Pacific: relative paleointensity of the
  • geomagnetic field? J. Geophys. Res. B 95, 12337–12350.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! ICT Support, development & maintenance are provided by theAePIC team @CILEA.Powered onDSpace Software. Feedback