Advertisement

Luminescence Dating in Fluvial Settings: Overcoming the Challenge of Partial Bleaching

  • Rachel K. SmedleyEmail author
  • Grace K. A. Skirrow
Chapter
  • 317 Downloads
Part of the Geography of the Physical Environment book series (GEOPHY)

Abstract

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating is a versatile technique that utilises the two most ubiquitous minerals on Earth (quartz or K-feldspar) for constraining the timing of sediment deposition. It has provided accurate ages in agreement with independent age control in many fluvial settings, but is often characterised by partial bleaching of individual grains. Partial bleaching can occur where sunlight exposure is limited and so only a portion of the grains in the sample was exposed to sunlight prior to burial, especially in sediment-laden, turbulent or deep water columns. OSL analysis on multiple grains can provide accurate ages for partially bleached sediments where the OSL signal intensity is dominated by a single brighter grain, but will overestimate the age where the OSL signal intensity is equally as bright (often typical of K-feldspar) or as dim (sometimes typical of quartz). In such settings, it is important to identify partial bleaching and the minimum dose population, preferably by analysing single grains, and applying the appropriate statistical age model to the dose population obtained for each sample. To determine accurate OSL ages using these age models, it is important to quantify the amount of scatter (or overdispersion) in the well-bleached part of the partially bleached dose distribution, which can vary between sediment samples depending upon the bedrock sources and transport histories of grains. Here, we discuss how the effects of partial bleaching can be easily identified and overcome to determine accurate ages. This discussion will therefore focus entirely on the burial dose determination for OSL dating, rather than the dose-rate, as only the burial doses are impacted by the effects of partial bleaching.

Keywords

Optically stimulated luminescence dating OSL Partial bleaching Fluvial Single grains Age models 

References

  1. Arnold LJ, Roberts RG (2009) Stochastic modelling of multi-grain equivalent dose (De) distributions: implications for OSL dating of sediment mixtures. Quat Geochronol 4:204–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey RM, Arnold LJ (2006) Statistical modelling of single grain quartz De distributions and an assessment of procedures for estimating burial dose. Quatern Sci Rev 25:2475–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey RM, Singarayer JS, Ward S et al (2003) Identification of partial resetting using De as a function of illumination time. Radiat Meas 37:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burow C, Kehl M, Hilgers A et al (2015) Luminescence dating of fluvial deposits in the rock shelter of Cueva Antón, Spain. Geochronometria 42:107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buylaert JP, Murray AS, Thomsen KJ et al (2009) Testing the potential of an elevated temperature IRSL signal from K-feldspar. Radiat Meas 44:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlain EL, Wallinga J, Reimann T et al (2017) Luminescence dating of delta sediments: novel approaches explored for the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta. Quat Geochronol 41:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapot MS, Sohbati R, Murray AS et al (2012) Constraining the age of rock art by dating a rockfall event using sediment and rock-surface luminescence dating techniques. Quat Geochronol 13:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiverrell RC, Smedley RK, Small D et al (2018) Ice margin oscillations during deglaciation of the Northern Irish Sea Basin. J Quat Sci 33:739–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colarossi D, Duller GAT, Roberts HM et al (2015) Comparison of paired quartz OSL and feldspar post-IR IRSL dose distributions in poorly bleached fluvial sediments from South Africa. Quat Geochronol 30:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietze M, Kreutzer S, Burow C et al (2016) The abanico plot: visualising chronometric data with individual standard errors. Quat Geochronol 31:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duller GAT (2008) Luminescence dating: guidelines on luminescence dating in archaeology. English Heritage report, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  12. Duller GAT, Bøtter-Jensen L, Murray AS et al (1999) Single grain laser luminescence (SGLL) measurements using a novel automated reader. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B 155:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durcan JA, Thomas DSG, Gupta S et al (in press) Holocene landscape dynamics in the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel region at the northern edge of the Thar Desert, northwest India. Quat Int.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan YX, Zhao H, Chen FH (2010) The equivalent dose of different grain size quartz fractions from lakeshore sediments in the arid region of north China. Quat Geochronol 5(2–3):205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freiesleben T, Sohbati R, Murray AS et al (2015) Mathematical model quantifies multiple daylight exposure and burial events for rock surfaces using luminescence dating. Radiat Meas 81:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuchs M, Straub J, Zöller L (2005) Residual luminescence signals of recent river flood sediments: a comparison between quartz and feldspar of fine-and coarse-grain sediments. Ancient Tl 23(1):25–30Google Scholar
  17. Gaar D, Lowick SE, Preusser F (2014) Performance of different luminescence approaches for the dating of known-age glaciofluvial deposits from northern Switzerland. Geochronometria 41:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galbraith RF, Green PF (1990) Estimating the component ages in a finite mixture. Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas 17:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galbraith RF, Laslett GM (1993) Statistical models for mixed fission track ages. Int J Radiat Appl Instrum Part D Nucl Tracks Radiat Meas 21:459–470Google Scholar
  20. Galbraith RF, Roberts RG (2012) Statistical aspects of equivalent dose and error calculation and display in OSL dating: an overview and some recommendations. Quat Geochronol 11(1):27Google Scholar
  21. Galbraith RF, Roberts RG, Laslett GM et al (1999) Optical dating of single and multiple grains of quartz from Jinmium rock shelter, northern Australia: part I, experimental design and statistical models. Archaeometry 41:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giosan L, Clift PD, Macklin MG et al (2012) Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan civilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:E1688–E1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glasser NF, Davies JR, Hambrey MJ et al (2018) Late Devensian deglaciation of south-west Wales from luminescence and cosmogenic isotope dating. J Quat Sci 33(7):804–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gliganic LA, Cohen TJ, Meyer M et al (2017) Variations in luminescence properties of quartz and feldspar from modern fluvial sediments in three rivers. Quat Geochronol 41:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godfrey-Smith DI, Huntley DJ, Chen WH (1988) Optical dating studies of quartz and feldspar sediment extracts. Quatern Sci Rev 7:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray HJ, Mahan SA (2015) Variables and potential models for the bleaching of luminescence signals in fluvial environments. Quatern Int 362:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray HJ, Tucker GE, Mahan SA (2018) Application of a luminescence-based sediment transport model. Geophys Res Lett 45:6071–6080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guerin G, Jain M, Thomsen KJ et al (2015) Modelling dose rate to single grains of quartz in well-sorted sand samples: the dispersion arising from the presence of potassium feldspars and implications for single grain OSL dating. Quat Geochronol 27:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habermann J, Schilles T, Kalchgruber R et al (2000) Steps towards surface dating using luminescence. Radiat Meas 32:847–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. He Z, Long H, Yang L et al (2019) Luminescence dating of a fluvial sequence using different grain size fractions and implications on Holocene flooding activities in Weihe Basin, central China. Quat Geochronol 49:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huntley DJ, Lamothe M (2001) Ubiquity of anomalous fading in K-feldspars and the measurement and correction for it in optical dating. Can J Earth Sci 38:1093–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huntley DJ, Godfrey-Smith DI, Thewalt MLW (1985) Optical dating of sediments. Nature 313:105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobs Z, Duller GAT, Wintle AG et al (2006) Extending the chronology of deposits at Blombos Cave, South Africa, back to 140 ka using optical dating of single and multiple grains of quartz. J Hum Evol 51:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jankowski NR, Jacobs Z (2018) Beta dose variability and its spatial contextualisation in samples used for optical dating: an empirical approach to examining beta microdosimetry. Quat Geochronol 44:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenkins GTH, Duller GAT, Roberts HM et al (2018) A new approach for luminescence dating glaciofluvial deposits—high precision optical dating of cobbles. Quatern Sci Rev 192:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jerlov NG (1970) Light: general introduction. In: Kinne O (ed) Marine ecology. Wiley, New York, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  37. Kars RH, Wallinga J, Cohen KM (2008) A new approach towards anomalous fading correction for feldspar IRSL dating—tests on samples in field saturation. Radiat Meas 43:786–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim JC, Chang TS, Ti S, Hong SS, Nahm WH (2015) OSL dating of coastal sediments from the southwestern Korean Peninsula: a comparison of different size fractions of quartz. Quatern Int 384:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kolb T, Fuchs M (2018) Luminescence dating of pre-Eemian (pre-MIS 5e) fluvial terraces in Northern Bavaria (Germany)—benefits and limitations of applying a pIRIR225-approach. Geomorphology 321:16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kronborg C (1983) Preliminary results of age determination by TL of interglacial and interstadial sediments. PACT 9:595–606Google Scholar
  41. Lapp T, Kook M, Murray AS et al (2015) A new luminescence detection and stimulation head for the Risø TL/OSL reader. Radiat Meas 81:178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann B, Valla P, King GE et al (2018) Investigation of OSL surface exposure dating to reconstruct post-LIA glacier fluctuations in the French Alps (Mer de Glace, Mont Blanc massif). Quat Geochronol 44:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyons R, Tooth S, Duller GAT (2013) Chronology and controls of donga (gully) formation in the upper Blood River catchment, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: evidence for a climatic driver of erosion. The Holocene 23:1875–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lyons R, Tooth S, Duller GAT (2014) Late Quaternary climatic changes revealed by luminescence dating, mineral magnetism and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy of river terrace palaeosols: a new form of geoproxy data for the southern African interior. Quatern Sci Rev 95:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayya YS, Morthekai P, Murari MK et al (2006) Towards quantifying beta microdosimetric effects in single-grain quartz dose distribution. Radiat Meas 41:1032–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Medialdea A, Thomsen KJ, Murray AS et al (2014) Reliability of equivalent-dose determination and age-models in the OSL dating of historical and modern palaeoflood sediments. Quat Geochronol 22:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer MC, Gliganic LA, Jain M et al (2018) Lithological controls on light penetration into rock surfaces—implications for OSL and IRSL surface exposure dating. Radiat Meas.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murray AS, Wintle AG (2000) Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiat Meas 32:57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nathan RP, Thomas PJ, Jain M et al (2003) Environmental dose rate heterogeneity of beta radiation and its implications for luminescence dating: Monte Carlo modelling and experimental validation. Radiat Meas 37:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olley J, Caitcheon G, Murray AS (1998) The distribution of apparent dose as determined by optically stimulated luminescence in small aliquots of fluvial quartz: implications for dating young sediments. Quatern Sci Rev 17:1033–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ou XJ, Roberts HM, Duller GAT et al (in press) Attenuation of light in different rock types and implications for rock surface luminescence dating. Radiat Meas.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.06.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Polikreti K, Michael CT, Maniatis Y (2002) Authenticating marble sculpture with thermoluminescence. Ancient TL 20:11–18Google Scholar
  53. Polikreti K, Michael CT, Maniatis Y (2003) Thermoluminescence characteristics of marble and dating of freshly excavated marble objects. Radiat Meas 37:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rades EF, Sohbati E, Luthgens C et al (in press) First luminescence-depth pro files from boulders from moraine deposits: insights into glaciation chronology and transport dynamics in Malta valley, Austria. Radiat Meas.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reimann T, Tsukamoto S (2012) Dating the recent past (<500 years) by post-IR IRSL feldspar—examples from the North Sea and Baltic Sea coast. Quat Geochronol 10:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reimann T, Tsukamoto S, Naumann M et al (2011) The potential of using K-rich feldspars for optical dating of young coastal sediments—a test case from Darss-Zingst peninsula (southern Baltic Sea coast). Quat Geochronol 6:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reimann T, Notenboom PD, De Schipper MA et al (2015) Testing for sufficient signal resetting during sediment transport using a polymineral multiple-signal luminescence approach. Quat Geochronol 25:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rittenour TM (2008) Luminescence dating of fluvial deposits: applications to geomorphic, palaeoseismic and archaeological research. Boreas 37(4):613–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roberts HM (2012) Testing post-IR IRSL protocols for minimising fading in feldspars, using Alaskan loess with independent chronological control. Radiat Meas 47:716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodnight H (2006) How many equivalent dose values are needed to obtain a reproducible distribution? Ancient TL 26:3–8Google Scholar
  61. Rodnight H, Duller GAT, Wintle AG et al (2006) Assessing the reproducibility and accuracy of optical dating of fluvial deposits. Quat Geochronol 1:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanderson DCW, Bishop P, Stark M et al (2007) Luminescence dating of canal sediments from Angkor Borei, Mekong Delta, Southern Cambodia. Quat Geochronol 2:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shen Z, Mauz B (2012) Optical dating of young deltaic deposits on a decadal time scale. Quat Geochronol 10:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shen Z, Törnqvist TE, Autin WJ et al (2012) Rapid and widespread response of the Lower Mississippi River to eustatic forcing during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. GSA Bull 124(5–6):690–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shen Z, Törnqvist TE, Mauz B et al (2015) Episodic overbank deposition as a dominant mechanism of floodplain and delta-plain aggradation. Geology 43(10):875–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smedley RK (2015) A new R function for the Internal External Uncertainty (IEU) model. Ancient TL 33:16–21Google Scholar
  67. Smedley RK, Pearce NJG (2016) Internal U and Th concentrations of K-feldspar grains: implications for luminescence dating. Quat Geochronol 35:16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smedley RK, Duller GAT, Pearce NJG et al (2012) Determining the K-content of single grains of K-feldspar for luminescence dating. Radiat Meas 47:790–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smedley RK, Duller GAT, Roberts HM (2015) Assessing the bleaching potential of the post-IR IRSL signal for individual K-feldspar grains: implications for single-grain dating. Radiat Meas 79:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smedley RK, Glasser NF, Duller GAT (2016) Luminescence dating of glacial advances at Lago Buenos Aires (~46°S), Patagonia. Quatern Sci Rev 134:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smedley RK, Chiverrell RC, Burke MJ et al (2017a) Internal dynamics condition millennial-scale oscillations of a retreating ice stream margin. Geology 45:787–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smedley RK, Scourse J, Small D et al (2017b) New ages constraints for the southern limit of the British-Irish ice sheet on the Isles of Scilly. J Quat Sci 32:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sohbati R, Murray AS, Jain M et al (2011) Investigating the resetting of OSL signals in rock surfaces. Geochronometria 38:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sohbati R, Murray AS, Chapot MS et al (2012) Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) as a chronometer for surface exposure dating. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 117(B9).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012jb009383
  75. Sohbati R, Liu J, Jain M et al (2018) Centennial-to millennial-scale hard rock erosion rates deduced from luminescence-depth profiles. Earth Planet Sci Lett 493:218–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokes S, Bray HE, Blum MD (2001) Optical resetting in large drainage basins: tests of zeroing assumptions using single-aliquot procedures. Quatern Sci Rev 20(5–9):879–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thiel C, Buylaert JP, Murray A et al (2011) Luminescence dating of the Stratzing loess profile (Austria)—testing the potential of an elevated temperature post-IR IRSL protocol. Quatern Int 234:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thomas DSG, Durcan JA, Dansie A et al (2017) Holocene fluvial valley fill sources of atmospheric mineral dust in the Skeleton Coast, Namibia. Earth Surf Proc Land 42:1884–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thompson JA, Chen J, Yang H et al (2018) Coarse-versus fine-grain quartz OSL and cosmogenic 10Be dating of deformed fluvial terraces on the northeast Pamir margin, northwest China. Quat Geochronol 46:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thomsen KJ, Murray AS, Bøtter-Jensen L (2005) Sources of variability in OSL dose measurements using single grains of quartz. Radiat Meas 39:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thomsen KJ, Murray AS, Bøtter-Jensen L et al (2007) Determination of burial dose in incompletely bleached fluvial samples using single grains of quartz. Radiat Meas 42:370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomsen KJ, Murray AS, Jain M et al (2008) Laboratory fading rates of various luminescence signals from feldspar-rich sediment extracts. Radiat Meas 43:1474–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thomsen KJ, Kook TM, Murray AS et al (2015) Single-grain results from an EMCCD-based imaging system. Radiat Meas 81:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trauerstein M, Lowick S, Presser F et al (2012) Exploring fading in singlegrain feldspar IRSL measurements. Quat Geochronol 10:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Trauerstein M, Lowick S, Preusser F et al (2017) Testing the suitability of dim sedimentary quartz from northern Switzerland for OSL burial dose estimation. Geochronometria 44:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Truelsen JL, Wallinga J (2003) Zeroing of the OSL signal as a function of grain size: investigating bleaching and thermal transfer for a young fluvial sample. Geochronometria 22(1):e8Google Scholar
  87. Vafiadou A, Murray AS, Liritzis I (2007) Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating investigations of rock and underlying soil from three case studies. J Archaeol Sci 34(10):1659–1669.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wintle AG (1973) Anomalous fading of thermoluminescence in mineral samples. Nature 245:143–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and PlanningUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations