June 2020, Volume 38 No.1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSN 0735-1348 Department of Physics, East Carolina University, 1000 East 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27858, USA http://ancienttl.org June 2020, Volume 38 No.1 Dose-Rate Estimation using α-Al2O3:C Chips: Aftermath 1 Sebastian Kreutzer, Chantal Tribolo, Loïc Martin and Norbert Mercier Radiofluorescence of quartz from rocks and sediments and its correlation 11 with thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence sensitivities Pontien Niyonzima, André O.Sawakuchi, Mayank Jain, Raju Kumar, Thays D. Mineli, Ian del Río and Fabiano Pupim eM-Age (excel Macro for Age calculation), a new application for 21 luminescence age calculation based on Dose Rate and Age Calculator (DRAC) and Analyst Carlos Pérez-Garrido Thesis abstracts 25 Bibliography 31 Announcements 44 Ancient TL Started by the late David Zimmerman in 1977 EDITOR Regina DeWitt, Department of Physics, East Carolina University, Howell Science Complex, 1000 E. 5th Street Greenville, NC 27858, USA; Tel: +252-328-4980; Fax: +252-328-0753 ([email protected]) EDITORIAL BOARD Ian K. Bailiff, Luminescence Dating Laboratory, Univ. of Durham, Durham, UK ([email protected]) Geoff A.T. Duller, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, Wales, UK ([email protected]) Sheng-Hua Li, Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China ([email protected]) Shannon Mahan, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO, USA ([email protected]) Richard G. Roberts, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia ([email protected]) REVIEWERS PANEL Richard M. Bailey Andrew S. Murray Oxford, UK Roskilde, Denmark [email protected] [email protected] James Feathers Vasilis Pagonis Seattle, WA, USA Westminster, MD, USA [email protected] [email protected] Rainer Grün Naomi Porat Canberra, Australia Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] [email protected] David J. Huntley Daniel Richter Burnaby B.C., Canada Leipzig, Germany [email protected] [email protected] Sebastian Kreutzer David C.W. Sanderson Bordeaux, France East Kilbride, UK [email protected] [email protected] Michel Lamothe Andre Sawakuchi Montréal, Québec, Canada São Paulo, SP, Brazil [email protected] [email protected] Norbert Mercier Ashok K. Singhvi Bordeaux, France Ahmedabad, India [email protected] [email protected] Didier Miallier Kristina J. Thomsen Aubière, France Roskilde, Denmark [email protected] [email protected] Web coordinators: Joel DeWitt, Regina DeWitt Article layout and typesetting: Regina DeWitt, Sebastian Kreutzer Bibliography: Sebastien Huot Kreutzer et al., Ancient TL, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020 licensed under CC BY 4.0 Dose-Rate Estimation using a-Al2O3:C Chips: Aftermath Sebastian Kreutzer1,2 , Chantal Tribolo1 , Loïc Martin3,1 , Norbert Mercier1 1Geography & Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom 2IRAMAT-CRP2A, UMR 5060, CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Pessac, France 3Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, East Kilbride, United Kingdom Corresponding Author:[email protected] Received: April 23, 2020; in final form: May 25, 2020 Abstract 1. Introduction Two years ago, Kreutzer et al.(2018) published an arti- We present additional experiments for a- cle outlining techniques and workflow to determine the envi- Al2O3:C chips used to estimate in situ g-dose ronmental g-dose rate with passive a-Al2O3:C chips (Aksel- rates. Our contribution supplements the article rod et al., 1990a,b, 1993). The contribution included perfor- by Kreutzer et al. (2018) and presents results mance tests of the used lexsyg SMART (Richter et al., 2015) from previously announced follow-up experi- reader, newly developed software functions for the R (R ments. (1) We investigate the divergent g-dose Core Team, 2019) package ‘Luminescence’ (Kreutzer et al., rate results we obtained from cross-check ex- 2012), an application example at the archaeological site periments for one reference site. (2) We discuss Sierra de Atapuerca (e.g., Aguirre & Carbonell, 2001), and the origin of encountered large inter-aliquot a cross-check of the so estimated g-dose rates against four scatter using results from low-level background different references sites around Clermont-Ferrand (France) and calibration measurements. (3) We show (Miallier et al., 2009). While the performance of the pre- that the chip geometries vary considerably, sented system proved satisfactory, we identified two issues which may partly contribute to additional as potential subjects to further tests: inter-aliquot scatter, regardless of an overall good reproducibility of results. (4) We report 1. The cross-check against the reference site ‘PEP’ (a new source-calibration results after replacing granite block, cf. Miallier et al., 2009) yielded a g- the b-source housing of our measurement sys- dose rate ca 13% lower than expected. Kreutzer et al. tem, which resulted in an increase of the source (2018) argued that field evidence revealed a tube move- dose rate at the sample position by ca 37%. ment partly out of the granite block after storage, which GEANT4 simulations show that the increased may have caused the recorded lower g-dose rate (D˙ ). dose rate is likely caused by an unfortunate g fabrication tolerance of the shutter in front of 2. The observed relative standard deviation (three chips in the -source, which, in combination with the b each of the 21 dosimeter tubes) ranged from 1.1% to chip geometry, significantly contributes to the 15.1% for the application site Sierra de Atapuerca. The observed inter-aliquot scatter. (5) Finally, we resulting average value of 5.1% was much higher than introduce a newly developed shiny application the 0.2% scatter observed in reproducibility tests in the we use at the IRAMAT-CRP2A to analyse laboratory. a-Al2O3:C measurements. The application is open-source and freely available. In the best tradition of Ancient TL, our contribution com- piles a lab report with results addressing these two previously Keywords: Dosimetry, Al O :C, Lumines- 2 3 encountered issues. Additionally, we present observations cence made in the course of our b-source calibrations after ex- changing the source-module housing. The remainder briefly 1 Kreutzer et al., Ancient TL, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2020 Cross−check γ−dose rate | 2017 vs 2019 chyandesite). The three sites cover a wide range of an- nual D˙g values allowing to re-evaluate the performance of +10 % 1:1 the procedure by Kreutzer et al.(2018) from, LMP: (641 ± 3000 18) mGy a−1, over GOU: (1573 ± 17) mGy a−1, up to PEP: PEP PEP (2536 ± 110) mGy a−1 (Miallier et al., 2009). The dosime- −10 % ters were measured in February 2019, five days after their retrieval from the sites. In total, the environmental D˙g s were 2000 recorded over 313 days (LMP, GOU), and 315 days (PEP). −dose rate [µGy/a] −dose rate γ C347 GOU The combined results of our measurements from 2017 and 2019 are displayed in Fig.1. Our measurements from 2019 (red diamonds) exhibit D˙g -values within 10% of the C341 1000 expected D˙ . These findings seem to confirm the hypothesis LMP g LMP that the unexpected dose-rate offset measured for PEP was 500 2017 not random but likely related to a displacement of the sam- ple tube after initial storage in the rock. However, below, we Miallier et al., 2009: 2019 0 will discuss another possibility that will let appear this result 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 coincidentally. We will show that the geometry of the chips in combination with the irradiation geometry, may have led This study: γ−dose rate [µGy/a] to the discrepancy observed in 2017. Figure 1. Natural g-dose rates measured according to Kreutzer et al. Besides, the data exhibit that the expected natural D˙g - (2018) against values tabulated in Miallier et al.(2009) in 2017 values can be sufficiently recovered. Sample LMP gave (black circles) (Kreutzer et al., 2018, their Fig. 8) and newly mea- nearly identical results, with an overall recovery of 0.98 ± sured in 2019 (red diamonds). The solid black line indicates the 0.09 (2017) vs. 1.00 ± 0.09 (2019) (quoted are arithmetic 1:1 line, dashed lines the 10 % divergence from unity. For the mea- mean±standard deviation). In summary (data 2017 and sured chips we quoted the mean±standard deviation of the mean. 2019, excluding the outlier for PEP from 2017), a natural For the reference site values, uncertainties were taken from Miallier D˙ can be recovered within ca 7% from unity. et al.(2009). Please note that in Kreutzer et al.(2018) we mixed up g the labels for the sites LMP and C341. Here the labels are plotted correctly. 3. Cosmic-dose rate impact? The second experiment targeted the inter-aliquot disper- introduces an open-source shiny (Chang et al., 2019) appli- sion when chips are stored in a natural environment over a cation developed to analyse a-Al2O3:C measurements at the long period (> 1 day). Kreutzer et al.(2018) speculated that IRAMAT-CRP2A. cosmic-rays might explain the dispersion of the dose val- We will keep details on instrumentation, measurement ues due to the storage orientation of the chips in the site. protocol and analysis procedure to a minimum. For full Horizontal stacking of the chips in the tube usually exposes details, we refer to Kreutzer et al.(2018), which is avail- a smaller surface towards the cardinal point than vertically able as an open-access article. For all presented measure- stacked chips. Although cosmic-rays do not hit targets on lexsyg SMART ments, we employed the same (Richter et al., the ground only in a 90◦ angle, the chip orientation may in- 2015) luminescence reader we already used for the article deed play a role in the observed scatter.