Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Component Resolved Equivalent Dose Estimation Using TL Glow Curves of Travertine Samples from Anatolia, Turkey Cover

Component Resolved Equivalent Dose Estimation Using TL Glow Curves of Travertine Samples from Anatolia, Turkey

Open Access
|Dec 2021

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Content of main elements. The detection limit for the (%) concentration is 0.01%. BDL=Below Detection Limits.

A/ASample CodesCa content (%)C content (%)O2 content (%)K content (%)Na content (%)Fe content (%)Mg content (%)Mn content (%)Si content (%)Al content (%)Ti content (%)Cl content (%)
1SB140.1537.4420.53BDL0.050.510.260.030.130.760.09BDL
2SB237.4138.8421.23BDL0.070.410.18BDL0.320.710.710.06
3SB339.0538.1520.28BDLBDL0.610.770.070.210.330.510.03
4SB438.7937.0522.07BDL0.030.530.580.080.140.190.480.05
Fig. 1

Representative natural OSL and thermally assisted OSL (TA – OSL) signals corresponding to the CaCO3 sample with code SB3. These signals are not useful for dating applications.

Fig. 2

Typical results of the MAAD plateau method applied for sample SB1. Plot (a) presents a NTL glow curve (as an average of three independently measured glow curves), plot (b) presents the representative Si curves for a selection of additive doses according to equation (2) while plot (c) presents an ED plateau versus glow curve temperature according to equation (1). Error bars correspond to 1σ.

Table 2

Data related to the ED estimation for all four samples.

A/ASample CodesPlateau ΔT (°C)Plateau ED (Gy)P4 ED (Gy)P5 ED (Gy)P6 ED (Gy)
1SB1270–3701258 ± 1551578 ± 1711312 ± 1371422 ± 158
2SB2280–3851458 ± 1661682 ± 1491489 ± 1551358 ± 185
3SB3260–3801077 ± 911236 ± 1331113 ± 1071193 ± 128
4SB4270–380781 ± 70932 ± 98812 ± 86850 ± 88
Fig. 3

Representative deconvolution analysis of a TL glow curve corresponding to the sample SB1, after a dose of 450 Gy (open data points). Six different TL glow peaks and a black body radiation curve (BGK) were used in order to fit the experimental glow curve. Each TL glow peak is presented in solid line and is denoted as Pi. Orange solid line indicates the fitting curve. Table 2 indicates the activation energies of the TL peaks.

Table 3

Deconvolution results for fitting parameters of all four samples.

A/ASample CodesP4 Tmax (°C)P4 RP4 E (eV)P5 Tmax (°C)P5 RP5 E (eV)P6 Tmax (°C)P6 RP6 E (eV)
1SB1328 ± 40.061.34 ± 0.12399 ± 110.091.59 ± 0.18453 ± 220.011.81 ± 0.21
2SB2326 ± 50.041.37 ± 0.11402 ± 100.051.63 ± 0.17457 ± 210.011.86 ± 0.19
3SB3328 ± 30.091.34 ± 0.13404 ± 130.071.64 ± 0.16463 ± 220.021.88 ± 0.24
4SB4327 ± 50.051.41 ± 0.12402 ± 130.051.61 ± 0.17459 ± 240.011.79 ± 0.20
Fig. 4

Representative additive dose growth curve in terms of the integrated intensity of TL glow peak P4 after deconvolution, for the sample with code SB1. The arrow indicates the ED value.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/geochr-2015-0116 | Journal eISSN: 1897-1695 | Journal ISSN: 1733-8387
Language: English
Page range: 171 - 178
Submitted on: Jan 19, 2019
Accepted on: Jul 12, 2019
Published on: Dec 31, 2021
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2021 Eren Şahiner, George S. Polymeris, M. Zeynel Öztürk, Y. Kağan Kadioğlu, Niyazi Meriç, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.