Testing Post-IR IRSL protocols for minimising fading in feldspars, using Alaskan loess with independent chronological control

Concern over anomalous fading has been the biggest single factor responsible for deterring the widespread use of the infra-red stimulated luminescence (IRSL) or thermoluminescence (TL) signal from feldspars for luminescence dating. There has therefore been great interest in the use of the recently proposed Post-IR IRSL signal, because it has been shown to significantly reduce the degree of anomalous fading observed in feldspars and therefore potentially provides a means of circumventing the issue. This study undertakes a systematic investigation into various preheat and Post-IR IRSL measurement conditions proposed in the literature, by using two samples from the Halfway House loess section in Alaska which bracket the Old Crow tephra which has been dated using fission track methods. Preheat plateau tests show a dramatic change in equivalent dose with Post-IR IRSL measurement conditions, and further tests reveal that these changes are driven by preheat temperature rather than Post-IR IR stimulation temperature. Dose recovery tests on laboratory-bleached material mimic the findings of the natural preheat plateau test data, and sensitivity change between the first and second Single Aliquot Regenerative dose (SAR) measurement cycle is found to be responsible. Comparison of the Post-IR IRSL ages with the independent age control shows that, for the samples in this study, the Post-IR IR signal stimulated at 290 °C is inappropriate for dating. However, use of lower preheat (250–300 °C) and Post-IR IR stimulation temperatures from 225 to 270 °C gave rise to ages which were in agreement with the independent age control.

► Systematic study of Post-IR IRSL measurement protocols, using independent age control.
► Preheat tests show dramatic increase in De with Post-IR IRSL measurement temperatures.
► Preheat, not Post-IR IR stimulation temperature, drives these De changes.
► The preheat 320 °C/Post-IR IR290 signal is not appropriate for dating these samples.
► Ages using preheat250–300/Post-IR IR225–270 signals agree with independent chronology.