Heavy mineral themselves are suitaable tools for stratigraphic correlation when properly processed and analyzed. Therefore this gives them the required strength for stratigraphic analysis. Gehrels et al 2011 used detrital zircon geochronology to stratigraphically charcaterize theGrand canyon sediments, try reading their contribution and othering along that line of ref., you might find some useful information that may guide you. So, as per my first statement, when preparing the mineral concentrate, the procedural approach for one, must apply to all, to avoid biases that may arise for different size fractions (hydraulic sorting effects, etc)...

I tha you for this useful messag. I would follow you comments

Dear Dr. Nguo,

zircon belongs to the ultra-stable HM. It survives metamorphic processes, reworking and diagenesis too. What you observe in your HM log is not the result of an intrabasinal process such as weathering or diageneses it is prevalently a mirror image of extrabasinal processes be it metamorphic, magmatic or hydrothermal which occurred in the provenance area at different times, syngenetically or epigenetically or in case of ultra-stable HM even earlier. You can only use zircon for stratigraphic correlation or the identification of certain Cenozoic or Cretaceous lithological units let´s say unit X and unit Y, respectively, as you know from elsewhere which source rock has fed unit X and Y. To use heavy minerals for stratigraphic purposes your minerals can belong to HM suite but they must be authigenic , e.g. , fluorite, baryte, siderite, celestite ……….all of which can be present as cement but even in this case you receive an age of cementation which may be close to the age of deposition or much younger. You can take a decision when you have made an environment analysis as to the physical-chemical conditions. If you, e.g., refer to a lithological series which formed under a strongly alkaline regime, a heavy mineral which developed under strongly alkaline conditions might also form under those conditions. In other words, the age relation of age of deposition ≤ age of diagenesis/cementation is very likely.

To sum it up. Before you start with zircon chronology you are forced to do a lot of sedimentary preparatory work which supplies you a very good overview of the basin. If you try an circumvent this sometimes time-consuming and painstaking work you can hardly avoid to obtain “magic numbers” during radiometric age dating but you will receive no age data during zircon chronology while all your sedimentary and mineralogical measures taken to concentrate and isolate HM were absolutely in vain.

HGD

I think these papers could help you;

Thanks Professor Dill for these important remarks

Thanks for these interesting papers