Description: The Argentine margin contains important sedimentological, paleontological and chemical records of regional and local tectonic evolution, sea level, climate evolution and ocean circulation since the opening of the South Atlantic in the Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous as well as the present-day results of post-depositional chemical and biological alteration. Despite its important location, which underlies the exchange of southern- and northern-sourced water masses, the Argentine margin has not been investigated in detail using scientific drilling techniques, perhaps because the margin has the reputation of being erosional. However, a number of papers published since 2009 have reported new high-resolution and/or multichannel seismic surveys, often combined with multi-beam bathymetric data, which show the common occurrence of layered sediments and prominent sediment drifts on the Argentine and adjacent Uruguayan margins. There has also been significant progress in studying the climatic records in surficial and near-surface sediments recovered in sediment cores from the Argentine margin. Encouraged by these recent results, our 3.5-day IODP (International Ocean Discovery Program) workshop in Buenos Aires (8–11 September 2015) focused on opportunities for scientific drilling on the Atlantic margin of Argentina, which lies beneath a key portion of the global ocean conveyor belt of thermohaline circulation. Significant opportunities exist to study the tectonic evolution, paleoceanography and stratigraphy, sedimentology, and biosphere and geochemistry of this margin.

Description: The Argentine margin contains important sedimentological, paleontological and chemical records of regional and local tectonic evolution, sea level, climate evolution and ocean circulation since the opening of the South Atlantic in the Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous as well as the present-day results of post-depositional chemical and biological alteration. Despite its important location, which underlies the exchange of southern- and northern-sourced water masses, the Argentine margin has not been investigated in detail using scientific drilling techniques, perhaps because the margin has the reputation of being erosional. However, a number of papers published since 2009 have reported new high-resolution and/or multichannel seismic surveys, often combined with multi-beam bathymetric data, which show the common occurrence of layered sediments and prominent sediment drifts on the Argentine and adjacent Uruguayan margins. There has also been significant progress in studying the climatic records in surficial and near-surface sediments recovered in sediment cores from the Argentine margin. Encouraged by these recent results, our 3.5-day IODP (International Ocean Discovery Program) workshop in Buenos Aires (8–11 September 2015) focused on opportunities for scientific drilling on the Atlantic margin of Argentina, which lies beneath a key portion of the global ocean conveyor belt of thermohaline circulation. Significant opportunities exist to study the tectonic evolution, paleoceanography and stratigraphy, sedimentology, and biosphere and geochemistry of this margin.

Description: © The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Dunlea, A. G., Murray, R. W., Tada, R., Alvarez-Zarikian, C. A., Anderson, C. H., Gilli, A., Giosan, L., Gorgas, T., Hennekam, R., Irino, T., Murayama, M., Peterson, L. C., Reichart, G., Seki, A., Zheng, H., & Ziegler, M. Intercomparison of XRF core scanning results from seven labs and approaches to practical calibration. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 21(9), (2020): e2020GC009248, doi:10.1029/2020GC009248.

Description: X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) scanning of marine sediment has the potential to yield near‐continuous and high‐resolution records of elemental abundances, which are often interpreted as proxies for paleoceanographic processes over different time scales. However, many other variables also affect scanning XRF measurements and convolute the quantitative calibrations of element abundances and comparisons of data from different labs. Extensive interlab comparisons of XRF scanning results and calibrations are essential to resolve ambiguities and to understand the best way to interpret the data produced. For this study, we sent a set of seven marine sediment sections (1.5 m each) to be scanned by seven XRF facilities around the world to compare the outcomes amidst a myriad of factors influencing the results. Results of raw element counts per second (cps) were different between labs, but element ratios were more comparable. Four of the labs also scanned a set of homogenized sediment pellets with compositions determined by inductively coupled plasma‐optical emission spectrometry (ICP‐OES) and ICP‐mass spectrometry (MS) to convert the raw XRF element cps to concentrations in two ways: a linear calibration and a log‐ratio calibration. Although both calibration curves are well fit, the results show that the log‐ratio calibrated data are significantly more comparable between labs than the linearly calibrated data. Smaller‐scale (higher‐resolution) features are often not reproducible between the different scans and should be interpreted with caution. Along with guidance on practical calibrations, our study recommends best practices to increase the quality of information that can be derived from scanning XRF to benefit the field of paleoceanography.

Description: Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation to R. W. M. (Grant 1130531). USSSP postcruise support was provided to Expedition 346 shipboard participants A. G. D., R. W. M., L. G., C. A. Z., and L. P. Portions of this material are based upon work supported while R. W. M. was serving at the National Science Foundation.

Description: Over the course of four years (2014 to 2017), the set of seven u-channels was shipped around the world to seven labs with XRF scanners including, in no particular order, the Kochi Core Center at Kochi University (Japan), IODP Core Repository at Texas A&M University (U.S.A.), Nanjing Normal University (China), Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami (U.S.A.), ETH Zurich (Switzerland), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (U.S.A.), and the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research (The Netherlands). We intentionally do not identify which lab generated which scans, as many of the variables (e.g., X-ray tube aging, detector aging, and/or dehydration of the core material) could affect any instrument at various times or be exacerbated during the transit between labs. Instead, we label the XRF scans #1-#7 in the order in which they were scanned. The labs used various types and different generations of XRF scanning instruments (4 Avaatech Core Scanners, 2 ITRAX Core Scanners, and 1 Geotek Core Scanning Logger) with different X-ray sources (Rhodium, Molybdenum). Three of the labs scanned the cores at two or three excitation energies (e.g., 10 kV, 30 kV, and 50 kV). Each lab reported a different suite of elements, but all included Ca, Fe, K, Mn, Si, Sr, Ti, and Zr. Six labs also reported Al, Br, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Rb, S, and Zn and five labs reported and Ba, Cl, Ga, Mo, V, and Y.

Description: Four discrete samples were freeze-dried and powdered and pressed into disc-shaped pellets about 2 cm in diameter from nearby Core MD01-2407 on the Oki Ridge (37°04'N, 134°42'E, 932m water depth). The four samples have a similar matrix to the seven sediment sections scanned in this study. The four samples from Core MD01-2407 covered a range of sediment types (calcareous, siliceous, light-, and dark-colored; Kido et al., 2007) that span the dynamic range of at least Fe and Ca element cps scanned for this study. A set of four pellets was sent to four of the seven labs (1 ITRAX and 3 Avaatech) involved in the study to be scanned using the same instrument parameters they used on the sediment sections. Three labs used the same instrument and parameters used for the sediment section, but the fourth lab replaced the X-ray tube in between scanning the pellets and sediment sections. The major and trace element concentrations of the pellets were also analyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP)-optical emission spectrometry (OES) and ICP-mass spectrometry (MS) in the Analytical Geochemistry Facilities at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. The ICP analyses had ~2% precision and a standard reference material analyzed as an unknown alongside the samples was accurate within precision.

Description: Seven different labs XRF scanned the same seven marine sediment sections. Additionally, four labs XRF scanned pellets that had known compositions determined by ICP-ES and ICP-MS. These datasets contain the XRF scanning results of the seven sediment section and four pellets. The seven 1.5 m core sections of marine sediment core used in this study were drilled during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 346 at Site U1424 in the Japan Basin (40°11.39'N, 138°13.90'E, 2808 m water depth) and Site U1425 on the Yamato Rise (39°29.43' N, 134°26.55' E, 1909 m water depth). The sections selected (Hole U1424C Sections 1H4, 2H5, 3H5 and Hole U1425C Sections 2H3, 2H4, and 2H6, and 3H6) cover a range of sediment compositions. U-channels extracted continuous marine sediment approximately 1 cm thick from the center of each split core section. One lab scanned sections from different holes at the same sites (U1424A, U1425B, and U1425D) that were stratigraphically aligned with the sections listed above. Over the course of four years (2014 to 2017), the set of seven u-channels was shipped around the world to seven labs with XRF scanners including, in no particular order, the Kochi Core Center at Kochi University (Japan), IODP Core Repository at Texas A&M University (U.S.A.), Nanjing Normal University (China), Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami (U.S.A.), ETH Zurich (Switzerland), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (U.S.A.), and the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research (The Netherlands). We intentionally do not identify which lab generated which scans, as many of the variables (e.g., X-ray tube aging, detector aging, and/or dehydration of the core material) could affect any instrument at various times or be exacerbated during the transit between labs. Instead, we label the XRF scans #1-#7 in the order in which they were scanned. The lead investigators overseeing the XRF scanning in these labs were shipboard participants on IODP Expedition 346 and are among the authors of this paper. The only instructions to each lab were "to XRF scan the seven sediment sections at 1mm or 2mm resolution using the approach and elements typical for paleoceanographic research performed in your lab." To emulate variations in the XRF results that have been previously published, these simple guidelines were intentionally broad and general to determine the degree of intercomparability between the labs amongst all the different settings and nuances of XRF scanning. The labs used various types and different generations of XRF scanning instruments (4 Avaatech Core Scanners, 2 ITRAX Core Scanners, and 1 Geotek Core Scanning Logger) with different X-ray sources (Rhodium, Molybdenum). Three of the labs scanned the cores at two or three excitation energies (e.g., 10 kV, 30 kV, and 50 kV). Each lab reported a different suite of elements, but all included Ca, Fe, K, Mn, Si, Sr, Ti, and Zr. Six labs also reported Al, Br, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Rb, S, and Zn and five labs reported and Ba, Cl, Ga, Mo, V, and Y. In addition to the seven core sediment sections, we freeze-dried and powdered four discrete samples that were pressed into disc-shaped pellets about 2 cm in diameter from nearby Core MD01-2407 on the Oki Ridge (37°04'N, 134°42'E, 932m water depth). The four samples have a similar matrix to the seven sediment sections scanned in this study. The four samples from Core MD01-2407 covered a range of sediment types (calcareous, siliceous, light-, and dark-colored; Kido et al., 2007) that span the dynamic range of at least Fe and Ca element cps scanned for this study. A set of four pellets was sent to four of the seven labs (1 ITRAX and 3 Avaatech) involved in the study to be scanned using the same instrument parameters they used on the sediment sections. Three labs used the same instrument and parameters used for the sediment section, but the fourth lab replaced the X-ray tube in between scanning the pellets and sediment sections. The major and trace element concentrations of the pellets were also analyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP)-optical emission spectrometry (OES) and ICP-mass spectrometry (MS) in the Analytical Geochemistry Facilities at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. The ICP analyses had ~2% precision and a standard reference material analyzed as an unknown alongside the samples was accurate within precision.