And the happen to be carried out. Table 1 lists prior research making use of IAA along with the respective experirespective experimental and methodological setup, like selected size fractions, XRD mental and methodological setup, such as chosen size fractions, XRD situations (form situations (kind of gear, aluminum holder/capillary tube, detector type, and so on.), illite of gear, aluminum holder/capillary tube, detector variety, and so on.), illite polytype quantipolytype quantification method, and dating technique for each study result. fication technique, and dating method forsize was separated into three to 4 particle size fracIn most research, two particle every single study result. In most studies, 2 mstudies, 2 fraction was into three to four particle size fractions tions [3,57], but in some particle size was separated also separated . The par[3,57], but in some research, 2 mslightly different depending .analysis (Table 1). ticle size range for each fraction is fraction was also separated on the The particle size variety for each fraction utilized in most studies could be the JPH203 Formula conventional powder diffractometry, The XRD gear is slightly unique depending on the investigation (Table 1). The XRD equipment made use of in most studies would be the conventional powder diffractometry, and it an aluand it seems to have been loaded by back/side-packing the powder sample in seems to have been loadedmeasured [3,52,17,18,21,25,279,31]. Contrary to this, some research minum holder and by back/side-packing the powder sample in an aluminum holder and measured [3,52,17,18,21,25,279,31]. Contrary to this, preferred orientationcapillary utilized capillary tubes as sample holders to lessen the some research utilised impact of tubes as sample holders to minimize the preferred orientation may be the most significant grains [136,19,20,224,26,30,32]. Illite polytype quantification impact of grains [1316,19,20,224,26,30,32]. Illite polytype quantificationbut you will discover differences among refactor in figuring out the reliability of IAA final results, will be the most significant issue in figuring out inside the experimental set-ups of but there areanalysis. As a result, researchers within the searchers the reliability of IAA final results, quantitative variations amongst each experimental experimental set-ups of quantitative analysis. As a result, every single experimental set-upmethods set-up applied in the IAA process will likely be discussed in far more detail beneath. Numerous applied in thebeen proposedwillfar, and most are determined by simulated XRD patterns generatedbeen have IAA procedure so be discussed in more detail under. Numerous strategies have with proposed so far, and most are primarily based onK-Ar and Ar-Ar strategies had been applied as radiometric WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Each simulated XRD patterns generated with WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Both K-Ar and Ar-Ar approaches were used as radiometric dadating approaches (Table 1). ting procedures (Table 1).2-Bromo-6-nitrophenol Technical Information Minerals 2021, 11,4 ofTable 1. Summary of fault dating researches employing IAA for final 20 years, in which fault names, chosen size fractions, type of XRD equipment and holder, illite polytype quantification process, and raiometric dating approach to each and every study result. No. 1 two 3 four five six 7 eight 9 ten 11 12 13 14 15 Fault Name Lewis thrust Moab Fault, Utah Faults in Canadian Rocky Mountains Anatolian Fault Sierra Mazatan detachment fault Fault of the Ruby Mountains San Andreas fault, Parkfield, Califonia Faults in AlpTransit deep tunnel web site West Qinling fault Pyrenean thrusts Deokpori Thrust Chugaryeong fault zone, Korea Daegwangri fault, Korea Inje fault, Kor.