Plus the have already been performed. Table 1 lists previous studies using IAA and also the respective experirespective experimental and methodological setup, such as chosen size fractions, XRD mental and methodological setup, including chosen size fractions, XRD situations (variety situations (form of equipment, aluminum holder/DMPO Chemical capillary tube, detector variety, and so forth.), illite of gear, aluminum holder/capillary tube, detector type, and so forth.), illite polytype quantipolytype quantification strategy, and dating process for each study outcome. fication process, and dating process forsize was separated into three to 4 particle size fracIn most studies, 2 particle every study outcome. In most studies, 2 mstudies, 2 fraction was into three to 4 particle size fractions tions [3,57], but in some particle size was separated also separated . The par[3,57], but in some studies, 2 mslightly distinct depending .study (Table 1). ticle size variety for each fraction is fraction was also separated around the The particle size variety for every fraction employed in most research will be the standard powder diffractometry, The XRD gear is slightly distinctive depending on the analysis (Table 1). The XRD equipment made use of in most research is definitely the traditional 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 studies 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 applied capillary tubes as sample holders to reduce the some studies employed impact of tubes as sample holders to decrease the preferred orientation is 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 variations amongst refactor in determining the reliability of IAA final results, is the most significant issue in determining in the experimental set-ups of but there MRTX-1719 Purity & Documentation areanalysis. Hence, researchers inside the searchers the reliability of IAA final results, quantitative variations among each experimental experimental set-ups of quantitative evaluation. For that reason, every single experimental set-upmethods set-up applied inside the IAA approach are going to be discussed in much more detail beneath. Many applied in thebeen proposedwillfar, and most are based on simulated XRD patterns generatedbeen have IAA procedure so be discussed in a lot more detail under. Various procedures have with proposed so far, and most are primarily based onK-Ar and Ar-Ar methods had been utilized as radiometric WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Each simulated XRD patterns generated with WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Each K-Ar and Ar-Ar approaches were utilised as radiometric dadating procedures (Table 1). ting solutions (Table 1).Minerals 2021, 11,four ofTable 1. Summary of fault dating researches employing IAA for final 20 years, in which fault names, selected size fractions, kind of XRD gear and holder, illite polytype quantification method, and raiometric dating technique to every single study result. No. 1 two 3 four 5 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.