Plus the have already been performed. Table 1 lists prior studies utilizing IAA and also the respective experirespective experimental and methodological setup, including chosen size fractions, XRD mental and methodological setup, including chosen size fractions, XRD conditions (form conditions (kind of equipment, aluminum holder/capillary tube, detector type, and so on.), illite of equipment, aluminum holder/capillary tube, detector variety, and so on.), illite polytype quantipolytype quantification approach, and dating method for each and every study result. fication technique, and dating approach forsize was separated into three to 4 particle size fracIn most studies, 2 particle every single study result. In most research, 2 mstudies, 2 fraction was into three to 4 particle size fractions tions [3,57], but in some particle size was separated also separated [282]. The par[3,57], but in some research, 2 mslightly diverse depending [282].study (Table 1). ticle size range for each and every fraction is fraction was also separated on the The particle size variety for every fraction applied in most research could be the conventional powder diffractometry, The XRD equipment is slightly distinct according to the investigation (Table 1). The XRD equipment utilized in most studies could be the traditional powder diffractometry, and it an aluand it seems to possess been loaded by back/side-packing the powder sample in seems to possess 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 employed capillary tubes as sample holders to decrease the some research utilised impact of tubes as sample holders to reduce the preferred orientation will be the most important 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 find differences among refactor in figuring out the reliability of IAA final results, may be the most significant factor in determining inside the experimental set-ups of but there areanalysis. As a result, researchers within the searchers the reliability of IAA benefits, quantitative differences amongst every single experimental experimental set-ups of quantitative evaluation. As a result, each and every experimental set-upmethods set-up applied within the IAA process is going to be discussed in more detail below. Many applied in thebeen proposedwillfar, and most are based on simulated XRD patterns generatedbeen have IAA method so be discussed in much more detail beneath. Quite a few strategies have with proposed so far, and most are primarily based onK-Ar and Ar-Ar strategies have been applied as radiometric WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Both simulated XRD patterns generated with WILDFIRE[3,53,257,302]. Each K-Ar and Ar-Ar methods have been made use of as radiometric dadating methods (Table 1). ting strategies (Table 1).Minerals 2021, 11,four ofTable 1. Summary of fault dating researches using IAA for final 20 years, in which fault names, selected size fractions, sort of XRD equipment and holder, illite polytype quantification process, and raiometric dating method to each and every study result. No. 1 2 3 4 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 your Ruby Mountains San Andreas fault, Parkfield, Califonia Faults in AlpTransit deep tunnel web site West Qinling fault Pyrenean thrusts Deokpori Thrust Olesoxime medchemexpress Chugaryeong fault zone, Korea 3-Chloro-5-hydroxybenzoic acid Autophagy Daegwangri fault, Korea Inje fault, Kor.