Comment on Frechen et al. “Late Pleistocene fluvial dynamics in the Hochrhein Valle and in the Upper Rhine Graben: chronological frame”

Terrace styles and timing of terrace formation in the Weser and Leine valleys, northern Germany: Response of a fluvial system to climate change and glaciation

“…Consequently, measuring small-sized aliquots by using the less-fading dependent, more stable and faster to bleach pulsed IR 50 signal, we believe that the effect of insufficient bleaching is kept small. Since we cannot entirely rule out the occurrence of insufficient bleaching, our depositional ages are interpreted as maximum ages (Rittenour, 2008;Frechen et al, , 2012Preusser et al, 2012). Moreover, if luminescence ages could only been derived from one single sample per outcrop, these ages have to be treated with caution, although we think that age uncertainties are not significant and will not change the overall interpretation of fluvial aggradation and terrace formation.…”

Performance of different luminescence approaches for the dating of known-age glaciofluvial deposits from northern Switzerland

“…The difference in the ages has been explained by partial bleaching (cf. Frechen et al, 2012;Preusser et al, 2012), which was deduced by Kock et al (2009) from the D e distributions, but was assumed not to be 'dramatic' by Frechen et al (2010). The major difference between the two studies is that Kock et al (2009) used small (2 mm) aliquots whereas Frechen et al (2010) utilised large aliquots (8 mm), where averaging effects do not allow the detection of partial bleaching.…”