4.5 Article

Experimental constraints on mantle sulfide melting up to 8 GPa

Journal

AMERICAN MINERALOGIST
Volume 101, Issue 1-2, Pages 181-192

Publisher

MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2138/am-2016-5308

Keywords

Sulfide; mantle; solidus; melting; experimental constraint; calibration

Funding

  1. NSF [EAR1119295, EAR1426772]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences [1426772] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present high-pressure experiments up to 8 GPa that constrain the solidus and liquidus of a composition, Fe0.69Ni0.23Cu0.01S1.00, typical of upper mantle sulfide. Solidus and liquidus brackets of this monosulfide are parameterized according to a relation similar to the Simon-Glatzel equation, yielding, respectively, T ( degrees C) = 1015.1 [P(GPa)/1.88 + 1](0.206) and T (degrees C) s = 1067.3 [P(GPa)/1.19 + 1](0.149) (1 <= p <= 8). The solidus fit is accurate within 15 C over the pressure intervals 1-3.5 GPa and within 30 degrees C over the pressure intervals 3.5-8.0 GPa. The solidus of the material examined is cooler than the geotherm for convecting mantle, but hotter than typical continental geotherms, suggesting that sulfide is molten or partially molten through much of the convecting upper mantle, but potentially solid in the continental mantle. However, the material examined is one of the more refractory among the spectrum of natural mantle sulfide compositions. This, together with the solidus -lowering effects of 0 and C not constrained by the present experiments, indicates that the experimentally derived melting curves are upper bounds on sulfide melting in the Earth's upper mantle and that the regions where sulfide is molten are likely extensive in both the convecting upper mantle and, potentially, the deeper parts of the oceanic and continental lithosphere, including common source regions of many diamonds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available