Trace element partitioning between plagioclase and melt: An investigation of the impact of experimental and analytical procedures

Quantitative models of petrologic processes require accurate partition coefficients. Our ability to obtain accurate partition coefficients is constrained by their dependence on pressure temperature and composition, and on the experimental and analytical techniques we apply. The source and magnitude of error in experimental studies of trace element partitioning may go unrecognized if one examines only the processed published data. The most important sources of error are relict crystals, and analyses of more than one phase in the analytical volume. Because we have typically published averaged data, identification of compromised data is difficult if not impossible. We addressed this problem by examining unprocessed data from plagioclase/melt partitioning experiments, by comparing models based on that data with existing partitioning models, and evaluated the degree to which the partitioning models are dependent on the calibration data. We found that partitioning models are dependent on the calibration data in ways that result in erroneous model values, and that the error will be systematic and dependent on the value of the partition coefficient. In effect, use of different calibration datasets will result in partitioning models whose results are systematically biased, and that one can arrive at different and conflicting conclusions depending on how a model is calibrated, defeating the purpose of applying the models. Ultimately this is an experimental data problem, which can be solved if we publish individual analyses (not averages) or use a projection method wherein we use an independent compositional constraint to identify and estimate the uncontaminated composition of each phase.