4.7 Article

Distinguishing ultramafic- from basalt-hosted submarine hydrothermal systems by comparing calculated vent fluid compositions

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
Volume 105, Issue B4, Pages 8319-8340

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/1999JB900382

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Submarine hydrothermal vent fluid compositions may be controlled by peridotite-seawater or basalt-seawater reactions. Previous studies of slow-spreading ridges indicate that in addition to basalts, peridotites often play a prominent role in the construction of upper oceanic crust. Therefore the surface outcrop at a submarine hydrothermal vent field may not reveal the composition of the rock that hosts the reaction zone. We can, however, predict the compositional differences between ultramafic- and basalt-hosted vent fluids by using theoretical reaction path calculations. These calculations determine equilibrium fluid compositions and mineral assemblages, yielding synthetic hydrothermal vent fluid compositions that can be compared to analytical measurements. Synthetic vent fluid compositions created from basalt and seawater reactants at 350 degrees or 400 degrees C and 500 bars are in close agreement with analytical measurements of end-member vent fluids from mid-ocean ridges. Twenty simulations at a 1:1 water to rock ratio using basalt compositions spanning the range of geochemical variability observed amongst midocean ridge basalts yield vent fluid compositions with < 20% variation in major element concentrations. We also performed 15 ultramafic-seawater simulations using dunite, Iherzolite, and harzburgite compositions found in oceanic crust. All produced aqueous SiO2, K, and H-2 concentrations that are distinct from the basalt-seawater calculations. These differing concentrations can be used to attribute analytical measurements of vent fluid compositions to ultramafic or basaltic reaction zones.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available