4.8 Article

Evidence for fractional crystallization of wadsleyite and ringwoodite from olivine melts in chondrules entrained in shock-melt veins

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0801518105

关键词

focused ion beam; transmission electron microscopy; shocked chondrite; high-pressure mineral

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peace River is one of the few shocked members of the L-chondrites clan that contains both high-pressure polymorphs of olivine, ringwoodite and wadsleyite, in diverse textures and settings in fragments entrained in shock-melt veins. Among these settings are complete olivine porphyritic chondrules. We encountered few squeezed and flattened olivine porphyritic chondrules entrained in shock-melt veins of this meteorite with novel textures and composition. The former chemically unzoned (Fa(24-26)) olivine porphyritic crystals are heavily flattened and display a concentric intergrowth with Mg-rich wadsleyite of a very narrow compositional range (Fa(6)-Fa(10)) in the core. Wadsleyite core is surrounded by a Mg-poor and chemically stark zoned ringwoodite (Fa(28)-Fa(38)) belt. The wadsleyite-ringwoodite interface denotes a compositional gap of up to 32 mol % fayalite. A transmission electron microscopy study of focused ion beam slices in both regions indicates that the wadsleyite core and ringwoodite belt consist of granoblastic-like intergrowth of polygonal crystallites of both ringwoodite and wadsleyite, with wadsleyite crystallites dominating in the core and ringwoodite crystallites dominating in the belt. Texture and compositions of both high-pressure polymorphs are strongly suggestive of formation by a fractional crystallization of the olivine melt of a narrow composition (Fa24-26), starting with Mg-rich wadsleyite followed by the Mg-poor ringwoodite from a shock-induced melt of olivine composition (Fa(24-26)). Our findings could erase the possibility of the resulting unrealistic time scales of the high-pressure regime reported recently from other shocked L-6, chondrites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据