4.7 Article

Goethite (U-Th)/He geochronology and precipitation mechanisms during weathering of basalts

期刊

CHEMICAL GEOLOGY
卷 446, 期 -, 页码 18-32

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.03.033

关键词

Weathering geochronology; (U-Th)/He; Goethite; Parana Continental Flood Basalts; Landscape evolution

资金

  1. CAPES [4862-06-6]
  2. CNPq
  3. PETROBRAS/CENPES
  4. ANSTO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(U-Th)/He geochronology of 33 goethite grains from in situ ferruginous duricrusts overlying the Parana flood basalt in the Guarapuava region, Parana, Brazil, reveals ages ranging from 3.6 +/- 0.4 to 0.4 +/- 0.1 Ma. Thirty-one grains from detrital fragments of ferruginous duricrust yield ages in the 6.2 +/- 0.6 to 0.7 +/- 0.1 Ma range. The results show that goethites from detrital blocks are generally older than those from the in situ ferruginous layers and that all the goethites from the Guarapuava sites are relatively young (6.2 +/- 0.6 Ma). Goethites show variable U and Th contents depending on the mode of precipitation. Goethite that forms by progressive ferrugization and pseudomorphic replacement of basalts are rich in Th, U-poor, contain various mineral inclusions (e.g., kaolinite, rutile, ilmenite) and display a distinct checkered appearance. Colloform goethite precipitated within cavities and desiccation cracks contain higher U, show low Th/U values, and are free of mineral contaminants, suggesting direct precipitation from solution. The geochronological results reveal a dynamic evolution for the soils overlying the Parana basalt, where recurrent duricrust formation and dismantling lead to the evolution of regional colluvial soil profiles while simultaneously preventing the evolution of chemically stratified lateritic weathering profiles. The modes of formation and U, Th, and He contents of goethite at Guarapuava provide useful constraints on the expected compositions and modes of formation of goethite formed on basaltic soils on Mars. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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