4.7 Article

Spectroscopic analysis of microdiamonds in ophiolitic chromitite and peridotite

期刊

LITHOSPHERE
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 133-141

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/L603.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microdiamonds similar to 200 mu m in size, occurring in ophiolitic chromitites and peridotites, have been reported in recent years. Owing to their unusual geological formation, there are several debates about their origin. We studied 30 microdiamonds from 3 sources: (1) chromitite ore in Luobusa, Tibet; (2) peridotite in Luobusa, Tibet; and (3) chromitite ore in Ray-Iz, polar Ural Mountains, Russia. They are translucent, yellow to greenish-yellow diamonds with a cubo-octahedral polycrystalline or single crystal with partial cubo-octahedral form. Infrared (IR) spectra revealed that these diamonds are type Ib (i.e., diamonds containing neutrally charged single substitutional nitrogen atoms, N-s(0), known as the C center) with unknown broad bands observed in the one-phonon region. They contain fluid inclusions, such as water, carbonates, silicates, hydrocarbons, and solid CO2. We also identified additional microinclusions, such as chromite, magnetite, feldspar (albite), moissanite, hematite, and magnesiochromite, using a Raman microscope. Photoluminescence (PL) spectra measured at liquid nitrogen temperature suggest that these diamonds contain nitrogen-vacancy, nickel, and H2 center defects. We compare them with high-pressure-high-temperature (HPHT) synthetic industrial diamond grits. Although there are similarities between microdiamonds and HPHT synthetic diamonds, major differences in the IR, Raman, and PL spectra confirm that these microdiamonds are of natural origin. Spectral characteristics suggest that their geological formation is different but unique compared to that of natural gem-quality diamonds. Although these microdiamonds are not commercially important, they are geologically important in that they provide an understanding of a new diamond genesis.

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