4.5 Article

Ilmenite breakdown and rutile-titanite stability in metagranitoids: Natural observations and experimental results

期刊

AMERICAN MINERALOGIST
卷 102, 期 8, 页码 1696-1708

出版社

MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2138/am-2017-6064

关键词

Rutile; titanite; ilmenite; experimental petrology; metamorphic petrology; granite

资金

  1. A. von Humboldt foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rutile and titanite commonly form by replacement of ilmenite in metamorphic rocks. Exhumed orthogneiss from the Western Alps show that titanite is mostly stable below 1 GPa while rutile seems to dominate within rocks recrystallized under higher pressures. We herein investigate phase relationships for four granitic compositions with variable CaO content at medium to high-pressure conditions (0.7-1.6 GPa, 450-650 degrees C) with a focus on ilmenite breakdown and Ti-bearing species formation. Our piston-cylinder experiments show that, in the investigated P-T range, ilmenite reacts during metamorphism above 1.2-1.4 GPa to form rutile. Below this pressure, titanite is the dominant Ti-bearing species for most granitoid compositions. We also show that the position of this reaction curve is strongly influenced by the whole-rock Ca activity. For low-Ca activities, rutile may be stable down to 0.7 GPa ( and below) within ilmenite pseudomorphs while the titanite stability field may extend to pressures >1.3 GPa for Ca-richer compositions. Both species may be stable in one single sample depending on the local Ca activity gradients. The finding of metamorphic rutile within metagranitoids with CaO contents >2 wt% can be considered, under certain conditions, as a reliable indicator of high-pressure metamorphism. This study also highlights the importance of improving our knowledge of the phase relationships between rutile and titanite as a function of P-T-X to better interpret the textural and tectonic history in natural samples as well as the meaning of age values yielded by rutile and titanite geochronometers.

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

4.5
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