4.0 Article

Geochemistry and petrology of the Buzios Island alkaline massif, SE, Brazil

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 127-145

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA GEOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/2317-4889201720160121

关键词

Igneous petrology; Alkaline rocks; Geochemistry

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (Fapesp) [13/18073-4, 2010/20425-8, 2006/01459-3, 2010/20476-1, 2012/06082-6]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [13/18073-4] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Late Cretaceous Buzios Island alkaline massif intrudes Precambrian charnockites and consists dominantly of syenitic rocks that are cut by a large number of dikes, mostly NE-trending, and representing two distinct suites, a felsic one and a mafic-ultramafic one. Alkali feldspar is the most abundant mineral; other constituents are clinopyroxene, commonly replaced by amphibole/biotite, and opaques. Accessory minerals include occasionally rare phases bearing Zr, Ti, Nb and Rare Earth Elements (REE). The felsic dikes may also have nepheline (sodalite). The mafic-ultramafic suite, in particular the lamprophyres, shows a primary mineral assemblage with olivine, clinopyroxene and amphibole in addition to a groundmass having glassy material and carbonates (ocelli). The Buzios rocks are chemically evolved, mostly of potassic affinity and mainly belong to the miaskitic series. Variation diagrams for major and trace elements show a bimodal distribution, suggesting an origin from different magmatic pulses. The rocks are interpreted as having been derived by fractional crystallization processes from a basanitic parental magma. The SiO2-undersaturated and SiO2-oversaturated associations present in the massif are apparently not linked to a single magmatic source, and in the petrogeny residual system two trends are evident: the first one towards the phonolitic minimum and the second one towards the rhyolitic minimum, possibly pointing to amphibole fractionation.

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

4.0
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