4.6 Article

Empirical garnet-muscovite geothermometry in metapelites

期刊

LITHOS
卷 62, 期 1-2, 页码 1-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0024-4937(02)00096-8

关键词

garnet-muscovite thermometry; ferric iron; calibration; random error

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two empirical garnet-muscovite geothermometers, assuming no ferric iron (Model A) and 50% ferric iron (Model B) in muscovite, respectively, were calibrated under the physical conditions of P = 3.0-14.0 kbar and T = 530-700degreesC. The input temperatures and pressures were determined by simultaneously applying the garnet-biotite thermometer [Am. Mineral. 85 (2000) 881.] and the GASP geobarometer [Am. Mineral. 86 (2001) 1117] to natural metapelites. To confirm internal thermodynamic consistency, Holdaway's [Am. Mineral. 85 (2000) 881.] garnet mixing properties were adopted. Muscovite was treated as a symmetric Fe-Mg-Al-VI ternary solid solution, and its Margules parameters were derived in this work. The resulting two formulae reproduced the input garnet-biotite temperatures well within +/-50degreesC, and gave identical results for a great body of natural samples. Moreover, they successfully distinguished the systematic changes of temperatures of different grade rocks from a prograde sequence, inverted metamorphic zone, and thermal contact aureole. Pressure estimation has almost no effect on the two formalisms of the garnet-muscovite geothermometer. Assuming analytical error of +/-5% for the relevant components of both garnet and muscovite, the total random uncertainty of the two formulations will generally be within +/-5degreesC. The two thermometers derived in this work may be used as practical tools to metamorphic pelites under the conditions of 480 to 700degreesC, low- to high-pressure, in the composition ranges Xalm = 0.51-0.82, Xpyr = 0.04-0.22, and Xgros = 0.03-0.24 in garnet, and Fe-tot = 0.03 -0.17, and Mg = 0.04-0.14 atoms p.f.u. in muscovite. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.6
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