4.5 Article

Factors controlling chemistry of magmatic spinel: An empirical study of associated olivine, Cr-spinel and melt inclusions from primitive rocks

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 655-671

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/petrology/42.4.655

关键词

mantle; melt inclusions; olivine; spinel; volcanic rocks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compositions of similar to 2500 spinel-olivine pairs and 400 melt inclusion-spinel pairs have been analysed from 36 igneous suites from oceanic, arc and intraplate tectonic settings. Our data confirm that Cr-spinel mg-number is largely controlled by melt composition, but also influenced by octahedral site substitutions, and rate of cooling. Lavas quenched in submarine environments tend to have higher mg-number at a given cr-number than slowly cooled subaerial lavas and peridotites. Unlike mg-number, Cr-spinel Al2O3 and TiO2 contents show good correlations with melt composition, with only limited post-entrapment modifications. Out data suggest that increased activity of Al2O3 decreases the partitioning of TiO2 into spinels. The Al2O3 content of Cr-spinel is a useful guide to the degree of partial melting of mantle peridotites; however, this same relationship is obscured in volcanic rocks. Al2O3 contents of volcanic Cr-spinels are mostly determined by melt composition rather than mantle source composition. The data also suggest that most spinels from residual mantle peridotites can be readily differentiated from those hosted in volcanic rocks. Mantle peridotite spinel tend to have lower TiO2 and higher Fe2+/Fe3+ ratios than spinel from volcanic rocks. The spinel compositions in our database can be subdivided on the basis of tectonic setting and mode of occurrence using an Al2O3 vs TiO2 diagram. A total of seven fields can be distinguished with varying degrees of overlap. This diagram can then be used to determine the tectonic setting of spinel from altered mafic igneous rocks such as serpentinites or meta-basalts, or detrital spinel in sandstones.

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