4.5 Article

Petrologic and geochemical investigation of carbonates in peridotite xenoliths from northeastern Tanzania

期刊

CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY
卷 139, 期 4, 页码 470-484

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s004100000144

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary carbonates in peridotite xenoliths from the East African Rift in northeastern Tanzania occur as intergranular patches with accessory minerals (olivine and spinel), as patches with accessory magmatic minerals (nepheline), and as round monomineralic inclusions in primary olivine grains. All are characterized by calcitic compositions (Ca/Ca + Mg + Fe from 0.83 to 0.99), extremely low SiO2 + Al2O3 + Na2O + K2O, low trace element abundance [total rare-earth element (REE) abundance <25 ppm], uniform extinction, and lack of reaction textures with the host xenolith. Calculated Fe-Mg exchange coefficients between carbonate and primary olivine indicate disequilibrium in most samples. Combined with the lack of significant reaction textures, this suggests that the carbonates were introduced shortly before or during eruption of the host magma. A global compilation of electron microprobe analyses of mantle-derived carbonates (in xenoliths, xenocrysts, and megacrysts) reveals compositional clusters near end member calcite, end member magnesite, and stoichiometric dolomite. Eutectic liquid compositions an less common, suggesting that many carbonate inclusions reported worldwide may be crystalline precipitates. Likewise, the calcites in this study are not interpreted to represent quenched carbonatitic melts, but are interpreted instead to be crystalline cumulates from such melts. These inferences art: consistent with recent experiments, which show that carbonatitic melts cannot become more calcitic than CaCO(3)similar to 80 wt%. Low trace element abundance may be a diagnostic feature of cumulate carbonate, and in combination with petrography and major element composition, serve to distinguish it from quenched carbonated liquid.

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