3.9 Review

Geochemistry of late quaternary sediments from Tecocomulco lake, central Mexico: Implication to chemical weathering and provenance

期刊

CHEMIE DER ERDE-GEOCHEMISTRY
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 383-393

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemer.2008.04.001

关键词

Chemical weathering; Provenance; Geochemistry; Tecocomulco lake; Mexico

资金

  1. PRO-MEP-SEP [PROMEP/103.5/05/1919]
  2. POS4 (Instituto de Geofisica, UNAM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the first detailed multi-element geochemical data from the late Quaternary sediments of the Tecocomulco lake basin (central Mexico) and rocks exposed in the basin catchments to understand the extents of chemical weathering and provenance of the siliciclastic fractions. Ternary diagrams of A-CN-K, A-C-N and A-CNK-FM and elemental ratios suggest that most of the lacustrine sediments were derived from mafic volcanic deposits comprising the Chichicuatla and the Apan-Penon andesites and the Apan-Tezontepec basaltic-andesites. The felsic tephra layers have chemical compositions comparable to the Acoculco volcanic sequences. The calculated indices of chemical weathering such as chemical index of alteration (CIA), plagioclase index of alteration (PIA) and chemical index of weathering (CIW) indicate low to extreme chemical weathering for the lacustrine sediments and low chemical weathering for tephra layers. The varying degree or chemical weathering in lacustrine sediments is related to the fluctuating average annual precipitation during the late Quaternary. However, the low weathering of tephra layers are due to their higher rate of deposition. The dacite-rhyolitic tephra layers of ca. 31,000 C-14 yr BP are relatively more weathered compared to the unweathered rhyolitic tephra of ca. 50,000 C-14 yr BP. This Could be due to the rapid deposition of ca. 200 cm of tephra layers during the ca. 50,000 C-14 yr BP volcanic eruption that might have prevented the interaction between tephra layers and weathering agents. (C) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. 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

3.9
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