Article

Discriminant diagrams for iron oxide trace element fingerprinting of mineral deposit types

Mineralium Deposita (Impact Factor: 2.67). 04/2011; 46(4):319-335. DOI: 10.1007/s00126-011-0334-y

ABSTRACT Magnetite and hematite are common minerals in a range of mineral deposit types. These minerals form partial to complete solid
solutions with magnetite, chromite, and spinel series, and ulvospinel as a result of divalent, trivalent, and tetravalent
cation substitutions. Electron microprobe analyses of minor and trace elements in magnetite and hematite from a range of mineral
deposit types (iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG), Kiruna apatite–magnetite, banded iron formation (BIF), porphyry Cu, Fe-Cu skarn,
Fe-Ti, V, Cr, Ni-Cu-PGE, Cu-Zn-Pb volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) and Archean Au-Cu porphyry and Opemiska Cu veins) show
compositional differences that can be related to deposit types, and are used to construct discriminant diagrams that separate
different styles of mineralization. The Ni + Cr vs. Si + Mg diagram can be used to isolate Ni-Cu-PGE, and Cr deposits from
other deposit types. Similarly, the Al/(Zn + Ca) vs. Cu/(Si + Ca) diagram can be used to separate Cu-Zn-Pb VMS deposits from
other deposit types. Samples plotting outside the Ni-Cu-PGE and Cu-Zn-Pb VMS fields are discriminated using the Ni/(Cr + Mn)
vs. Ti + V or Ca + Al + Mn vs. Ti + V diagrams that discriminate for IOCG, Kiruna, porphyry Cu, BIF, skarn, Fe-Ti, and V deposits.

KeywordsMagnetite–Hematite–Mineral deposit–Electron microprobe–Mineral chemistry–Discriminant diagram

0 Bookmarks
 · 
307 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Magnetite is a common mineral found in a wide range of mineral deposits and in different geological environments. The study of surface textures and morphology of magnetite can provide information that is useful to 1) discriminate different types of magnetite such as that attributed to magmatic, metamorphic and supergene environments, 2) identify host bedrocks, 3) sediment provenance, and 4) recognize chemical and mechanical processes affecting grains during erosion, transport, and after deposition in sedimentary environments. In this study, magnetite grains from the Izok Lake volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit (Nunavut, Canada) and from till covering the area have been investigated using scanning electron microscopy, mineral liberation analysis, and optical microscopy to document their mineral associations, surface textures, grain shape and size distribution. Evidences such as 1) contact relations between magnetite and sphalerite, 2) sphalerite and chalcopyrite inclusions in magnetite, and 3) intergrowths of magnetite with actinolite and gahnite suggest that in Izok Lake deposit and related gahnite-rich stringer zone, magnetite formed by replacement of sulfide minerals during regional, upper greenschist to amphibolite facies metamorphism. Magnetite from iron formation also formed as a result of oxidation-dissolution of almandine, or breakdown of Fe-bearing minerals during metamorphism. Euhedral, fine-grained magmatic magnetite in association with ilmenite, plagioclase and hornblende was identified in bedrock gabbro. Magnetite overgrowths on the surface of existing magnetite and other metamorphic minerals fingerprinted the supergene processes affecting bedrocks and sediments after metamorphism.
    Journal of Geochemical Exploration 12/2014; · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (LA–ICP–MS) was used to determine the trace element concentrations of magnetite from the Heifengshan, Shuangfengshan, and Shaquanzi Fe(–Cu) deposits in the Eastern Tianshan Orogenic Belt. The magnetite from these deposits typically contains detectable Mg, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Zn and Ga. The trace element contents in magnetite generally vary less than one order of magnitude. The subtle variations of trace element concentrations within a magnetite grain and between the magnetite grains in the same sample probably indicate local inhomogeneity of ore–forming fluids. The variations of Co in magnetite between samples are probably due to the mineral proportion of magnetite and pyrite. Factor analysis has discriminated three types of magnetite: Ni–Mn-V–Ti (Factor 1), Mg–Ai–Zn (Factor 2), and Ga–Co (Factor 3) magnetite. Magnetite from the Heifengshan and Shuangfengshan Fe deposits has similar normalized trace element spider patterns and cannot be discriminated according to these factors. However, magnetite from the Shaquanzi Fe–Cu deposit has affinity to Factor 2 with lower Mg and Al but higher Zn concentrations, indicating that the ore–forming fluids responsible for the Fe–Cu deposit are different from those for Fe deposits. Chemical composition of magnetite indicates that magnetite from these Fe(–Cu) deposits was formed by hydrothermal processes rather than magmatic differentiation. The formation of these Fe(–Cu) deposits may be related to felsic magmatism.
    Acta Geologica Sinica 02/2014; 88(1). · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 07/2014; · 2.83 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
284 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014