Eclogite thermobarometry: The consistency between conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling

IF 3.5 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOLOGY Journal of Metamorphic Geology Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1111/jmg.12747
David Hernández-Uribe, Robert M. Holder, Juan D. Hernández-Montenegro
{"title":"Eclogite thermobarometry: The consistency between conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling","authors":"David Hernández-Uribe,&nbsp;Robert M. Holder,&nbsp;Juan D. Hernández-Montenegro","doi":"10.1111/jmg.12747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Eclogite thermobarometry is crucial for constraining the depths and temperatures to which oceanic and continental crust subduct. However, obtaining the pressure and temperature (<i>P–T</i>) conditions of eclogites is complex as they commonly display high-variance mineral assemblages, and the mineral compositions only vary slightly with <i>P–T</i>. In this contribution, we present a comparison between two independent and commonly used thermobarometric approaches for eclogites: conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling. We assess how consistent the thermobarometric calculations are using the garnet–clinopyroxene–phengite barometer and garnet–clinopyroxene thermometer with predictions from forward modelling (i.e. comparing the relative differences between approaches). Our results show that the overall mismatch in methods is typically ±0.2–0.3 GPa and ±29–42°C although differences as large as 80°C and 0.7 GPa are possible for a few narrow ranges of <i>P–T</i> conditions in the forward models. Such mismatch is interpreted as the relative differences among methods, and not as absolute uncertainties or accuracies for either method. For most of the investigated <i>P–T</i> conditions, the relatively minor differences between methods means that the choice in thermobarometric method itself is less important for geological interpretation than careful sample characterization and petrographic interpretation for deriving <i>P–T</i> from eclogites. Although thermobarometry is known to be sensitive to the assumed <i>X</i><sub>Fe</sub><sup>3+</sup> of a rock (or mineral), the <i>relative</i> differences between methods are not particularly sensitive to the choice of bulk-rock <i>X</i><sub>Fe</sub><sup>3+</sup>, except at high temperatures (>650°C, amphibole absent) and for very large differences in assumed <i>X</i><sub>Fe</sub><sup>3+</sup> (0–0.5). We find that the most important difference between approaches is the activity–composition (<i>a–x</i>) relations, as opposed to the end-member thermodynamic data or other aspects of experimental calibration. When equivalent <i>a–x</i> relations are used in the conventional barometer, <i>P</i> calculations are nearly identical to phase-equilibrium models (Δ<i>P</i> < 0.1). To further assess the implications of these results for real rocks, we also evaluate common mathematical optimizations of reaction constants used for obtaining the maximum <i>P–T</i> with conventional thermobarometric approaches (e.g. using the highest <i>a</i>Grs<sup>2</sup> × <i>a</i>Prp in garnet and Si content in phengite, and the lowest <i>a</i>Di in clinopyroxene). These approaches should be used with caution, because they may not represent the compositions of equilibrium mineral assemblages at eclogite facies conditions and therefore systematically bias <i>P–T</i> calculations. Assuming method accuracy, geological meaningful <i>P</i><sub>max</sub> at a typical eclogite facies temperature of ~660°C will be obtained by using the greatest <i>a</i>Di, <i>a</i>Cel, and <i>a</i>Prp and lowest <i>a</i>Grs and <i>a</i>Ms; garnet and clinopyroxene with the lowest Fe<sup>2+</sup>/Mg ratios may yield geological meaningful <i>T</i><sub>max</sub> at a typical eclogite facies pressure of 2.5 GPa.</p>","PeriodicalId":16472,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Metamorphic Geology","volume":"42 1","pages":"89-108"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jmg.12747","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Metamorphic Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmg.12747","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Eclogite thermobarometry is crucial for constraining the depths and temperatures to which oceanic and continental crust subduct. However, obtaining the pressure and temperature (P–T) conditions of eclogites is complex as they commonly display high-variance mineral assemblages, and the mineral compositions only vary slightly with P–T. In this contribution, we present a comparison between two independent and commonly used thermobarometric approaches for eclogites: conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling. We assess how consistent the thermobarometric calculations are using the garnet–clinopyroxene–phengite barometer and garnet–clinopyroxene thermometer with predictions from forward modelling (i.e. comparing the relative differences between approaches). Our results show that the overall mismatch in methods is typically ±0.2–0.3 GPa and ±29–42°C although differences as large as 80°C and 0.7 GPa are possible for a few narrow ranges of P–T conditions in the forward models. Such mismatch is interpreted as the relative differences among methods, and not as absolute uncertainties or accuracies for either method. For most of the investigated P–T conditions, the relatively minor differences between methods means that the choice in thermobarometric method itself is less important for geological interpretation than careful sample characterization and petrographic interpretation for deriving P–T from eclogites. Although thermobarometry is known to be sensitive to the assumed XFe3+ of a rock (or mineral), the relative differences between methods are not particularly sensitive to the choice of bulk-rock XFe3+, except at high temperatures (>650°C, amphibole absent) and for very large differences in assumed XFe3+ (0–0.5). We find that the most important difference between approaches is the activity–composition (a–x) relations, as opposed to the end-member thermodynamic data or other aspects of experimental calibration. When equivalent a–x relations are used in the conventional barometer, P calculations are nearly identical to phase-equilibrium models (ΔP < 0.1). To further assess the implications of these results for real rocks, we also evaluate common mathematical optimizations of reaction constants used for obtaining the maximum P–T with conventional thermobarometric approaches (e.g. using the highest aGrs2 × aPrp in garnet and Si content in phengite, and the lowest aDi in clinopyroxene). These approaches should be used with caution, because they may not represent the compositions of equilibrium mineral assemblages at eclogite facies conditions and therefore systematically bias P–T calculations. Assuming method accuracy, geological meaningful Pmax at a typical eclogite facies temperature of ~660°C will be obtained by using the greatest aDi, aCel, and aPrp and lowest aGrs and aMs; garnet and clinopyroxene with the lowest Fe2+/Mg ratios may yield geological meaningful Tmax at a typical eclogite facies pressure of 2.5 GPa.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃洛石测温:传统热压测量法与前向相平衡模型之间的一致性
埃洛格岩热压测量对于确定大洋和大陆地壳俯冲的深度和温度至关重要。然而,获得蚀变岩的压力和温度(P-T)条件非常复杂,因为蚀变岩通常显示高差异矿物组合,而矿物成分仅随 P-T 略有不同。在这篇论文中,我们比较了两种独立且常用的蚀变岩热压测量方法:传统热压测量法和前向相平衡建模法。我们评估了使用石榴石-黝帘石-辉石气压计和石榴石-黝帘石温度计进行的测温计算与前向建模预测的一致性(即比较两种方法之间的相对差异)。我们的研究结果表明,尽管在前向模型中的几个较窄的 P-T 条件范围内可能存在高达 80°C 和 0.7 GPa 的差异,但各种方法之间的总体不匹配程度通常为 ±0.2-0.3 GPa 和 ±29-42°C。这种不匹配被解释为不同方法之间的相对差异,而不是两种方法的绝对不确定性或精确度。对于所研究的大多数 P-T 条件而言,不同方法之间的差异相对较小,这意味着选择热压法本身对于地质解释的重要性不如仔细的样品特征描述和岩相学解释对于从斜长岩中推导 P-T 的重要性。虽然众所周知热压法对岩石(或矿物)的假定 XFe3+ 敏感,但除了在高温(650°C,闪石不存在)和假定 XFe3+ 相差很大(0-0.5)的情况下,不同方法之间的相对差异对块岩 XFe3+ 的选择并不特别敏感。我们发现,不同方法之间最重要的区别在于活度-成分(a-x)关系,而不是末端成员热力学数据或实验校准的其他方面。当在传统气压计中使用等效的 a-x 关系时,P 计算结果几乎与相平衡模型相同(ΔP < 0.1)。为了进一步评估这些结果对实际岩石的影响,我们还评估了用于获得最大 P-T 的常规热压法反应常数的常见数学优化(例如,在石榴石中使用最高的 aGrs2 × aPrp,在辉长岩中使用最高的 Si 含量,在霞石中使用最低的 aDi)。应谨慎使用这些方法,因为它们可能无法代表斜长岩岩相条件下的平衡矿物组合成分,因此会系统性地对 P-T 计算产生偏差。假定方法准确,在典型的夕闪岩面温度约为 660°C 时,使用最大的 aDi、aCel 和 aPrp 以及最低的 aGrs 和 aMs 将获得具有地质意义的 Pmax;在典型的夕闪岩面压力为 2.5 GPa 时,具有最低 Fe2+/Mg 比率的石榴石和霞石可能会产生具有地质意义的 Tmax。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal, which is published nine times a year, encompasses the entire range of metamorphic studies, from the scale of the individual crystal to that of lithospheric plates, including regional studies of metamorphic terranes, modelling of metamorphic processes, microstructural and deformation studies in relation to metamorphism, geochronology and geochemistry in metamorphic systems, the experimental study of metamorphic reactions, properties of metamorphic minerals and rocks and the economic aspects of metamorphic terranes.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Zircon Coupled Dissolution–Precipitation Replacement During Melt–Rock Interaction Modifies Chemical Signatures Resulting in Misleading Ages Pressure–Temperature–Time Evolution of a Polymetamorphic Paragneiss With Pseudomorphs After Jadeite From the HP–UHP Gneiss-Eclogite Unit of the Variscan Erzgebirge Crystalline Complex, Germany Issue Information Experimental Replacement of Zircon by Melt-Mediated Coupled Dissolution-Precipitation Causes Dispersion in U–Pb Ages
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1