2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2022.120965
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetite geochemistry and iron isotope signature of disseminated and massive mineralization in the Kalatongke magmatic Cu Ni sulfide deposit, northwest China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 99 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A large amount of light 54 Fe‐enriched sulfide (relative to magnetite) segregation in the immiscible sulfide melt could cause elevated δ 56 Fe values in co‐crystallized magnetite. The magnetite volume percent in disseminated ores is less than the magnetite content in massive ores, while the magnetite δ 56 Fe values are consistent in the disseminated ores (0.89–1.10‰, average = 1.01‰) with the values in massive ores (0.41–1.35‰, average = 0.94‰) (Tang et al., 2022). The main reason may be that Fe‐S coordination bond strength in sulfide minerals (Bigeleisen & Mayer, 1947; Hall & Stewart, 1973; Urey, 1947) is stronger than the Fe‐O ionic bond strength in magnetite (Fleet, 1981), resulting Fe contents and isotopic characteristics in sulfide less susceptible to magnetite crystallization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…A large amount of light 54 Fe‐enriched sulfide (relative to magnetite) segregation in the immiscible sulfide melt could cause elevated δ 56 Fe values in co‐crystallized magnetite. The magnetite volume percent in disseminated ores is less than the magnetite content in massive ores, while the magnetite δ 56 Fe values are consistent in the disseminated ores (0.89–1.10‰, average = 1.01‰) with the values in massive ores (0.41–1.35‰, average = 0.94‰) (Tang et al., 2022). The main reason may be that Fe‐S coordination bond strength in sulfide minerals (Bigeleisen & Mayer, 1947; Hall & Stewart, 1973; Urey, 1947) is stronger than the Fe‐O ionic bond strength in magnetite (Fleet, 1981), resulting Fe contents and isotopic characteristics in sulfide less susceptible to magnetite crystallization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Pyrrhotite in disseminated ores has a lighter δ 56 Fe value than pyrrhotite from massive ores (Figure 5a), but there was no difference in Fe and S components. The magnetite in disseminated and massive ores co‐crystallized with MSS and Cu‐rich ISS in the Kalatongke deposit, respectively (Tang et al., 2022). A large amount of light 54 Fe‐enriched sulfide (relative to magnetite) segregation in the immiscible sulfide melt could cause elevated δ 56 Fe values in co‐crystallized magnetite.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations