Published September 2025 | Version Published
Journal Article Open

Moderate Rare Metal Enrichment by Auto-Assimilation in the Neoproterozoic Gabal Um Samra Granites, Eastern Desert, Egypt

  • 1. ROR icon National Research Centre
  • 2. Galala University
  • 3. ROR icon Cairo University
  • 4. ROR icon California Institute of Technology

Abstract

The Gabal Um Samra (GUS) compound intrusion in the Eastern Desert of Egypt consists of a co-magmatic series of syenogranite and alkali feldspar granite. Accessory minerals (e.g., zircon, monazite, allanite) are abundant. Geochemically, the GUS intrusion is a classic A-type granite. It is extensively fractionated, enriched in large ion lithophile elements and high field strength elements, and depleted in Ba, Sr, K, and Ti. Normalized rare earth element patterns are nearly flat, without any lanthanide tetrad anomalies, but with distinct negative Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.14–0.22) due to feldspar fractionation. Paired Zr-Hf and Y-Ho element systematics indicate igneous rather than hydrothermal processes. The petrogenesis of the comparatively unaltered GUS intrusion offers an opportunity to refine the standard model for post-collisional felsic magmatism in the Neoproterozoic Arabian–Nubian Shield. It is explained by the partial melting of juvenile crust induced by lithospheric delamination, followed by extensive fractional crystallization. A quantitative mass-balance model shows that the granite varieties of the GUS intrusion plausibly represent liquids along a single liquid line of descent; but, if so, the more evolved, later pulses display anomalous enrichment in Rb, Nb, Ta, U, and REE. The most plausible source for this enrichment is the extraction of small-degree residual melts from earlier pulses and the mixing of the melts into the later pulses, an energetically favorable process we call “auto-assimilation”. A quantitative model shows that the residual liquid after 97.5% crystallization of the syenogranite can fit the major oxide and trace element data in the alkali feldspar granite if 0.07% by mass of this melt is added to the evolving system for each 1% crystal fractionation by mass. The GUS intrusion represents an example of moderate rare metal enrichment and concentration to sub-economic grade by auto-assimilation. Similar processes may affect intrusions that feature higher grade mineralization, but the evidence is often obscured by the extensive alteration of those deposits.

Copyright and License

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Acknowledgement

The present manuscript is a part of PhD thesis of the first author (Heba S. Mubarak) who is a member of the STDF project (47106). We acknowledge the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) of Egypt for supporting this work through the Applied Sciences Research Grant (Project No. 47106). The title of the STDF project is “Assessment of Egyptian granitoid rocks as a source for building, ornamental and construction materials”.

Funding

This research was funded by Egyptian STDF through Project Number (47106).

Data Availability

Data from our research are available upon request. Samples have been registered with SESAR numbers and data have been uploaded to the EarthChem library.

Supplemental Material

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min15090898/s1: Table S1. Microprobe analyses of alkali feldspar in the GUS granite samples; Table S2. Microprobe analyses of plagioclase in the GUS granite samples; Table S3. Microprobe analyses of amphibole minerals in the GUS granite samples; Table S4. Microprobe analyses of biotite in the GUS granite samples; Table S5. Microprobe analyses of zinnwaldite in the GUS granite samples; Table S6. Microprobe analyses and structrue of magnetite in the GUS granite samples; Table S7. Microprobe analyses of ilmenite in the GUS granite samples; Table S8. Microprobe analyses and srtucture formula of goethite in the GUS granite samples; Table S9. Microprobe analyses of chlorite minerals in the GUS granite samples; Table S10. Microprobe analyses and structure formula of apatite in the GUS granite samples; Table S11. Microprobe analyses of ruilte in the GUS granite samples; Table S12. Microprobe analyses of carbonate minerals in the GUS granite samples. Table S13: Parameters of the Fractional Crystallization and Assimilation-Fractional Crystallization Models

Files

minerals-15-00898.pdf

Files (18.5 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:b2fc5725f70543b103d3dcacdf2f15da
143.2 kB Preview Download
md5:f076db7934a58277cee7f19db0ab351f
18.4 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

Is supplemented by
Supplemental Material: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min15090898/s1 (URL)

Funding

Science and Technology Development Fund
47106

Dates

Accepted
2025-08-21
Available
2025-08-24
Published online

Caltech Custom Metadata

Caltech groups
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences (GPS)
Publication Status
Published