Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published September 1, 2024 | Published
Journal Article Open

Iron isotope fractionation during partial melting of metapelites and the generation of strongly peraluminous granites

Abstract

The large variability in Fe isotope ratios of sedimentary rocks (particularly those from the Archean and Proterozoic) contrasts with that of igneous rocks, which display a much more limited range in values. Notably, among igneous rocks, those inferred to form via partial melting of siliciclastic sediments – strongly peraluminous granites (SPGs) – exhibit greater variability in their Fe isotope compositions, suggesting SPGs may capture isotopic variations in the sedimentary record. However, the extent and mechanisms of iron isotope fractionation between SPGs and their source remain poorly understood. Our study integrates iron isotope analyses with petrological modeling to investigate equilibrium isotopic fractionation during generation of SPG magmas. As a case study, we focus on the Neoarchean Ghost Lake Batholith and the adjacent metasedimentary rocks in Ontario, Canada. These units represent an internally differentiated SPG batholith and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks interpreted as the source of the batholith.

We measured δ56Fe compositions of SPG samples, metasedimentary rocks, and a restitic rock. Sulfide grains were also measured in four metapelite samples and a granite sample. We find no correlation between the δ56Fe composition of metasedimentary rocks and their metamorphic grade, indicating iron isotopes behave as a closed system during metamorphism. Modeling results show that iron isotopes in SPGs from the Ghost Lake batholith are consistent with equilibrium fractionation during biotite dehydration melting, with predicted δ56Fe values for melts and restitic assemblages mainly controlled by the source composition. Our results predict negligible isotopic fractionation between the residue and the source, whereas ∼0.177–0.277 ‰ is expected between SPG melts and the residue, accounting for high δ56Fe values in granite samples. Lower δ56Fe values may indicate that some granites represent mixtures of melt and cumulus material or result from assimilation of restite or source/host rock. However, despite deviations from pure equilibrium fractionation, the variability in δ56Fe values for SPGs is about one order of magnitude smaller than that seen in the sedimentary record for the Archean and Proterozoic (∼0.2 ‰ vs. >2 ‰). We posit that this narrower range of isotopic variation in SPGs results from metamorphism and partial melting, which can homogenize large isotopic variations in sedimentary protoliths. Thus, SPGs represent reliable archives for the bulk iron isotope evolution of siliciclastic sedimentary rocks through time.

Copyright and License

© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

Acknowledgement

We thank Paul Asimow, Nicole Nie, and Shane Houchin for insightful discussions on iron isotopes and petrological modeling. We also thank Gerrit Budde, Rosa Grigoryan, and Ren Marquez for their assistance with sample preparation and isotopic analysis. Juan David Hernández-Montenegro acknowledges support from a Fulbright Foundation grant. Claire Bucholz thanks Fred Breaks for introducing her to the Ghost Lake batholith. This work was supported by NSF grant EAR-1943629 awarded to C. Bucholz. We appreciate the constructive comments from Paul Savage and two anonymous reviewers, which significantly improved this manuscript. We are also grateful to Stefan Weyer for editorial handling.

Funding

Juan David Hernández-Montenegro acknowledges support from a Fulbright Foundation grant. Claire Bucholz thanks Fred Breaks for introducing her to the Ghost Lake batholith. This work was supported by NSF grant EAR-1943629 awarded to C. Bucholz.

Contributions

Juan David Hernández-Montenegro: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Claire E. Bucholz: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Emma S. Sosa: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology. Michael A. Kipp: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology. François L.H. Tissot: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis.

Data Availability

Data are available through Mendeley Data at https://doi.org/10.17632/4msrjttgcm.2.

Files

1-s2.0-S0016703724003533-mmc1.pdf
Files (2.0 MB)
Name Size Download all
md5:cd3500397c61fb89a863f25a46e533b6
2.0 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
September 16, 2024
Modified:
September 26, 2024