Comparison of lithium borate fusion and four acid digestions for the determination of whole rock chemistry – implications for lithogeochemistry and mineral exploration

IF 1 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
Zebedee Zivkovic, L. Danyushevsky, S. Halley, S. Barker, Michael Baker
{"title":"Comparison of lithium borate fusion and four acid digestions for the determination of whole rock chemistry – implications for lithogeochemistry and mineral exploration","authors":"Zebedee Zivkovic, L. Danyushevsky, S. Halley, S. Barker, Michael Baker","doi":"10.1144/geochem2022-054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mining and exploration companies routinely use four acid digestion, inductively coupled plasma, atomic emission spectra/mass spectrometry (4AD ICP-AES/MS) methods from commercial assay laboratories for analysing drill and rock samples for lithogeochemical assessment and resource reporting. This method is also known to exhibit lower recovery of elements hosted by resistate minerals. To assess the impact of lower recoveries on lithogeochemical interpretation, a suite of commonly used elements for lithogeochemical analysis (high field strength elements (HFSE) Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu and transition elements V and Sc) was analysed by a four-acid digestion (4AD) and an alkali fusion/acid digestion (AFAD). Lower recoveries in the 4AD relative to the AFAD were recorded for Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu. Scandium and vanadium reported similar concentrations for both decomposition methods. Despite the lower recoveries for Nb, Ta and Ti, element ratios were largely preserved with the 4AD method due to the recoveries covarying at a one-to-one ratio. A plot of Ti/Nb against V/Sc was found to be largely unaffected by decomposition method, producing similar compositional classifications between the two digestion methods. Use of the europium anomaly (Eu/Eu*) to determine plagioclase fractionation was also found to be unaffected by decomposition method. In contrast, a standard Zr/Ti vs Nb/Y discrimination plot produced incorrect classifications with the 4AD producing more mafic and alkaline classifications relative to the AFAD method. Magmatic fertility interpretations utilising Zr/Hf were also found to be affected in the 4AD results due to the lower recovery of Zr relative to Hf. This resulted in a bias in the 4AD results and produced false positive anomalism in fertility assessments. Multiple decomposition methods including combinations of acid and fusion methods are recommended for lithogeochemical analysis utilising large regions of the periodic table. However, if only 4AD data are available, plots such as Ti/Nb vs V/Sc and Nb/Ta which preserve their ratios can be used for lithogeochemical classification.\n \n Supplementary material:\n https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6444444\n","PeriodicalId":55114,"journal":{"name":"Geochemistry-Exploration Environment Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geochemistry-Exploration Environment Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/geochem2022-054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mining and exploration companies routinely use four acid digestion, inductively coupled plasma, atomic emission spectra/mass spectrometry (4AD ICP-AES/MS) methods from commercial assay laboratories for analysing drill and rock samples for lithogeochemical assessment and resource reporting. This method is also known to exhibit lower recovery of elements hosted by resistate minerals. To assess the impact of lower recoveries on lithogeochemical interpretation, a suite of commonly used elements for lithogeochemical analysis (high field strength elements (HFSE) Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu and transition elements V and Sc) was analysed by a four-acid digestion (4AD) and an alkali fusion/acid digestion (AFAD). Lower recoveries in the 4AD relative to the AFAD were recorded for Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu. Scandium and vanadium reported similar concentrations for both decomposition methods. Despite the lower recoveries for Nb, Ta and Ti, element ratios were largely preserved with the 4AD method due to the recoveries covarying at a one-to-one ratio. A plot of Ti/Nb against V/Sc was found to be largely unaffected by decomposition method, producing similar compositional classifications between the two digestion methods. Use of the europium anomaly (Eu/Eu*) to determine plagioclase fractionation was also found to be unaffected by decomposition method. In contrast, a standard Zr/Ti vs Nb/Y discrimination plot produced incorrect classifications with the 4AD producing more mafic and alkaline classifications relative to the AFAD method. Magmatic fertility interpretations utilising Zr/Hf were also found to be affected in the 4AD results due to the lower recovery of Zr relative to Hf. This resulted in a bias in the 4AD results and produced false positive anomalism in fertility assessments. Multiple decomposition methods including combinations of acid and fusion methods are recommended for lithogeochemical analysis utilising large regions of the periodic table. However, if only 4AD data are available, plots such as Ti/Nb vs V/Sc and Nb/Ta which preserve their ratios can be used for lithogeochemical classification. Supplementary material: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6444444
硼酸锂熔合和四次酸消化测定全岩化学的比较。岩石地球化学和矿产勘探的意义
矿业和勘探公司通常使用商业分析实验室的四种酸消解、电感耦合等离子体、原子发射光谱/质谱(4AD ICP-AES/MS)方法来分析岩屑和岩石样品,进行岩石地球化学评估和资源报告。这种方法也显示出较低的回收元素承载的抗性矿物。为了评估低采收率对岩石地球化学解释的影响,采用四酸溶出(4AD)和碱融合/酸溶出(AFAD)分析了一套岩石地球化学分析常用元素(高场强元素Zr、Hf、Nb、Ta、Ti、Eu和过渡元素V、Sc)。相对于AFAD, 4AD中Zr、Hf、Nb、Ta、Ti和Eu的回收率较低。两种分解方法中钪和钒的浓度相近。尽管Nb、Ta和Ti的回收率较低,但由于回收率以一对一的比例协变,4AD方法的元素比例基本保持不变。发现Ti/Nb与V/Sc的对比图基本上不受分解方法的影响,两种消解方法之间的成分分类相似。使用铕异常(Eu/Eu*)来确定斜长石分馏也发现不受分解方法的影响。相比之下,标准的Zr/Ti与Nb/Y区分图产生了错误的分类,与AFAD方法相比,4AD方法产生了更多的基性和碱性分类。利用Zr/Hf的岩浆肥力解释也被发现在4AD结果中受到影响,因为相对于Hf, Zr的回收率较低。这导致了4AD结果的偏差,并在生育评估中产生了假阳性异常。在岩石地球化学分析中,建议采用多种分解方法,包括酸法和聚变法的组合,利用元素周期表的大部分区域。然而,如果只有4AD数据,则Ti/Nb vs V/Sc和Nb/Ta等保持比值的图可用于岩石地球化学分类。补充资料:https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6444444
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Geochemistry-Exploration Environment Analysis
Geochemistry-Exploration Environment Analysis 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis (GEEA) is a co-owned journal of the Geological Society of London and the Association of Applied Geochemists (AAG). GEEA focuses on mineral exploration using geochemistry; related fields also covered include geoanalysis, the development of methods and techniques used to analyse geochemical materials such as rocks, soils, sediments, waters and vegetation, and environmental issues associated with mining and source apportionment. GEEA is well-known for its thematic sets on hot topics and regularly publishes papers from the biennial International Applied Geochemistry Symposium (IAGS). Papers that seek to integrate geological, geochemical and geophysical methods of exploration are particularly welcome, as are those that concern geochemical mapping and those that comprise case histories. Given the many links between exploration and environmental geochemistry, the journal encourages the exchange of concepts and data; in particular, to differentiate various sources of elements. GEEA publishes research articles; discussion papers; book reviews; editorial content and thematic sets.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信