David Hernández-Uribe, Robert M. Holder, Juan D. Hernández-Montenegro
{"title":"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","authors":"David Hernández-Uribe, Robert M. Holder, 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":"{\"title\":\"Eclogite thermobarometry: The consistency between conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling\",\"authors\":\"David Hernández-Uribe, Robert M. Holder, 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}","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}
Eclogite thermobarometry: The consistency between conventional thermobarometry and forward phase-equilibrium modelling
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.
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.