Molybdenum isotope fractionation at upper-crustal magmatic-hydrothermal conditions

Anne K.C. Kaufmann,Thomas Pettke,Martin Wille
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2021.120319
IF: 3.9
2021-09-01
Chemical Geology
Abstract:<p>Molybdenum isotopes are an established proxy for paleoredox conditions in low-temperature surface systems. However, the mechanisms behind demonstrated Mo isotope fractionation during igneous and hydrothermal processes at elevated temperatures are still controversial. This study focusses on a comprehensive dataset documenting the late stage magmatic-hydrothermal evolution of Mo isotope systematics in miarolitic cavities and their host granite from a shallow arc-related intrusive system, the Torres del Paine laccolith in Chile. Molybdenum isotopic compositions (δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub>) were measured for (i) granitic bulk with or without petrographic signs of fluid loss, (ii) magmatic-hydrothermal fluids, and (iii) successively crystallised hydrothermal minerals and range from −1.6 to +1.8‰. The observed variability in δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub> for individual miarolitic cavities approaching closed system conditions are smaller than the overall range in our data set but still exceed 1.5‰. The Mo isotopic signature of magmatic fluids was directly measured for the first time by bulk dissolution of magmatic fluid inclusion bearing quartz. Absolute values for magmatic-hydrothermal fluids vary between +0.6 to +1.8‰ δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub>, which is significantly heavier than the granitic bulk rock signatures of −0.1 to +0.46‰ δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub>. Hydrothermal minerals in contrast exhibit variably light δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub> between −1.6 and + 0.6‰. Isotopic differences Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>fluid-mineral</sub> between fluid and hydrothermal minerals coexisting in the sampled cavities are largest for plagioclase with 1.9–2.2‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo, amount to 1.6–1.9‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo and 1.5–1.9‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo for alkali feldspar and biotite, respectively. Smaller values of 1.2–1.5‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>fluid-siderite</sub>, 0.8–1.9‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>fluid-molybdenite</sub>, 0.4–1.2‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>fluid-titanite</sub> and 0.4–1.3‰ Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo <sub>fluid-allanite</sub> are obtained for higher Mo concentration minerals. Given that fluid-mineral pairs coexisted in equilibrium the ranges in Δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>fluid-mineral</sub> values we report offer first constraints on the extent of hydrothermal Mo isotope fractionation. The magnitude and direction of these values agrees well with fractionation factors calculated based on an ionic bond-strength model for the incorporation of Mo<sup>6+</sup> in hydrothermal minerals for crystallisation temperatures in miarolitic cavities (650–450 °C). This implies that significant fractionation effects can arise during hydrothermal processes even without changes in Mo redox state from oxidised fluid.</p><p>We can summarise the Mo isotope evolution during magmatic-hydrothermal processes as follows: First, Mo is transferred into the fluid phase exsolving from solidifying magma during late stage igneous evolution. The exsolved fluid subsequently precipitates hydrothermal minerals upon cooling, which dominantly incorporate light Mo isotopes (at variable <em>KD</em><sub><em>Mo</em></sub><em>(fluid-mineral</em>)). With progressive hydrothermal crystallisation, the remaining fluid evolves to increasingly higher δ<sup>98</sup>Mo<sub>SRM3134</sub> along with decreasing Mo concentration.</p><p>Our data demonstrate that large variability in Mo isotopic signatures can be produced solely by primary magmatic-hydrothermal isotope fractionation processes at elevated temperatures. The generated large range in δ<sup>98</sup>Mo signatures implies that (i) Mo isotopic signatures of evolved samples cannot be employed for tracing sources or precursor processes unless isotopic fractionation during magmatic-hydrothermal stages is quantified and can be corrected for; and (ii) mass balance models for the global Mo cycle used in paleoredox reconstruction need to account for potentially heterogeneous and isotopically fractionated continental contributions from evolved or hydrothermally overprinted rocks.</p>
geochemistry & geophysics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?