...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology >Application of the Ti-in-quartz thermobarometer to rutile-free systems. Reply to: a comment on: ‘TitaniQ under pressure: the effect of pressure and temperature on the solubility of Ti in quartz’ by Thomas et al.
【24h】

Application of the Ti-in-quartz thermobarometer to rutile-free systems. Reply to: a comment on: ‘TitaniQ under pressure: the effect of pressure and temperature on the solubility of Ti in quartz’ by Thomas et al.

机译：石英钛热压计在无金红石系统中的应用。回复：评论：Thomas等人在“压力下的TitaniQ：压力和温度对Ti在石英中溶解度的影响”。

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The premise of the Wilson et al. comment is that the Ti-in-quartz solubility calibration (Thomas et al. in Contrib Mineral Petrol 160:743–759, 2010) is fundamentally flawed. They reach this conclusion because P–T estimates using the Ti-in-quartz calibration differ from their previous interpretations for crystallization conditions of the Bishop and Oruanui rhyolites. If correct, this assertion has far-reaching implications, so a careful assessment of the Wilson et al. reasoning is warranted. Application of the Ti-in-quartz calibration as a thermobarometer in rutile-free rocks requires an estimation of TiO2 activity in the liquid ( atextTiO 2 a_{{{text{TiO}}_{ 2} }} (liquid–rutile); referenced to rutile saturation) and an independent constraint on either P or T to obtain the crystallization temperature or pressure, respectively. The foundation of Wilson et al.’s argument is that temperature estimates obtained from Fe–Ti oxide thermometry accurately reflect crystallization conditions of quartz in the two rhyolites discussed. We maintain that our experimental approach is sound, the thermodynamic basis of the Ti-in-quartz calibration is fundamentally correct, and our experimental results are robust and reproducible. We suggest that the reason Wilson et al. obtain implausible pressure estimates is because estimates for T and atextTiO 2 a_{{{text{TiO}}_{ 2} }} they used as input values for the Ti-in-quartz calibration are demonstrably too high. Numerous studies show that Fe–Ti oxide temperature estimates of some rhyolites are substantially higher than those predicted by well-constrained phase equilibria. In this reply, we show that when reasonable input values for T and atextTiO 2 a_{{{text{TiO}}_{ 2} }} (liquid–rutile) are used, pressure estimates obtained from the Ti-in-quartz calibration are well aligned with phase equilibria and essentially identical to melt inclusion volatile saturation pressures.
机译：威尔逊等人的前提。有人评论说，钛在石英中的溶解度校准（Thomas等人在Contrib Mineral Petrol 160：743–759，2010）存在根本缺陷。他们之所以得出这个结论，是因为使用Ti-in-Quartz校准进行的PT估算与他们以前对Bishop和Oruanui流纹岩的结晶条件的解释不同。如果正确的话，这个主张将产生深远的影响，因此请仔细评估Wilson等人。推理是必要的。石英中钛校准作为无金红石岩石中的热压计的应用需要估计液体中的TiO 2 活性（a textTiO 2 a _ {{{text {TiO}} _ {2}}}（液体-金红石型；指金红石饱和度）和对P或T的独立约束，分别获得结晶温度或压力。 Wilson等人论证的基础是，从Fe-Ti氧化物测温仪获得的温度估算值可以准确反映所讨论的两种流纹岩中石英的结晶条件。我们坚持认为我们的实验方法是合理的，石英石英校准的热力学基础从根本上是正确的，并且我们的实验结果是可靠且可重现的。我们建议威尔逊等人的原因。之所以获得令人难以置信的压力估计值是因为T和a textTiO 2 a _ {{{text {TiO}} _ {2}}}的估计值被用作Ti的输入值石英校准过高。大量研究表明，某些流纹岩的Fe-Ti氧化物温度估算值远高于受严格约束的相平衡预测的温度。在此答复中，我们表明，当T和a textTiO 2 的合理输入值时，a _ {{{text {TiO}} _ {2}}}（液体-金红石使用），从Ti-in-Quartz校准获得的压力估算值与相平衡很好地对齐，并且基本上与熔体夹杂物的挥发性饱和压力相同。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号