Laser heating effect on Raman analysis of CO2 co-existing as liquid and vapor in olivine-hosted melt inclusion bubbles

DeVitre, Charlotte; Dayton, Kyle; Gazel, Esteban; Pamukcu, A. S.; Gaetani, G. A.; Wieser, Penny

doi:10.30909/vol.06.02.201219

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While laser heating may occur during Raman analysis, which can account for the small number of measurements above 0.26 g/cm 3 on calibrated instruments (Fig. 21b, DeVitre et al, 2023b;Dubessy et al, 2012;Hagiwara et al, 2021), the presence of a significantly larger number of measurements with ρ>0.26 g/cm 3 in studies which did not perform an instrument specific calibration may indicate that these densities have been overestimated through selection of an inappropriate literature calibration. For example, had the Kawakami et al (2003) densimeter been used for the melt Inclusion in Fig.…”

Section: Raman Measurements Of Vapour Bubblesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Pressure – Temperature – Composition (P-T-X) conditions of magma storage

Wieser,

Gleeson,

Matthews

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the pressures and temperatures at which melts are stored in the crust and upper mantle, and the major element composition, redox state and volatile contents of these melts, is vital to constrain the structure and dynamics of magmatic plumbing systems. In turn, constraining these parameters helps understand the geochemical and structural evolution of the Earth’s lithosphere, and periods of unrest at active volcanoes. We review common thermobarometers, hygrometers and chemometers based on mineral and/or liquid compositions, before discussing recent advances in melt and fluid inclusion barometry, Raman-based elastic thermobarometry, and thermodynamic modelling methods. Where possible, we investigate the accuracy and precision of each technique, and the implications for the application of each method to different research questions.

show abstract

Section: Raman Measurements Of Vapour Bubblesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Pressure – Temperature – Composition (P-T-X) conditions of magma storage

Wieser,

Gleeson,

Matthews

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Venugopal et al (2020) performed Raman measurements but used a literature calibration line rather than an instrument-specific calibration. The large number of their bubbles measured at room temperature with reported CO 2 densities above the thermodynamical limit indicates that their calibration may have overestimated CO 2 densities (DeVitre et al, 2023). Other studies reconstructed vapor bubbles in olivine-hosted MIs using bubble growth models (Johnson & Cashman, 2020;Walowski et al, 2019).…”

Section: Melt Inclusion Saturation Pressuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Magma Storage Depths Along the Cascade Arc: Knowns and Unknowns

Wieser,

Kent,

Till

et al. 2023

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The iconic volcanoes of the Cascade arc stretch from Lassen Volcanic Center in northern California, through Oregon and Washington, to the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt in British Columbia. Recent studies have reviewed differences in the distribution and eruptive volumes of vents, as well as variations in geochemical compositions and heat flux along strike (amongst other characteristics). We investigate whether these along‐arc trends manifest as variations in magma storage conditions. We compile available constraints on magma storage depths from InSAR, geodetics, seismic inversions, and magnetotellurics for each major edifice and compare these to melt inclusion saturation pressures, pressures calculated using mineral‐only barometers, and constraints from experimental petrology. The availability of magma storage depth estimates varies greatly along the arc, with abundant geochemical and geophysical data available for some systems (e.g., Lassen Volcanic Center, Mount St. Helens) and very limited data available for other volcanoes, including many which are classified as “very high threat” by the USGS (e.g., Glacier Peak, Mount Baker, Mount Hood, Three Sisters). Acknowledging the limitations of data availability and the large uncertainties associated with certain methods, available data are indicative of magma storage within the upper 15 km of the crust (∼2 ± 2 kbar) beneath the main edifices. These findings are consistent with previous work recognizing barometric estimates cluster within the upper crust in many arcs worldwide. There are no clear offsets in magma storage between arc segments that are in extension, transtension or compression, although substantially more petrological work is needed for fine scale evaluation of storage pressures.

show abstract

“…Venugopal et al (2020) perform Raman measurements but use a literature calibration line rather than an instrument-specific calibration. The large number of their bubbles measured at room temperature with reported CO2 densities above the thermodynamical limit indicates that their calibration may have overestimated CO2 densities (DeVitre et al, 2023). Other studies reconstruct vapour bubbles using bubble growth models (Johnson and Cashman, 2020;Walowski et al, 2019).…”

Section: Melt Inclusion Saturation Pressuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Magma Storage Depths along the Cascade Arc: Knowns and Unknowns

Wieser¹,

Kent²,

Till³

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The iconic volcanoes of the Cascade arc stretch from Lassen Volcanic Center in northern California, through Oregon and Washington, to the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt in British Columbia. Recent studies have reviewed differences in the distribution and eruptive volumes of vents, as well as variations in geochemical compositions and heat flux along strike (amongst other characteristics). We investigate whether these along-arc variations manifest as variations in magma storage conditions. We compile available constraints on magma storage depths from InSAR, geodetics, seismic inversions, and magnotellurics for each major edifice, and compare these to melt inclusion saturation pressures, pressures calculated using mineral-only barometers, and constraints from experimental petrology. The availability of magma storage depth estimates varies greatly along the arc, with abundant geochemical and geophysical data available for some systems (e.g. Lassen Volcanic Center, Mt. St. Helens), and very limited data available for other volcanoes, including many which are classified as “very high threat” by the USGS (e.g., Glacier Peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Three Sisters). Acknowledging the limitations of data availability and the large uncertainties associated with certain methods, available data is indicative of magma storage within the upper 15 km of the crust (~2 ± 2 kbar). These findings are consistent with previous work recognising barometric estimates cluster within the upper crust in many arcs worldwide. There are no clear offsets in magma storage between arc segments that are in extension, transtension or compression, although substantially more petrological work is needed for fine scale evaluation of storage pressures.

show abstract

Laser heating effect on Raman analysis of CO2 co-existing as liquid and vapor in olivine-hosted melt inclusion bubbles

Cited by 9 publications

References 45 publications

Determining the Pressure – Temperature – Composition (P-T-X) conditions of magma storage

Determining the Pressure – Temperature – Composition (P-T-X) conditions of magma storage

Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Magma Storage Depths Along the Cascade Arc: Knowns and Unknowns

Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Magma Storage Depths along the Cascade Arc: Knowns and Unknowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About