2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2019.09.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molybdenum contents of sulfides in ancient glacial diamictites: Implications for molybdenum delivery to the oceans prior to the Great Oxidation Event

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 113 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consistent with this finding, diamictites from 2.90 to 2.43 Ga show only small degrees of Mo mobilization ( 48 , 49 ). Retention of Mo in diamictites is also expected because Mo 4+ often substitutes for Ti 4+ in titaniferous, weathering-resistant minerals, meaning only a fraction of crustal Mo is hosted in sulfides and mobilized during oxidative weathering ( 28 , 50 ). For instance, Greaney et al ( 28 ) estimated that ~60% of the Mo hosted in the modern upper continental crust could be contained within sulfide minerals.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistent with this finding, diamictites from 2.90 to 2.43 Ga show only small degrees of Mo mobilization ( 48 , 49 ). Retention of Mo in diamictites is also expected because Mo 4+ often substitutes for Ti 4+ in titaniferous, weathering-resistant minerals, meaning only a fraction of crustal Mo is hosted in sulfides and mobilized during oxidative weathering ( 28 , 50 ). For instance, Greaney et al ( 28 ) estimated that ~60% of the Mo hosted in the modern upper continental crust could be contained within sulfide minerals.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The δ 98 Mo signature of the modern un-weathered UCC is surprisingly difficult to pin down. Upper crustal igneous rocks and molybdenite grains display a wide range of δ 98 Mo values, encompassing almost the entire range of fractionation seen in river and marine environments (Breillat et al, 2014 (Freymuth et al, 2016;Voegelin et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2017;, excluding samples affected by hydrothermal activity, while MORB (average −0.09 ± 0.02 2σ ) and OIB (average −0.14 ± 0.06 2σ ) tend to be relatively lighter than most felsic igneous rocks (Bezard et al, 2016;Liang et al, 2017). While no Mo isotope fractionation was observed by Yang et al (2015) during igneous differentiation in an anhydrous intraplate setting, isotopic fractionation is proposed to occur in subduction zones due to crystallization of Mo-bearing minerals, which leaves arc magmas -therefore the UCC -isotopically heavier than mafic and ultramafic rocks (Voegelin et al, 2014;König et al, 2016;Wille et al, 2018 Because arc magmas can be significantly isotopically heavier than the mantle and MORB (König et al, 2016;Wille et al, 2018), we would expect the evolution from a more mafic to more felsic continental crust to shift the UCC to heavier values with time.…”
Section: Fractionation During Crustal Differentiation and Compositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 The role of pyrite in Mo accumulation has, however, been questioned because of its absence or low Mo concentrations in pyrite framboids. 18,19 One alternative mechanism is the formation of a distinct colloidal precipitate through the coprecipitation of MoS 4 2− with iron and sulfide, rather than Mo adsorption to pyrite, yielding FeMo(IV)S 4 . This is a pathway for the enrichment of Mo in euxinic basins, such as the Black Sea.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modern river studies suggest that pyrite weathering is the main source of Mo to oceans , while chemical leaching of marine and marsh sediments using concentrated nitric acid suggests that Mo is associated with the pyritic phase. , Further work shows a possible role of MoO 4 2– in the formation of pyrite when in the presence of elemental sulfur . The role of pyrite in Mo accumulation has, however, been questioned because of its absence or low Mo concentrations in pyrite framboids. , One alternative mechanism is the formation of a distinct colloidal precipitate through the coprecipitation of MoS 4 2– with iron and sulfide, rather than Mo adsorption to pyrite, yielding FeMo­(IV)­S 4 . This is a pathway for the enrichment of Mo in euxinic basins, such as the Black Sea .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%