2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.11.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molybdenum isotope fractionation in the mantle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
85
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
8
85
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The eleven igneous rock reference materials, including one carbonatite (except for UB-N), in this study had d 98/95 Mo values ranging from -0.51 ± 0.04‰ (2s, n = 5, olivine basalt, GSR-3; Table 1) to +0.20 ± 0.11‰ (2s, n = 5, WGB-1; Table 1), with a mean of -0.12 ± 0.37‰ (2s). Either d 98/95 Mo data (range from -0.56 ± 0.01‰ to +0.53 ± 0.21‰) for a suite of mafic and ultramafic rocks reported by Liang et al (2013), or mean value d 98/95 Mo = -0.17 ± 0.22‰ renormalised to NIST SRM 3134 using the conversion of Greber et al (2012) for several igneous rocks from Kamchatka obtained by Siebert et al (2003) are within the range of our Mo isotope data for igneous rock reference materials (Table 1). The Mo isotope compositions for most igneous rocks in the present study (except UB-N, GSR-3, WGB-1; Table 1 and Figure 3) are close to that of estimated chondritic (-0.16 ± 0.02‰, Burkhardt et al 2014) and Bulk Silicate Earth (-0.21 ± 0.06‰, Greber et al 2015).…”
Section: Mo Mass Fractions and Isotopic Compositions Of Geological Rementioning
confidence: 93%
“…The eleven igneous rock reference materials, including one carbonatite (except for UB-N), in this study had d 98/95 Mo values ranging from -0.51 ± 0.04‰ (2s, n = 5, olivine basalt, GSR-3; Table 1) to +0.20 ± 0.11‰ (2s, n = 5, WGB-1; Table 1), with a mean of -0.12 ± 0.37‰ (2s). Either d 98/95 Mo data (range from -0.56 ± 0.01‰ to +0.53 ± 0.21‰) for a suite of mafic and ultramafic rocks reported by Liang et al (2013), or mean value d 98/95 Mo = -0.17 ± 0.22‰ renormalised to NIST SRM 3134 using the conversion of Greber et al (2012) for several igneous rocks from Kamchatka obtained by Siebert et al (2003) are within the range of our Mo isotope data for igneous rock reference materials (Table 1). The Mo isotope compositions for most igneous rocks in the present study (except UB-N, GSR-3, WGB-1; Table 1 and Figure 3) are close to that of estimated chondritic (-0.16 ± 0.02‰, Burkhardt et al 2014) and Bulk Silicate Earth (-0.21 ± 0.06‰, Greber et al 2015).…”
Section: Mo Mass Fractions and Isotopic Compositions Of Geological Rementioning
confidence: 93%
“…The Mo concentrations (1.57–1.64 ug/g) of the dacites are higher than the andesites (0.22–1.19 ug/g). However, the andesites and the dacites have similar Mo isotopic compositions (δ 98 / 95 Mo = ~ − 0.40–0.13‰, −0.10–‐0.06 ‰), all of which cover a larger range compared to MORB (Bezard et al, ; Liang et al, ; Figure ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Solomon arc lavas, Bismarck arc lavas, and Cyprus arc lavas are from Kǒnig et al (). Mid‐ocean ridge basalt field data are from Bezard et al () and Liang et al (). S‐type granites and sediments of LFB and NEB field data are from Yang et al ().…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Indeed, all the analyzed magmas outline a relatively narrow δ 98/95 Mo range, with values between 0.10‰ and 0.26‰ for Vesuvius and 0.07‰ and 0.24‰ for Tuscan magmas, covering a total range of Δ 98/95 Mo of 0.18‰ (Table 1). The studied magmas have considerably higher δ 98/95 Mo than MORBs (Bezard et al, 2016;Freymuth et al, 2015;Liang et al, 2017) and are among the heaviest Mo isotope compositions recorded so far in subduction-related magmas (e.g., Aegean arc, Cyprus, Marianas, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea; Freymuth et al, 2015;König et al, 2016;Voegelin et al, 2014;Figure 4c Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems case, the trace element, radiogenic isotope, and Mo isotope compositions have been advocated to support the predominant role of recycled sedimentary material into their magma source with no Mo isotope fractionation Gaschnig et al, 2017). In contrast, in the second two cases the Mo isotope variation from isotopically light to heavy values has been interpreted as due to isotopic fractionation during (Freymuth et al, 2015Gaschnig et al, 2017;König et al, 2016;Voegelin et al, 2014;Wille et al, 2018) and MORB average (Gale et al, 2013).…”
Section: Volcanic Rocksmentioning
confidence: 85%