Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:52:56.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geochemical indicator of the efficiency of fractionation of the Skaergaard intrusion, East Greenland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Paul Henderson
Paul Henderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Chelsea College (University of London), London, S.W.3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

When magmatic fractionation involves the settling and removal of crystals from the body of magma, the efficiency of the fraetionation process may be defined as the degree of separation of the solid from the liquid phase. An expression is given that relates efficiency to the amount of mesostasis, or crystallized trapped liquid, in an igneous cumulate. The uranium contents of samples from a 349-m-long drill-core of part of the lower and hidden zones of the Skaergaard intrusion are used as a quantitative indicator of the amounts of mesostasis in the cumulates. There are marked changes in the amount of mesostasis over the length of the core and the average efficiency of fractionation was 85 %.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 40 , Issue 311 , September 1975 , pp. 285 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chayes, (F.), 1970. Journ. Petrology, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dissanayake, (C. B.) and Vincent, (E. A.), 1972. Chem. Geol. 9, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, (N. H.), 1967. Paper SM-87138, In Radioactive Dating and Methods of Low Level Counting, 431, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Gast, (P. W.), 1968. Geochimica Acta, 32, 1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, (L. P.), 1970. Amer. MiD. 55, 455.Google Scholar
Henderson, (P.), 1968. Geochimica Acta, 32, 897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, (P.), 1970. Journ. Petrology, 11, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, (P.), and Dale, (L. M.), 1969. Chem. Geol. 5, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, (P.), Mackinnon, (A.), and Gale, (N. H.), 1971. Geochimica Acta, 35, 917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvlne, (T. N.) and Smith, (C. H.), 1967. In Ultramafic and Related Rocks (ed. P. J. Wyllie) Wiley & Sons, N.Y. Google Scholar
Rayleigh, (J. W. S.), 1896. Phil. Mag. 42, 77.Google Scholar
Wager, (L. R.), 1960. Journ. Petrology, 1, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wager, (L. R.), 1963. Mineral. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper-L Symposium on Layered Intrusions, 1.Google Scholar
Wager, (L. R.), and Brown, (B. M.), 1968. Layered Igneous Rocks (Oliver & Boyd).Google Scholar
Wager, (L. R.), and Deer, (W. A.), 1939. Medd. Gronland, 105, 1.Google Scholar
Wager, (L. R.), Brown, (G. M.), and Wadsworth, (W. J.), 1960. Journ. Petrology, 1, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar