There is some explanation about this issue in section 3.2 of the attached article but the answer to my question is not explained in that section.
First of all you have to measure Th and Tmi of your fluid inclusions.
In my opinion, instead of a Th vs. salinity diagram (such as the Fig. 10 of wilkinson work), I would use a Th vs. Tmi diagram, because in that graphic, you are plotting what you observed and not a calculation from your data (e. g., salinity wt% NaCl eq).
After the measurement you have tod plot the data (Th vs. Tmi diagram) and then, observe the trends drawn by the fluid inclusions. Sometimes plotting all your data together is not useful, because your fluid inclusions could reflect a complex sequence of fluid events, such as cooling, mixing, boiling...
I would plot the data separately, according to individual samples or a group of samples with the same characteristics, this may help you to observe a clear trend. Once you observed a clear trend you have to compare it with for example Fig. 10 of wilkinson and see what your trend means, and what process describes your trend.
You will find additional information about that in:
Shepherd, T. J., Rankin, A. H., and Alderton, D. H. M., 1985, A practical guide to fluid inclusion studies: Glasgow, United Kingdom (GBR), Blackie & Son, Glasgow, 239-239 p.
Hedenquist, J. W., and Henley, R. W., 1985, The importance of CO 2 on freezing point measurements of fluid inclusions; evidence from active geothermal systems and implications for epithermal ore deposition: Economic Geology, v. 80, p. 1379-1406.
good luck!
I.
thank you so much. you gave me an excellent idea.
is it reasonable to assume the first FIs in minerals pragenesis as the parent fluids?
You are welcome!
So, what do you mean with the first FI's??
If the Fluid Inclusions you observed are primary, they are supposed to be contemporaneous with the crystal formation, and then FI's record the Th and salinity of the fluid from which the minerals precipitated.
If the Fluid inclusions you observed are secondary or pseudo-secondary, then, the fluid entrapped after the mineral formation, thus, the fluid entrapped in the FI's do not correspond with the fluid from which the minerals precipitated.
Before start measurements you should do a really good work in the petrography and classification of FI's. (primary, secondary... hosted by quartz, calcite... grouped following trails.. etc…).
Hope this will help you!
I.
I mean the first primary fluid inclusions in the first minerals formed in a mineralization period because although the primary FIs are contemporaneous with the host crystal but not with each other I think. since we want to recognize the fluid evolution processes, all FIs should be studied on the basis of the first fluids formed in a mineralization period (parent fluids) I think.
am I right???
Yes, you are right.
Primary FI’s formed in a mineralization period contemporaneously with the host crystal, and secondary FI’s represent other events. In the case you want to study the evolution of a mineralizing fluid, you should identify clearly every type of FI’s and their relationship. Sometimes it is difficult and the relationship between one FI’s and others is absent. In order to make easy the differentiation of FI’s, actually people work with FIA’s (fluid inclusion assemblage), a group of petrographically associated fluid inclusions that formed at about the same time or during the same set of conditions. I recommend you to follow Goldstein’s methodology in: Systematics of Fluid Inclusions in Diagenetic Minerals. (I have the book in .pdf if you are interested in).
thank you for your kind consideration and mercy Mr. Corral.
may I have that book? if possible
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Crystallography
- X-ray Diffraction