I have used chondrites, PAAS & NASC to normalize the REE concentrations for the host sedimentary rocks, massive sulfides & supergene ores. Which of these is more appropriate to use & why? Should I use them separately based on litho & ore types?
I prefer PAAS but am not too sure about the interps. Could someone kindly give some suggestions on how to deal with this.
Your comments are very much appreciated.
Shadrach
Perhaps you could elaborate on the things you want to discover by studying the REE pattern of these rocks. If you just want to compare them to each other, any normalisation will do. You could also normailse your ores over one, or an average, of the host rocks.
Marlina,
My aim is to compare the REE concentration variations in supergene ores to that of massive sulfides & sedimentary host rocks. I think this will help in understanding the water-rock interaction during supergene mineralization.
I prefer to normalize to UCC (Rudnick R. L. and Gao S. (2003) Composition of the continental crust. In The Crust, vol. 3 (ed. R. L. Rudnick). Elsevier, pp. 1-64.) when describing sedimentary systems. However, with sulphide ores chondrite may be better. It depends on which normalization highlights the features you want to show.
My opinion coincides with that of Marlina Elburg. It depends on what you want to discover. The normalization to chondrite will facilitate comparison on standard (primary) basis. Using shale references, such as PAAS, NASC, ES (or even the UCC), signifies the effect of the supergene processes on the REE pattern of your shale.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy