This study demonstrates compositional differences in iron ooids in the Neo-Tethys Ocean, suggesting mineralogical diversity and sea-level changes.
Multiple ironstone beds formed during the Callovian-Oxfordian times as a consequence of intense continental weathering, upwelling, and hydrothermal activity. This study examines the compositional differences between core and rim, and the origin of iron ooids along the northwestern margin of the Neo-Tethys Ocean to highlight sea-level fluctuations, redox conditions, and elemental influx. An integrated sedimentological study, including petrography, mineralogy, micro-texture, and mineral chemistry, was carried out to explain the origin and implications of ironstones. The ~14 m thick Callovian-Oxfordian, marginal marine deposits in the Kutch Basin, in western India, exhibit iron ooids, predominantly formed in oolitic shoals during transgression, associated with lagoonal siliciclastics. Callovian shoals interbedded with lagoonal facies record minor sea-level fluctuations, whereas the Oxfordian deposit records a major transgression and condensation, resulting in extensive ironstone deposits. The ooid cortices and nuclei exhibit distinctive mineralogy and micro-textures: glauconitic smectite exhibits poorly-developed rosettes, chamosite displays flower-like, and goethite shows rod-like features. Three types of ooids are formed: (i) monomineralic ooids are entirely of chamosite or goethite, (ii) quartz-nucleated ooids, and (iii) composite ooids with either chamosite core and goethite rim, or chamosite core and glauconitic smectite rim. The assemblages within iron ooids reflect variation in depositional redox conditions: glauconitic smectite develops under suboxic lagoonal flank, chamosite forms in anoxic central lagoon, and goethite precipitates on oxic shoals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chakraborty et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: