Experiments explore element transport in carbonate-bearing pelite, highlighting implications for subduction processes.
Experiments are conducted on pelite doped with 3 wt.% CaCO3 over a pressure range of 3.0–7.8 GPa and temperatures of 750–1090 °C. The goal is that the total carbonate content in initial samples should reach 7 wt.%, consistent with that of the global subducting sediment model (GLOSS). Dehydration and decarbonation of the pelite under the thermal regimes of subduction zones produce a residue composed of garnet, clinopyroxene, phengite, coesite, ± Mg–Fe carbonate, and kyanite, along with accessory rutile, monazite, and zircon. In addition, a mobile phase forms that evolves significantly with increasing P-T conditions along the average subduction geotherm. At 3.0 GPa and 750 °C, a melt with a granite-like composition forms. This melt is enriched in SiO2 and Al2O3, has a K2O/Na2O ratio of 1.2, and contains up to 19 wt.% H2O + CO2. At 5.5–7.8 GPa and 850–940 °C, a supercritical fluid-melt forms (H2O + CO2 ≈ 40 wt.%) that is enriched in SiO2 and K2O, poor in Al2O3, and has a K2O/Na2O ratio reaching 9.5. The supercritical fluid-melt generated in carbonate-bearing pelite can efficiently transport large-ion lithophile elements (LILE) and light rare earth elements (LREE), including trace element markers of both dilute aqueous fluids (Ba and U) and granite-like melts (Sr, LREE, and Th). Host minerals play an important role in trace element fractionation: phengite (LILE), monazite (LREE), and rutile (high field strength elements, HFSE). An increase in carbonate concentration in the pelite leads to a slight decrease in the partition coefficients of the most incompatible elements due to a higher proportion of the mobile phase and an increased CO2 concentration within it. The supercritical fluid-melt equilibrated with rutile-bearing residue retains the negative Nb anomaly characteristic of marine sediments and can transfer this anomaly to arc magmas if it participates in their generation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sokol et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: