PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026American Mineralogist0 citationsOpen Access

Evaluation of the Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer and development of new magnetite geothermometers using machine learning

View Full Paper
XGXubo GaoHHHao HuGCGuo-xiong Chen

Key Points

  • This research evaluates the accuracy of the Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer and develops a machine learning model to enhance temperature estimates.
  • Collected 4831 LA–ICP–MS magnetite analyses from various ore deposits
  • Assessed the applicability of the Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer in different geological settings
  • Developed a Random Forest regression model using elemental data to estimate temperatures
  • Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer showed discrepancies in skarn deposits with higher temperature estimates than fluid inclusion temperatures
  • New empirical geothermometer based on Ti and V contents aligns well with homogenization temperatures of fluid inclusions
  • Machine learning model demonstrates robust applicability across various geological environments

Abstract

Abstract Determining the formation temperatures of rocks and minerals is essential in understanding geological processes. Recently developed Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer has been used widely to estimate the temperature of magmatic and hydrothermal systems accurately. However, the applicability of this approach to natural samples has yet to be evaluated fully. We collected 4831 LA–ICP–MS magnetite analyses from various ore deposits, including Magmatic, Fe oxide–apatite (IOA), Fe oxide–Cu–Au (IOCG), porphyry, and skarn deposits. Our results suggest that the Mg geothermometer may not be applicable to magnetite in some of these systems. The geothermometer is typically effective in determining mineralization temperatures in magmatic Fe–Ti–V deposits and in high-temperature hydrothermal IOA, IOCG, and porphyry deposits; however, there are discrepancies when they are applied to skarn deposits, where temperatures obtained using the Mg-in-magnetite geothermometer (800–1000 °C) are much higher than corresponding fluid-inclusion homogenization temperatures (200–500 °C). To address this problem, we used a machine learning Random Forest regression model to estimate temperature based on various elements, including Ti, V, Mg, Mn, Co, Si, Al, and Zn contents. We introduce an empirical geothermometer based on the Ti and V contents of magnetite. The temperature estimated by this empirical geothermometer is in good agreement with the homogenization temperatures of fluid inclusions in hydrothermal magnetite, as well as with the temperature of magmatic magnetite derived from other independent geothermometers. The result demonstrates the robustness and applicability of the new geothermometer in various geological environments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gao et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980fd9dc1c9540dea80f678https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2025-9778
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Systematic Mineralogical and Geochemical Analyses of Magnetite in the Xinqiao Cu-S Polymetallic Deposit, Eastern China2026
  2. 2Discrimination of deposit types using magnetite geochemistry based on machine learning2024 · 16 citations
  3. 3Formation of low-Ti and high-V magnetite in iron oxide-apatite mineralization by fluid-aided alteration: Insights from Baixiangshan deposit, Eastern China2025
  4. 4Machine-Learning Prediction of Curie Temperature from Chemical Compositions of Ferromagnetic Materials2024 · 18 citations
  5. 5An Optimized Analytical Workflow for Magnetite as an Indicator Mineral for Porphyry Cu Deposits2026