AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Daniel W. Eungard for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on July
31, 2012
Title: Early High Cascade Silicic Volcanism: Analysis of the McKenzie Canyon and
Lower Bridge Tuff
Abstract approved:
_____________________________________________________________________
Adam J.R. Kent
Silicic volcanism in the central Oregon Cascade range has decreased in both
the size and frequency of eruptions from its initiation at ~40 Ma to present. The
reasons for this reduction in silicic volcanism are poorly constrained. Studies of the
petrogenesis of these magmas have the potential for addressing this question by
providing insight into the processes responsible for producing and erupting silicic
magmas. This study focuses on two extensive and well-preserved ash-flow tuffs from
within the ~4-8 Ma Deschutes Formation of central Oregon, which formed after the
transition from Western Cascade volcanism to the modern High Cascade.
Documentation of outcrop extent, outcrop thickness, clast properties, and samples
provide the means to estimate a source location, minimum erupted volumes, and to
constrain eruptive processes. Major and trace element chemistry of glass and minerals
constrain the petrogenesis and chemical evolution of the system.
The tuffs selected for this study, the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon, are
the first known silicic units originating from the Cascade Arc following the
reorganization from Western Cascade to High Cascade Volcanism at ~8 Ma. These
eruptions were significant in producing a minimum of ~5 km3 DRE each within a
relatively short timeframe. These tuffs are sourced from some vent or edifices related
to the Three Sisters Volcanic Complex, and capture an early phase of the volcanic
history of that region. The chemical composition of the tuffs indicates that the Lower
Bridge erupted predominately rhyolitic magma with dacitic magma occurring only in
small quantities in the latest stage of the eruption while McKenzie Canyon Tuff
erupted first as a rhyolite and transitioned to a basaltic andesite with co-mingling and
incomplete mixing of the two magma types. Major and trace element concentrations
in minerals and glass indicate that the basaltic andesite and rhyolite of the McKenzie
Canyon Tuff were well convected and stored in separate chambers. Geothermometry
of the magmas indicate that the rhyolites are considerably warmer (~850°) than typical
arc rhyolites. Trace element compositions indicate that both the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff experienced mixing between a mantle derived basaltic melt
and a rhyolitic partial melt derived from gabbroic crust. Rhyolites of the Lower
Bridge Tuff incorporate 30-50% partial melt following 0->60% fractionation of
mantle derived melts. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff incorporates 50-100% of a partial
melt of a mafic crust with up to 15% post mixing fractionation.
The results of this study suggest that production of voluminous silicic magmas
within the Cascade Arc crust requires both fractionation of incoming melts from the
mantle together with mixing with partial melts of the crust. This provides a potential
explanation for the decrease in silicic melt production rates from the Western
Cascades to the High Cascades related to declining subduction rate. As convergence
along the Cascade margin became more oblique during the Neogene, the consequent
slowing rate of mantle melt production will result in a net cooling of the crust,
inhibiting the production of rhyolitic partial melts. Without these partial melts to
provide the rhyolitic end member to the system, the system will evolve to the mafic
melt and fractionation dominated regime that has existed along Cascadia throughout
the Quaternary.
©Copyright by Daniel W. Eungard
July 31, 2012
All Rights Reserved
Early High Cascade Silicic Volcanism: Analysis of the McKenzie Canyon and Lower
Bridge Tuff
By
Daniel W. Eungard
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented July 31, 2012
Commencement June 2013
Master of Science thesis of Daniel W. Eungard presented on July 31, 2012
APPROVED:
_______________________________________________________________
Major Professor, representing Geology
_______________________________________________________________
Dean of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences
_______________________________________________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any
reader upon request
_______________________________________________________________
Daniel W. Eungard, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor Adam Kent. He provided me the
opportunity to come study at a top notch university and “break the ground” on the
Deschutes Formation research project. This project would not have been a success
without his support, encouragement, and editorial capabilities. I would also like to
thank Anita Grunder, her insight to geologic processes proved invaluable to the
formulation of a model of the system. That she set aside so much time to work though
it with me despite her enormously busy schedule speaks volumes. Her enthusiasm for
my work was infectious and really helped me push through whenever I felt bogged
down. To the rest of my committee, Andrew Meigs provided additional
encouragement and witticism which kept me relatively sane throughout the process.
Also I would like to thank my graduate committee representative, Marta Torres, for
filling in at the last moment for my defense.
A very special thanks goes out to David Sherrod of the USGS. I cannot possibly
thank you enough for everything you have done. Taking me out into the field and
helping me get a “lay of the land” providing dozens of unpublished maps and
equipment to aid in my field research. Your enthusiasm was paramount at the start of
my research and helped me make what appeared to be a daunting task, far more
manageable.
To Ed Taylor and the various graduates that worked in the Deschutes previously, in
particular Debra Cannon, and Gary Smith. Your reconnaissance work and initial
findings were instrumental to my completion of this project. Though I have not met
you, I can’t possibly thank you enough for laying the foundation for my research.
I would like to thank Dale Burns and Matt Loewen for helping me use, and compile
data from the microprobe and laser respectively. Neither of the machines blew up or
caught fire, and the data turned out far better than I anticipated so you guys must be
doing something right. The office ladies, Stacy and Melinda, provided invaluable
support to answer questions and file the untold mountains of paperwork that comes
with being a graduate student. Other students who helped by providing suggestions,
comments, and insight to various parts of my project include Alison Koleszar, Lucian
Farmer, Christine Chan, Jamie Kern, Mark Ford, Jason Kaiser, Andrew Burleigh,
Amy Lange, and Steffi Wafforn. My friends, other students in the department, while
not directly aiding in my research provided much needed stress relief and enjoyment
to my time here though camping, movie nights, and special interest groups such as the
Planeteers soccer team, and Chipotle Consumption Consortium. There are far too
many of you to list, but you know who you are.
I would also like to thank the various landowners, and ranchers who allowed me
access onto their property. Rex Barber, Ron Remond, Cindy Grossmann, Larry
Schmitz, Lee Stone, Dawn (with the goats), and many others whose names I didn’t
catch or write down. To many of you I presented quite the oddity, some college boy
wanting to look at some rocks. Despite that, you welcomed me onto your land and in
many cases provided me with the rich history of the area and its people.
Finally, words cannot express how indebted I am to my parents and girlfriend. My
parents instilled within me the desire to travel and live life outside my sleepy
hometown. Mom and Dad, you both wished only that I would be happy with what I
was doing in life, and though it took a few tries to figure out exactly what that was, I
finally found it. Your constant encouragement and support for all my decisions (both
good and bad) allowed me to get to where I am today. Ashley, you have provided
companionship and encouragement which has helped me get by each and every day.
You listened to my wild rants, grit your teeth while I seesawed on when I would have
a defense, read my thesis drafts without laughing (too much) at my writing skills, and
helped in every little way to get me to finish this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1- Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2
2- Previous Work ........................................................................................................ 7
3- Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Cascade Subduction and Plate Motion..................................................................... 9
3.2 Western Cascades .................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Columbia River Basalts ......................................................................................... 11
3.4 Early and Modern High Cascades .......................................................................... 12
3.5 High Lava Plains .................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Deschutes Basin and Formation ............................................................................. 13
4- Methods ................................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Calculated Methods................................................................................................ 15
4.2.1 Volume ........................................................................................................ 15
4.2.2 Density ......................................................................................................... 16
4.2.3 Chemical Modeling of the System .............................................................. 17
4.2.4 Thermobarometry ........................................................................................ 23
4.3 Analytical Methods……………………………………………………………………..24
4.3.1 Electron Microprobe (EMPA) ..................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled-Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) ... 24
4.3.3 X-ray fluorescence (XRF) ........................................................................... 29
5- Results................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Field Related and Sample Observations ................................................................ 29
5.1.1 Stratigraphic Relations................................................................................. 32
5.1.2 Description of Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs ....................... 36
5.1.3 Flow Direction and Source .......................................................................... 39
5.1.4 Volumes ....................................................................................................... 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.2 Petrology ................................................................................................................ 45
5.2.1 Lower Bridge Tuff Petrology ...................................................................... 45
5.2.2 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Petrology............................................................... 47
5.3 Chemical Composition ........................................................................................... 54
5.3.1 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Glass Chemistry.................................................... 54
5.3.2 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Mineral Chemistry ................................................ 65
5.3.3 Lower Bridge Tuff Glass Chemistry ........................................................... 73
5.3.4 Lower Bridge Tuff Mineral Chemistry........................................................ 75
5.4 Modeling ................................................................................................................ 77
5.4.1 McKenzie Canyon Tuff ............................................................................... 77
5.4.2 Lower Bridge Tuff ....................................................................................... 90
5.5 Thermobarometry and Oxygen Fugacity Estimates............................................... 94
5.5.1 Fe-Ti Oxides ................................................................................................ 96
5.5.2 Two-Pyroxene…………………………………………………………………...98
5.5.3 Plagioclase-Liquid ....................................................................................... 98
6- Discussion ............................................................................................................. 99
6.1 Volcanic Source ..................................................................................................... 99
6.2 Eruption Characteristics ....................................................................................... 100
6.3 Deposit Thicknesses and Volume Estimates ....................................................... 102
6.4 Petrology .............................................................................................................. 103
6.5 Geochemistry ....................................................................................................... 104
6.5.1 Compositional Gap .................................................................................... 104
6.5.2 Pre-eruption Chamber Dynamics .............................................................. 105
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6.5.3 Model of the System .................................................................................. 108
6.5.4 Regional Controls on Magmatism ............................................................. 113
7- Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 114
8- References ........................................................................................................... 116
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 1: Cascade Arc volcanic production over time for the last 40 million years ...... 4
Figure 2: Map of major volcano-tectonic provinces in the Central Cascades ............... 6
Figure 3: Plate-tectonic setting of the modern Cascadia Subduction zone .................. 10
Figure 4: Stratigraphic Fence Diagram overlain on McKenzie Canyon and Lower
Bridge outcrop map modified from Cannon (1984) .................................................... 30
Figure 5: Idealized column for the Lower Bridge Tuff and McKenzie Canyon Tuff . 33
Figure 6: Distribution map of outcrop of the Peninsula Tuff (dark) including probable
extent (patterned) ......................................................................................................... 35
Figure 7: Lower Bridge Tuff unit A-B contact at type section. ................................... 38
Figure 8: Various pumice of McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit A ...................................... 40
Figure 9: Isopach map for the Lower Bridge pumice fall deposit ............................... 42
Figure 10: Isopach map for the Lower Bridge Tuff ..................................................... 43
Figure 11: Isopach map for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff ............................................. 44
Figure 12: BSE of plagioclase crystals from sample LBTA 185 dacite pumice ......... 46
Figure 13: BSE of clinopyroxene crystal from sample LBTA 185 ............................. 48
Figure 14: BSE of magnetite grains from sample LBTA 185 ..................................... 49
Figure 15: BSE of clinopyroxene crystals from basaltic andesite pumice of sample
MCTB 209 ................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 16: BSE of plagioclase crystals in basaltic andesite from sample MCTB 209 52
Figure 17: BSE of magnetite crystals from basaltic andesite in sample MCTB 209,
with extensive ilmenite exsolution along cleavage boundaries. .................................. 53
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Page
Figure 18: Total Alkali Silica (TAS) Diagram of Le Maitre et al (1989) .................... 55
Figure 19: Bivariate Plot of TiO2 vs SiO2. ................................................................... 56
Figure 20: Bivariate plot of K2O vs SiO2. .................................................................... 57
Figure 21: Bivariate Plot of MnO vs SiO2. .................................................................. 59
Figure 22: Bivariate plot of Na2O vs SiO2. .................................................................. 60
Figure 23: Bivariate plot of MgO vs SiO2. .................................................................. 61
Figure 24: Bivariate plot of P2O5 vs SiO ..................................................................... 62
Figure 25: Bivariate plot of FeO* vs SiO2. .................................................................. 63
Figure 26: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for glass ................... 64
Figure 27: Bivariate plot of Rb vs Si in Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff
Glass……………………………………………………………………………………….....66
Figure 28: Plagioclase An-Ab-Or Ternary Diagram………………………………...……..67
Figure 29: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for plagioclase ......... 69
Figure 30: Pyroxene En-Wo-FS Ternary and olivine Fo-Fa binary for Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff………………………………………………………………….......70
Figure 31: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for pyroxene ............ 72
Figure 32: Bivariate plot of CaO vs FeO*……………………………………………….…74
Figure 33: Bivariate plot of FeO* vs SiO2 with calculated fractionation paths ........... 82
Figure 34: Bivariate Plot of Sm (ppm) vs Si (ppk) for McKenzie Canyon glass ........ 85
Figure 35: Bivariate plot of Ba vs Rb for McKenzie Canyon Tuff glass .................... 87
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Page
Figure 36: Bivariate Plot of Sm (ppm) vs Si (ppk) for Lower Bridge glass ................ 92
Figure 37: Bivariate plot of Ba vs Rb for Lower Bridge Tuff glass ............................ 93
Figure 38: Plot of Temperature in different units ........................................................ 95
Figure 39: -Log ƒO2 vs Temperature °C for Fe-Ti Oxides .......................................... 97
Figure 40: Conceptual diagram of the different convective regimes (or lack thereof)
within the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon volcanic system ............................ 107
Figure 41: Conceptual diagram of the evolution of the Lower Bridge magmatic system
.................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 42: Conceptual diagram of the evolution of the McKenzie Canyon magmatic
system ......................................................................................................................... 112
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Table 1: Rayleigh fractionation/melting constant denotation. ..................................... 19
Table 2: Trace element partition coefficients. Values and (source) from GERM
Database for basalt to basaltic andesite. ....................................................................... 20
Table 3: Starting major and trace element composition of select partial melts ........... 22
Table 4: LA-ICP-MS Instrument Setup ....................................................................... 26
Table 5: Analytical precision for LA-ICP-MS............................................................. 27
Table 6: Summary results of XLFRAC model for both McKenzie Canyon and Lower
Bridge Tuff ................................................................................................................... 78
Table 7: Detailed XLFRAC model results for McKenzie Canyon Tuff. ..................... 79
Table 8: Calculated trace element compositions from Rayleigh fractionation ............ 84
Table 9: Major and trace element composition of partial melts................................... 88
Table 10: Detailed XLFRAC model results for Lower Bridge Tuff rhyolites. ............ 91
LIST OF APPENDICIES
Appendix
Page
A- List of Microprobe Calibration and Runtime Data………………………………137
B- List of Magnetite-Ilmenite Pairs Used for Fe-Ti Oxide Thermometry…………..143
C- List of Two-Pyroxene Pairs for Thermobarometry………………………………153
D- List of Plagioclase-Liquid Pairs for Thermobarometry………………………….179
E- List of Normalized XRF Results…………………………………………………192
F- List of Unnormalized EMPA Results…………………………………………….197
G- List of LA-ICP-MS Results……………………………………………………...241
Plate- Outcrop Map of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff……….in pocket
Early High Cascade Silicic Volcanism: Analysis of the McKenzie Canyon and Lower
Bridge Tuff
2
1- Introduction
Silicic volcanism ranks as one of the most destructive natural forces on the
planet. An estimated 500 million people live within close proximity to volcanic
centers (Tilling and Lipman, 1993) that have potential for large silicic eruptions.
Additionally, as recently shown by the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in 2010 many millions
more would be affected by the products of an explosive eruption such as threat to air
travel (Self and Walker, 1994) and climatic effects (Rampino and Self, 1982). For this
reason alone it is important that we understand the processes which lead to explosive,
large silicic eruptions and to the processes of silicic magma petrogenesis.
Additionally, silicic volcanism provides us with a method by which the Earth’s crust
evolves leading to the differentiation of continental crust. Important effects from the
differentiation process include climatic control from carbon recycling (Franck et al,
1999) in addition to formation of ore deposits from metals brought up from the mantle
(Rosenbaum et al, 2005).
A long standing challenge for geoscientists is identifying how silicic
continental crust and silicic magmas can form in areas dominated by mafic crust and
volcanism. Subduction zones provide a key locality for studying these processes due
to their ability to produce silicic products in a predominantly mafic setting. Existing
studies (Hughes and Mahood, 2008) suggest that there are several factors that favor
formation of large silicic magma reservoirs in subduction zones. High convergence
rates and orthogonal convergence both influence the rate of subduction presumably
controlling the magmatic flux from the mantle. This increased mantle flux provides
large volumes of basaltic melt, which can produce silicic magma through fractional
crystallization of basalts and (or) partial melting of the crust. Additional factors
identified by Hughes and Mahood (2008) are increased crustal thickness and evolved
silicic crustal compositions that allow for incorporation of more evolved material from
assimilation and increased differentiation during magmatic ascent.
Complications arise however; as there are locations where significant silicic volcanism
occurs despite low convergence rates, high obliquity, and thin mafic crust. The
3
Cascadia subduction zone may provide insight to this problem, as it experiences
highly oblique and slow convergence of 30-45 mm/yr (McCaffrey et al, 2007). In
addition it overlies a relatively thin (~35 km) and predominantly mafic crust. It is also
important to note that the Cascade Arc is an endmember in arc settings with the
youngest subducting slab at 10 Ma (Preston et al, 2003) and therefore hottest slab
temperatures in the world.
The frequency of silicic volcanism has been observed to change through
geologic time in many arc settings (Cascadia included), indicating that local tectonic
regimes and other factors may be important. Although the Cascade Arc has been
relatively inactive though much of historic time the geologic record suggests that
significant volcanic events in the form of large silicic eruptions and voluminous basalt
flows occur relatively frequently (Miller, 1990). Priest (1990) observed that volcanic
productivity in the Cascade Arc has decreased through time. In particular, Quaternary
silicic eruptions are relatively rare (Hildreth, 2007), but older volcanic deposits record
significant silicic eruptions (Priest, 1990; Smith, 1986). A key question then becomes
“Why does silicic volcanism vary through time?” One means to addressing this
question is a comparison between the Western Cascade phase of the Cascade Arc
(~40-8 Ma) and the modern High Cascade Arc (~8 Ma to present). The abundant
volcanic activity, including abundant silicic volcanism, documented from the Western
Cascade arc is substantially different from the relatively minimal and mafic dominated
volcanism seen in the High Cascade arc today (Figure 1). The transition from Western
Cascade volcanism to the modern High Cascades at ~8 Ma is the most recent major
reorganization of the Cascadia subduction zone boundary and resulted in significant
changes in the composition and abundance of volcanism. Volcanic productivity has
been significantly reduced and the proportion of silicic magmas to the total erupted
magmatic volume has also decreased. However, relatively little is known of this
transition, as much of the geologic record along the modern Cascades arc has been
buried by subsequent volcanism. In particular, there is a lack of detailed studies of
silicic magmatism from this time period largely due to the lack of outcrop of silicic
4
Figure 1: Cascade Arc volcanic production over time for the last 40 million years.
Note the High Lava Plains are not included in volcanic production estimates.
Modified from Priest, (1990).
5
deposits. In order to address some of these deficiencies we must identify silicic
volcanic deposits originating from the Cascade Arc immediately following the High
Cascade transition, and undertake a detailed analysis of the silicic products to
determine their petrogenesis.
One solution to this can be found in the Deschutes Formation, a volcaniclastic
deposit within the Deschutes Basin including numerous silicic deposits.
The distal Deschutes Basin located to the east of the modern arc (Figure 2), provides
good exposure of pyroclastic fall and flow deposits from the early stages of the
modern High Cascades, in the range of 8-4 million years. The stratigraphic record
preserved within the basin provides an exceptional opportunity to study explosive
silicic volcanism associated with early High Cascade volcanoes and also may serve as
an analogue for future eruptions. In particular, the formation provides the opportunity
to investigate the nature of silicic volcanism at this time and estimate the volume,
constrain pre-eruptive magma chamber conditions, and study the petrogenesis of
individual eruptions. In this study I have investigated two large silicic eruptions from
the Deschutes basin in order to determine the evolution of a highly productive
volcanic system. The two units chosen for study, The Lower Bridge Tuff and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff are the oldest known ash-flow tuffs in the formation making
them among the first known silicic material produced following the Western Cascades
to High Cascades transition in this location. The stratigraphically higher McKenzie
Canyon Tuff is ideal for this study as it is extensive, well exposed, and has at least two
compositions of pumice, allowing insight into a compositionally diverse magma
reservoir. The older Lower Bridge Tuff, which commonly crops out beneath the
McKenzie Canyon Tuff, is much more compositionally restricted. By comparing the
compositionally restricted Lower Bridge Tuff to the compositionally diverse
McKenzie Canyon Tuff we will be able to investigate the role of compositional
variation on eruptive and magma chamber processes. Determining the nature of these
large silicic eruptions and magma chambers that evolved them will help aid in the
understanding of the evolution of the central Oregon Cascades.
6
Figure 2: Map of major volcano-tectonic provinces in the Central Cascades.
Modified from Sherrod and Smith (2000).
7
The specific goals of this study include:
 Establishing the lateral extent and thickness of outcrop to determine
minimum eruptive volumes
 Collect and analyze glass and minerals from juvenile pumice to determine
the chemical variations within the tuffs
 Determine what roles fractional crystallization, partial melting, and mixing
had on the formation and evolution of silicic melts
2- Previous Work
The volcanic units of the Deschutes Formation were first recognized by Captain C.
E. Dutton (1889) describing a “waterlaid tuff” interbedded with basalts along the
Metolius River. Since its original discovery the Deschutes Formation has had several
different names and age constraints applied which gives it a complicated history. The
various names applied to the Deschutes Formation are the “Deschutes Sands” by
Russell (1905), “Madras Formation” by Hodge (1940), “Dalles Formation” by Hodge
(1942), and the now widely accepted Deschutes Formation by Williams (1924).
Early work on the Deschutes Formation by Chaney (1938) consigned the
formation to the Early to Middle Pliocene, which was supported by Hodge (1940) and
Williams (1957). Everden and James (1964) published the first K-Ar age of 4.3-5.3
Ma on the section studied by Chaney (1938). McBirney et al. (1974) proposed a
bracketed age of the Deschutes Formation from 9-11 Ma to 4-6 Ma based from K-Ar
dates of the basal Pelton Basalt and capping basalts respectively. Hales (1975)
constrained the age of the Deschutes Formation and the onset of faulting at Green
Ridge to 4.5-9.2 Ma. Armstrong et al. (1975) published K-Ar dates for a suite of
Deschutes Formation rocks ranging from 3.3-15.9 Ma. Smith and Snee (1983) report
the first 40Ar-39Ar age in the Deschutes Formation of 7.6 Ma on the Pelton Basalt.
Smith et al. (1987) then redefined the age of the Deschutes Formation by Ar-Ar dating
the lowest exposed basalt at 7.42
0.22 Ma and the highest lava on Green Ridge at 5.3
0.1 Ma. Aubin (2000) provides the only dates of silicic materials in the Deschutes
8
Formation with Ar-Ar dates of 5.38
.06 Ma and 5.56
.06 Ma for the Six Creek and
Balanced Rocks Tuffs, respectively.
The first published map including Deschutes Formation deposits is from Wells and
Peck (1961) under the name “Dalles Formation”. A reconnaissance map from Waters
(1968) included the Deschutes Formation as the “Madras Formation”. A series of
mapping projects conducted by Oregon State University graduate students under Dr.
Edward Taylor brought further resolution to the Deschutes Formation by noting
prominent exposures and breaking the formation into subunits. The northern half of
the Deschutes basin was mapped by Hewitt (1970), Hales (1975), Jay (1982), Hayman
(1983), Conrey (1985), Dill (1985), Yogodzinski (1985), Smith (1986), and Aubin
(2000). The southern half of the Deschutes basin was mapped by Stensland (1970),
Cannon (1984), Thormahlen (1984), and McDannel (1990). Maps published by the
USGS that include Deschutes Formation are the Bend 30’ Quadrangle (Sherrod et al.,
2004), Steelhead Falls 7.5 minute quadrangle (Ferns M.L., 1996), and Hinkle Butte
7.5 minute quadrangle (Taylor E.M., 1998). Additionally several field trip guides
exist for the Deschutes Formation with emphasis on the area surrounding Lake Billy
Chinnook (Smith G.A., 1983; Bishop E.M., 1990; Taylor E.M., 1990; Peterson and
Groh, 1991; Smith G.A., 1991; Conrey R.M., 2004).
Detailed geochemical studies within the Deschutes basin are largely absent with
the exception of Aubin (2000) who provides a detailed geochemical and petrologic
analysis of 5 ignimbrite units deposited in the Fly Creek area at the northern end of the
basin. Smith (1986) provides a review of all the basic petrography and geochemistry
done on mafic and silicic units within the basin with particular emphasis paid to data
collected from unpublished OSU master’s thesis. This work by Smith highlights the
large amount of “grey literature” existing for Deschutes Formation rocks some of
which will be included in this study.
In terms of the units analyzed during this study, the McKenzie Canyon Tuff was
first described by Stensland (1970) as “ash-flow tuff two” and was then informally
named the McKenzie Canyon Tuff by Cannon (1984). Occurring in the middle
9
portion of the Deschutes Formation stratigraphy, the tuff is regularly found among
other ash-flows in a given location. It is described to be from 3-50 feet thick and
consists of up to five flow units making up one complex cooling unit that ranges from
nonwelded to densely welded. The most diagnostic features of the tuff are its distinct
brick red-orange color in addition to black, white, and banded pumice (Smith, 1986).
Cannon (1984) hypothesizes that the deposit represents an eruption of co-mingling and
incompletely mixed magmas which is consistent with limited geochemical analysis
documenting a bimodal distribution of SiO2.
The Lower Bridge Tuff often occurrs in section with the McKenzie Canyon Tuff
and is equally extensive. The Lower Bridge Tuff was originally described and
partially mapped by Stensland (1970), however he incorrectly assigned a separate tuff
with Lower Bridge Tuff. Cannon (1984) reassigned the incorrectly mapped tuff as
“Unit 0” and then informally named the Lower Bridge Tuff. She describes the Lower
Bridge Tuff as being stratigraphically lower than the McKenzie Canyon Tuff, forming
rounded, gullied, low angle slopes with a brown color or from white to purple if on a
fresh surface. The Lower Bridge Tuff consists of an accretionary lapilli-fall deposit
overlain by two ash-flow units totaling 1.5-15.5 meters thick. Results from Cannon
(1984) include detailed mapping of unit exposure, limited description of unit facies,
petrographic descriptions, whole rock major element composition of 63 samples, and a
limited dataset of major element composition of amphibole, pyroxenes, and olivine.
3- Geologic Setting
3.1 Cascade Subduction and Plate Motion
Volcanism in the Cascade arc is the result of subduction of the Farallon plate
which was completely subducted under North America at 30 Ma and more recently of
the Farallon remnant, the Juan de Fuca plate. Current subduction of the Juan de Fuca
Plate (Figure 3) is oblique with an approximately 10° slab dip to a depth of 50 km
(Trehu et al, 2002) with an increasing 50° slab dip below the arc axis (Roth et al,
2008). Subduction rates have slowed from 6-7cm/yr to 3-4cm/yr at 7 Ma as a result of
10
Figure 3: Plate-tectonic setting of the modern Cascadia Subduction zone.
Prominent cities and volcanic edifices are white boxes and grey triangles
respectively. From Leonard et al., (2010).
11
increasing oblique convergence (Guffanti and Weaver, 1988). This change in
subduction has had significant implications for the structure of the arc. Shallow rapid
subduction of the Farallon and early Juan de Fuca produced the broad and highly
active volcanic front of the Western Cascades whereas the deeper and slow subduction
following 7 Ma produced the relatively narrow High Cascade Arc.
3.2 Western Cascades
The Western Cascades represent an early expression of the Cascade Arc in the Pacific
Northwest. Western Cascade volcanism initiated at ~42 Ma and is characterized as
having local andesitic volcanoes producing voluminous tholeiitic lava and silicic
pyroclastic rock of both tholeiitic and calc-alkaline trends (see compilation of du Bray
et al, 2006 & references therein). The arc is suggested to be 3-4 times the width of the
modern arc and was likely low in elevation as evidenced by the notable lateral
continuity of ash-flow sheets (Priest, 1990). From 18-14 Ma a period of either
topographic uplift or low volcanic output existed as there is a marked unconformity in
Western Cascade rocks in most areas. Within this timeframe, at ~16.6 Ma, basaltic
volcanicsm of the Columbia River Basalt Group initiated (Hooper, 2002). Late
Western Cascade volcanism, beginning at 14 Ma, is dominated by voluminous
eruptions of calc-alkaline andesite, subordinate basaltic andesite, and dacite producing
a total calculated volume of ~36,000 Km3 of volcanic material ending at 8.8 Ma.
Priest (1990) observed an eastward progression and narrowing of the Western
Cascades arc volcanism that has been attributed to a steepening of the slab (>100 km)
and/or decrease in convergence rate (Verplanck and Duncan, 1987).
3.3 Columbia River Basalts
The Columbia River Basalts Group (CRB) represents a significant outpouring
of basalt to basaltic andesite lavas which have covered large portions of Idaho,
Washington, and Oregon with a total erupted volume of ~234,000 km3 (Camp et al,
2003). In the northern portion of the Deschutes basin the CRB crop out in the form of
12
the chemically distinct Prineville Basalt. Co-erupting with the Grand Ronde basalt
unit of the CRBs, the Prineville differs by having unusually high P2O5 and Ba
concentrations (Hooper, 1993). Interbedded and overlying the uppermost CRBs is the
volcaniclastic sedimentary sequence of the Simtustus Formation. The Simtustus is
made up of tuffaceous mudstones, sandstones, conglomerates, tuffs, and debris flow
breccia that have a Cascade dominant provenance (Smith, 1986). The Simtustus
conformably is unconformably overlain by the Deschutes Formation making the
Simtustus anywhere between 15.5 and 7.6 m.y. old (Smith, 1986). As the distance
between the oldest dated fauna (12 Ma) and the Deschutes unconformity is less than
30 meters, Smith, (1986) argues that the Simtustus was likely emplaced from 15.5 to
12 Ma with a 5 million year hiatus in activity prior to the start of deposition of the
Deschutes Formation.
3.4 Early and Modern High Cascades
Volcanism within the Early High Cascades began at ~7.4 Ma and continued
until 4.0 Ma and is characterized by eruption of voluminous basalt, basaltic andesite,
and subordinate silicic pyroclastic falls and flows forming ~3,000 km3 of erupted
material (Priest, 1990). Volcanism was centered on the current High Cascades axis
which was 13 km wider than the current arc. In the central Oregon the High Cascades
volcanic edifices of this early arc are largely hidden as they have subsided into graben
structures and are buried by recent volcanism. A series of along-arc normal faults
define a graben which terminates at Mt. Hood and widens to the south marking the
physical manifestation of active rifting within the Cascade Arc (Taylor, 1990).
Modern volcanism in the Cascade Arc has progressed since 3.9 Ma to the present,
erupting ~900 km3 of volcanic material. The most prominent expression of this
volcanism is focused on ~30 large predominately andesitic to dacitic stratocones. Far
more volumetrically important however, is the existence of >2,300 mafic vents
(Hildreth, 2007; Luedke et al, 1983; Smith, 1993; Sherrod and Smith, 2000). The
general composition of eruptive materials originating from the central Oregon arc is
unchanged with a distinct narrowing and confinement of the arc in response to
13
Western Cascades uplift and growth of large fault scarps to the east (Priest, 1990).
Recent work by Conrey et al, (2004) suggests however that there is a northward
propagation of potassium depleted lavas known as low-K tholeiite basalt. These
magmas are suggested to be formed by rifting processes and are coupled with
subsidence and development of prominent graben structures (ex. Green Ridge), which
support the hypothesis of extension and rifting in the Cascade Arc.
3.5 High Lava Plains
The High Lava Plains (HLP) of south-central Oregon is a volcanic province to
the southeast of the Central Cascade arc. The physiographic expression of the HLP is
described as a 90 by 275 km long, late Miocene and younger volcanic province that is
bounded to the west by the Cascade Arc and to the south by the North West Basin and
Range (Jordan et al, 2004). The volcanic rocks of the HLP province are bimodal,
basalts and rhyolites, with the basalts predominantly being high alumina olivine
tholeiites. The rhyolites occur both as domes and ash-flows with a time progressive
sequence younging to the west between 12 Ma to present (Jordan et al, 2004). Of
particular interest in the silicic volcanic rocks is the presence of a high iron signature
which is distinct from that of the Cascade Arc (Ford, 2012). Unlike the silicic
volcanic rocks, basalts of the HLP are not systematically age transgressive and occur
in pulses, the greatest of which was at 7.5 M, coincident with the onset of rifting in the
arc (Jordan et al, 2004; Ford, 2012)
3.6 Deschutes Basin and Formation
The Deschutes Formation is a ~700 m thick volcanic and volcaniclastic
sequence (Bishop, 1990; Smith, 1986) located immediately to the east of the modern
High Cascades arc, between Bend and Madras, Oregon. During the onset of the High
Cascades, the Deschutes Formation was captured within the Deschutes Basin. The
Deschutes Basin formed as a topographic low to the east of the arc bounded by the
Mutton Mountains to the north, the Ochoco Mountains to the east, and the High Lava
Plains to the south. During this time volcanic products derived from the ancestral
14
High Cascades began aggregating within the basin to form the Deschutes Formation.
The formation consists of numerous ignimbrites and associated pyroclastic fall units,
basalt flows, and proximal volcaniclastic sediments deposited between 8-4 Ma (Smith,
1986). Of these volcanic deposits there are 24 stratigraphically relevant, informally
named units of which 15 are silicic ash-flow tuffs (Smith, 1986). Additionally, there
are many dozens to hundreds of minor ash-flow tuff and pumice falls which are
uncharacterized and uncorrelated. The ash-flow tuffs vary in composition from
basaltic andesite to rhyolite with many displaying complex zonation and hybridization
features of banded pumice. Deposition within the basin ceased at ~4 Ma due to the
subsidence of the central Cascade Arc forming the Cascade Graben to the north and
the waning of silicic volcanism in the south (Smith, 1986; Bishop 1990; Conrey et al,
2004). Following this, intrabasinal basaltic sources were also important such as
Tetherow Butte, Round Butte, and Lower Bridge to Steelhead Falls vicinity (Smith,
1986) and in many cases local basalt flows form capping flows in the basin. Due to
the rain shadow effect of the modern Cascade Range, vegetative cover and erosion are
minor in the basin leading to excellent exposure of units in the Deschutes and Crooked
River canyons and their tributaries.
4- Methods
4.1 Field Methods
The goals of the field program includes identification of the physical properties
of the tuff units such as unit description, unit thickness, pumice and lithic clast size
distributions, volcanic welding and devitrification facies, and other physical attributes
such as clast imbrication. These determinations are used to constrain the likely source
area, the flow direction(s), and provide a minimum volume estimate for the eruptions.
The surrounding stratigraphy is noted in several key locations where thick sections are
exposed creating stratigraphic columns for future correlation of units surrounding the
tuffs. Sampling key locations provides the materials needed for analytical work. This
15
will be used for verification and collaboration of data provided in previous studies
(Stensland, 1970; Cannon, 1984).
Thickness measurements were done using a tape measure where possible,
starting from the base or lowest exposed point and working up the section.
Exceptionally thick sections were measured while doing stratigraphic traverses by
hand leveling. This method was tested for accuracy against a tape measure where ever
possible. Additionally, after making measurements across two particularly thick
traverses the measured thicknesses were compared to thicknesses inferred from
topographic maps and Google Earth imagery. The methods agree to within
10% of
the indicated thickness.
A measurement of clast sizes was done with tape measure and the reported size
is the average clast size over a 1 m2 area where possible. In some locations the deposit
thickness of a single unit did not allow for a 1 m2 box to be assessed and in these cases
the average clast size for the entire exposed unit was reported. Assessing the modal
percent of pumice types (white, black, and banded) and lithics was done in the same
fashion using a 1 m2 area where appropriate.
Imbrication of clasts was measured using a Brunton compass. At a given
outcrop location where imbrication was noticeable, clasts were measured using as
many exposed faces as possible in an attempt to determine their true direction in three
dimensions. The direction of imbrication was assessed for each clast and the values
reported is an average direction calculated from the clast population.
4.2 Calculated Methods
4.2.1 Volume
Minimum volume estimates for Lower Bridge pumice fall were calculated
using the single isopach method proposed by Legros (2000) and modified by Salisbury
(2011) to account for multiple isopachs. For the Lower Bridge Tuff and McKenzie
Canyon Tuff the volume was calculated by taking the average thickness of an isopach
over the entire area. For the Lower Bridge Tuff bulk volumes were converted to dense
16
rock equivalent (DRE) using density values of 1.43 and 2.18 g/cm3 to represent an
unconsolidated tuff/pumice fall from Streck and Grunder (1995) and magmatic density
values calculated in this paper. Dacite density values calculated for the McKenzie
Canyon Tuff assume the same proportionality of unconsolidated tuff and partially
welded tuff to magmatic density as identified in rhyolites from Streck and Grunder
(1995). The calculated unconsolidated dacite tuff, partially welded tuff with fiamme,
and magmatic density were 1.52, 2.28, and 2.32 g/cm3.
Potential uncertainty exists in the determination of the volumes stemming from
three sources. As the mapped deposits represent only the distal portions of eastward
ash-flows the thickness and welding of proximal deposits or deposits flowing to the
west cannot be assessed. Additionally, it is likely that some degree of weathering has
eroded these ash-flow tuffs. Together these factors lead to uncertainties lead to
underestimation of the true volume of the original deposit.
4.2.2 Density
Magmatic density values were calculated using the method of Spera (2000)
using an average composition for Lower Bridge (LB) and McKenzie Canyon Tuff
(MCT) from EMPA glass analysis. As the composition of the Lower Bridge Tuff is
relatively restricted this provides a close approximation of the true density of the
erupted melt. This approach is less ideal for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff as it is
formed from a bimodal suite of basaltic andesite and rhyolite, which would have
varying densities due to large compositional, temperature, and wt% H2O changes. A
better approach uses the observed proportions of black, white, and banded pumice as a
proxy for the relative amounts of each magma composition in the system. By taking
these modal proportions multiplying them by the normalized thickness for each
subunit, the resultant total proportion for the system can then be used to calculate a
total density. The largest drawback to this method is that it assumes the relative
thickness of each subunit is laterally constant. This approach however provides a
better assessment of the tuff density than a simple averaged value and is used for
density calculations for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. Additional values required for
17
calculation were pressure (assumed atmospheric) for both units while temperature and
wt% H20 were assumed to be 850 °C, 4.5% for rhyolite and 1050 °C, 2.5% for basaltic
andesite with temperature estimates from this study and wt% H2O from Mandeville
(2009) and Ruscitto et al (2011) respectively, assuming saturation and pressure of 130
and 1300 Mpa respectively.
4.2.3 Chemical Modeling of the System
Silicic magmas can be generated through several processes such as fractional
crystallization, assimilation of silicic material by more mafic melts, and partial melting
of silicic material. Each of these processes will produce silicic magmas with distinct
geochemical trends and signatures. In order to understand the magmatic system and
determine what processes can produce rhyolites of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie
Canyon Tuff, I have investigated a range of petrogenetic models involving fractional
crystallization, partial melting, and mixing.
Fractional crystallization is a process through which magmas can become more
evolved and felsic through the crystallization and removal of phases such as olivine,
pyroxene, and feldspar. To test the role of fractional crystallization on the system, I
used the XLFRAC program of Stormer and Nicholls (1978) originally written in
FORTRAN IV and updated to an Excel spreadsheet. XLFRAC utilizes a least squares
regression to calculate a “best fit” for mass balance between starting and ending liquid
compositions and phases present in the melt. The sum of the residuals, denoted as
ΣR2, indicates the quality of fit for the data with values asymptotically approaching
zero as the fit improves. The upper limit at which the calculated phase proportions is
not considered an appropriate fit is at ΣR2=2 as defined by Stormer and Nicholls
(1978), however this study uses a stringent value of ΣR2=1 as an upper limit of
acceptance for greater accuracy. This approach can be used to determine the fraction
of crystallization or resorption of specific phases required to produce a derivative
magma from an initial magmatic composition. An eight component magma
(excluding MnO and P2O5) was chosen from the basaltic andesite to provide the
starting composition prior to crystallization. Mineral phases occurring in the system
18
were then included with chemical compositions obtained from the electron
microprobe. Several evolved liquid compositions (Samples MCTA 209-19, MCTA
209-20, and MCTL 208-28) in the system were chosen to test the ability of fractional
crystallization to drive a mafic melt to evolved compositions. As a check for the
crystallization model, trace element fractionation was also calculated using the results
of the major element model for phase proportions and a starting composition from
sample MCTB 88-1MI. The fractional crystallization equation:
Cl=Co*F(D-1)#
was used to determine the trace element composition of the residual liquid (Constants
explained in Table 1). Partition coefficients for basaltic andesite (step 1) and andesite
(step 2) were obtained from the GERM database and are tabulated in Table 2.
Rhyolite generation can also be achieved through partial melting, of crustal rocks,
including those of a mafic protolith. The major element results of several melting
experiments (Ratajeski et al, 2005; Sisson et al, 2005; Rapp and Watson, 1995) are
compared with the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff system to determine if
partial melting serves as a viable method of generating these rhyolites (Table 3).
Additionally applying a fractional melting model (Arth, 1976) utilizing the equation:
Cl=Co/[DRS + F(1-DRS)]#
to the trace elements of the mafic sources in the melting experiments provides a
secondary test to the viability of partial melting to produce Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon rhyolites. Trace element compositions of the mafic component
used in the melting experiments of Ratajeski et al (2005) and Rapp and Watson (1995)
were then applied to the Rayleigh melting model utilizing the same melt fraction and
phase proportions observed in the experimental charges. Partition coefficients for the
trace elements were obtained from the GERM database and are summarized in Table
2.
#
Variables detailed in Table
1
19
Table 1: Rayleigh fractionation and melting variable denotation.
Constants
Denotation
Cl
Concentration of a given element in the residual liquid
Co
Concentration of a given element in the original liquid
F
Total percent of fractionated solids or melted liquids
D
Bulk partition coefficient of fractionated phases
DRS
Bulk partition coefficient of residual solids
20
Table 2: Trace element partition coefficients. Values and (source) from GERM Database for basalt to basaltic andesite.
Element
Plag
Hbl
Opx
Cpx
Mag
Olv
Element
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr (1)
Y
Zr
0.008 (2)
0.04 (1)
0.01 (4)
0.016 (2)
0.122 (4)
0.10 (1)
2.00
0.023 (4)
0.0013 (4)
NA
NA
3.4 (20)
NA
6.8 (20)
0.33 (20)
0.12
0.4 (9)
0.33 (9)
2.3 (3)
0.024 (1)
0.5 (5)
1.8 (7)
1.1 (8)
0.00 (1)
0.01
1.1 (9)
0.12 (11)
3.3 (2)
0.1 (1)
2.31 (6)
1.6 (2)
1.2 (6)
0.01 (1)
0.07
0.412 (10)
0.119 (10)
0.67 (3)
8 (3)
6.85 (3)
1.9 (2)
31 (3)
0.00 (1)
0.00
0.0039 (3)
0.02 (3)
0.33 (2)
0.006 (1)
0.09 (6)
2.6 (2)
7.6 (6)
0.00 (1)
0.00
0.0036 (3)
0.01 (12)
Nb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr (1)
Nd
Sm
Eu
0.01 (1) 0.0626 (4)
0.23 (2)
0.069 (2)
0.062 (2)
0.17
0.028 (2)
0.017 (2)
0.68 (2)
Plag
0.8 (1)
NA
0.15 (14)
0.17 (1)
NA
NA
0.44 (1)
0.76 (1)
0.88 (1)
Hbl
0.003 (11)
0.01 (13)
0.013 (5)
0.002 (1)
0.003 (1)
0.00
0.0068 (1)
0.01 (1)
0.013 (1)
Opx
0.05 (1)
0.01 (13)
0.05 (2)
0.054 (1)
0.098 (1)
0.15
0.21 (1)
0.26 (1)
0.31 (1)
Cpx
0.01 (3)
0.39 (14)
0.12 (14)
0.098 (2)
0.11 (2)
0.01
0.14 (2)
0.15 (2)
0.1 (2)
Mag
0.01 (1)
0.01 (12)
0.05 (2) 0.0004 (1)
0.01 (2)
0.00
0.008 (2)
0.006 (2)
0.008 (2)
Olv
Element
Gd
Dy (1)
Er (1)
Yb (1)
Pb
Th
U (1)
0.066 (1)
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.36 (1)
0.05 (1)
0.11
Plag
0.86 (1)
0.78
NA
0.59
NA
NA
NA
Hbl
0.016 (1)
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.0013 (1)
0.0001 (1)
0.00
Opx
0.3 (1)
0.33
0.30
0.28
0.00498 (15) 0.00026 (1)
0.00
Cpx
0.14 (2)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.05 (14)
0.00
Mag
0.0015 (1)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0001 (1)
0.0001 (1)
0.00
Olv
Sources: (1) McKenzie & O'Nions, 1991; (2) Paster et al, 1974; (3) Nielson et al, 1992; (4) Bindeman et al, 1998; (5) Reid, 1983; (6)
Duke, 1976; (7) Ewart et al, 1973; (8) Mysen, 1978; (9) Green et al, 1993; (10) Johnson, 1998; (11) Keleman & Dunn, 1992; (12)
Villemont, 1988; (13) Bacon & Duitt, 1988; (14) Luhr & Carmichal, 1980; (15) Beattie, 1993; (16) Ewart & Griffin, 1994; (17) Green
& Pearson, 1987; (18) Schnetzler & Philpotts, 1970; (19) Dunn & Sen, 1994; (20) Dostal et al, 1983; (21) Lemarchand et al, 1987
21
Table 2 Continued: Trace element partition coefficients. Values and (source) from GERM Database for andesite to dacite.
Element
Sc
Ti
V (14)
Mn (16)
Ni (14)
Rb (13)
Sr (13)
Y (16)
0.01 (13)
0.05
0.07
0.038
0.06
0.3
3.4
0.066
Plag
4.3 (13)
0.25
0.47
7.3
0.79
0.01
0.01
0.46
Opx
17 (13)
0.4
1.1
4.5
4.6
0.03
0.5
2.4
Cpx
1.7 (14)
9
8.7
5.72
9.6
0.15
0.11
0.64
Mag
0.3 (14)
0.03
0.08
0
58
0.062
0.07
0.01
Olv
Element
Plag
Opx
Cpx
Mag
Olv
Zr (13)
0.2
0.11
0.29
0.38
0.01
Nb
1.3 (13)
0.78 (13)
2.1 (13)
4.6 (17)
0.11 (13)
Cs
0.03 (13)
0.01 (13)
0.01 (13)
0.39 (14)
0.27 (14)
Ba
0.27 (13)
0.1 (13)
0.1 (13)
0.12 (14)
0.02 (14)
La (14)
0.13
0.03
0.14
0.22
0.02
Ce (14)
0.12
0.02
0.2
0.12
0.01
Nd (14)
0.08
0.05
0.44
0.25
0.02
Sm (14)
0.07
0.06
0.78
0.29
0.01
Element
Eu (14)
Gd
Dy (14)
Er
Yb (14)
Pb (17)
Th (14)
U
0.36
0.214 (18)
0.03
0.027 (18)
0.01
0.61
0.004
0.051 (19)
Plag
0.07
0.155 (18)
0.21
0.318 (18)
0.29
0.52
0.04
0.0013 (19)
Opx
0.72
0.095 (18)
1.2
0.107 (18)
0.93
0.87
0.04
0.04 (20)
Cpx
0.22
0.3
0.44
0.37
0.24
2.9
0.05
0.11 (21)
Mag
0.03
0.02
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.43
0.02
0.04 (19)
Olv
Sources: (1) McKenzie & O'Nions, 1991; (2) Paster et al, 1974; (3) Nielson et al, 1992; (4) Bindeman et al, 1998; (5) Reid,
1983; (6) Duke, 1976; (7) Ewart et al, 1973; (8) Mysen, 1978; (9) Green et al, 1993; (10) Johnson, 1998; (11) Keleman &
Dunn, 1992; (12) Villemont, 1988; (13) Bacon & Duitt, 1988; (14) Luhr & Carmichal, 1980; (15) Beattie, 1993; (16) Ewart
& Griffin, 1994; (17) Green & Pearson, 1987; (18) Schnetzler & Philpotts, 1970; (19) Dunn & Sen, 1994; (20) Dostal et al,
1983; (21) Lemarchand et al, 1987
22
Table 3: Major and trace element composition of select mafic melt protoliths.
Samples 87S35a and YOS-55a from Ratajeski (2005) and Sisson (2005) samples
No.1-3 from Rapp and Watson (1995).
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
V
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
La
Ce
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Yb
Th
87S35a
51.32
1.29
19.37
8.82
0.17
4.38
8.98
4.29
1.01
0.38
YOS-55a
53.95
1.03
17.85
8.11
0.15
5.43
9.33
2.74
1.19
0.21
29.5
466
30
850
435
14.8
32.9
17.2
3.89
1.22
640
22.5
51.7
26.2
5.6
1.63
1.60
1.3
1.49
0.9
No. 1
51.19
1.18
16.62
11.32
0.23
6.59
5.49
4.33
0.82
NA
310
46
13
318
28
71
2
330
10
11
NA
12
11
NA
NA
11
NA
No. 2
48.60
2.06
17.03
10.69
0.21
6.07
9.66
3.30
0.21
NA
400
53
10
160
40
170
10
40
29
33
29
25
25
NA
NA
19
NA
No. 3
47.6
1.19
14.18
13.77
0.19
6.86
10.99
2.56
0.19
NA
NA
110
2
71
22
41
5
18
3
4
4
7
8
12
12
10
NA
23
4.2.4 Thermobarometry
Magmatic temperatures, oxygen fugacity, and pressures were calculated from
Fe-Ti oxides, two pyroxene thermobarometry, and plagioclase-liquid thermobarometry
and hygrometry. Fe-Ti oxides were tested for equilibrium using the Bacon and
Hirschmann (1988) test for equilibrium LogMg/Mnilmenite versus LogMg/Mnmagnetite.
The chemical data for equilibrium pairs was then used to calculate temperatures using
the ILMAT spreadsheet of LePage (2003). I used the solution of Anderson and
Lindsley (1985) with the calculated mole fraction of ulvospinel and ilmenite from
Stormer (1983). The Fe-Ti pairs were also calculated using Ghiorso and Evans (2008)
thermometer which provides both temperature and oxygen fugacity estimates.
Pyroxene thermometry based on the presence of equilibrium pyroxene pairs
was performed following the methods of Putirka (2008) with accepted values taken
from his equation 36. As touching pairs of pyroxenes were difficult to distinguish in
mineral separates, any pairs of pyroxenes from a single sample that were found to be
in equilibrium following the methods of Roeder and Emslie (1970) were used. This is
not an optimal use of the thermometer however, and may result in increased
uncertainty.
Plagioclase-liquid thermometry was done also following the methods of
Putirka (2008). Here the average liquid composition for a sample, as determined by
EMPA of glass, and that of the plagioclase separated from the sample were compared.
An equilibrium test of KD(Ab-An) was attempted, however it has been previously
noted that the standard deviation from experimental data is quite large (0.27
0.18)
indicating that the test is only moderately useful. In order to calculate accurate
temperature values (eqn 24a) an initial P(Kbar) and H2O (wt%) value must be
determined. For this, pressure values were assumed to be two kilobars. A test of the
effect of an incorrect pressure was done by assuming atmospheric and 10 kbar depths
within the spreadsheet. The resultant temperature indcate that the sensitivity of the
calculation to incorrect pressure estimates is nominal. In contrast, a similar test to the
sensitivity of percent H20 indicated that the calculations are highly sensitive to
24
changes in water as previously identified (Putirka, 2008). Water contents assumed for
the basaltic andesite and rhyolite pumice originate from Russcitto et al. (2011) and
Mandeville (2009). H2O contents of 2.63 and 4.45 wt% were chosen for basaltic
andesite and rhyolite respectively based on an average value of North Sister basaltic
andesites and calculated H2O at 2nd stage of rhyodacite degassing at 2 km depth from
Crater Lake. An iterative approach using an initial calculated temperature to provide a
more accurate calculation of temperature and H2O content was assessed using
equations 24a and 25b respectively (Putirka, 2008).
4.3 Analytical Methods
4.3.1 Electron Microprobe (EMPA)
In situ major element analysis of pumice fragments and mineral separates were
conducted using Oregon State’s Cameca SX-100 Electron Microprobe equipped with
5 wavelength dispersive spectrometers (WDS) and one energy dispersive spectrometer
(EDS). Pumice and mineral mounts were carbon coated to ensure a constant current
across the mount surface. Conditions for each run consisted of an accelerating voltage
of 15 Kv and a beam current of 30 nA. Glass analysis utilized a spot size of 5 μm
whereas mineral analysis, spot size was 1 μm. For glass analysis, spots were chosen
away from mineral inclusions and pumice edges where possible to avoid areas
susceptible to post emplacement alteration. Spots on minerals were chosen in both
core and rim locations, avoiding inclusions, microcrysts, and cracks. Mineral phases
analyzed by EMPA include plagioclase, clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, olivine, and
Fe-Ti oxides. Backscatter electron images were taken of all crystals to identify any
zonation or exsolution within the crystals. EMPA runtime conditions, standards,
detection limits, accuracies are summarized in Appendix A.
4.3.2 Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled-Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)
Laser ablation analysis of pumice glass, individual plagioclase, and pyroxene
crystals was conducted at the W.M. Keck Collaboratory for Plasma Spectrometry at
25
Oregon State University. Laser ablation analysis used a Photon Machines Analyte G2
Excimer Laser coupled to Thermoscientific X Series 2 Quadrupole ICP-MS utilizing
He as a carrier gas. Glass analysis utilized an 85 μm circular spot which was placed in
areas away from obvious inclusions, or minerals. Analyses where the time-resolved
spectra showed presence of microlites or other crystalline material were discarded.
Mineral analysis utilized a 65 μm circular spot which was placed within the crystal
core. Laser and spectrometer properties and runtime conditions are summarized in
Table 4.
Data was processed using in-house LASERTRAM software utilizing visual
basic running in Microsoft Excel. The software uses a 20-30 second background
measurement with a 10-30 second user-defined ablation period to correct for
background and normalize the count rate for each element over the ablation period.
The software then subdivides the chosen ablation interval into 3-5 sub intervals with
each calculating individual background and normalized counts. The final value for
counts measured is the median value of the normalized subintervals. GSE-1G glass
served as a calibration standard. Calcium-43 was used as an internal standard for
plagioclase analysis and 29Si was used as an internal standard for glass and pyroxene
analyses both using values of CaO and SiO2 measured by EMPA. Table 5 reports the
isotope data for the calibration standard GSE-1G, secondary standards GSD-1G and
BCR-1G, and the mean, standard deviation, and accuracy of the secondary standard.
The accuracy of the measurement for each element was assessed by averaging the
measured values for a standard; subtract the resulting concentration from the published
concentration, and divide by the result by the published concentration. Synthetic glass
and basaltic glass standard GSD-1G and BCR-2G both had accuracies of <10% for all
elements with the exception of uranium with many elements being <5%. The
uncertainty within the standards varied by element, with most elements having
uncertainty of ±2.5-8%. Of the elements analyzed, Ba, Ce, Pr, and U a higher
calculated uncertainty than that published for the GSE-1G glass standard. Though the
BCR-G2 glass reported similar accuracies as the GSD-1G the published uncertainty
26
Table 4: LA-ICP-MS Instrument Setup
Parameter
Instrumentation
Laser Ablation System
ICP-MS System
Laser Conditions
Wavelength
Frequency
Pulse Duration
Spot Diameter
Ablation Duration
Output Energy
Analyzer Conditions
Aerosol Carrier Gas
Flow
Nebulizer Gas Flow
Outer (cool) Gas Flow
Detector Mode
RF Power
Vacuum Pressure
Dwell Time/mass/scan
Standardization
Internal Standard
Calibration Standard
Description
Photon Machines Analyte G2 Excimer Laser
Thermoscientific X Series 2 Quadrupole
193 nm
7 Hz
4 ns
85 μm glass, 65 μm mineral
45 seconds
4.84 J/cm2
0.8 L/min (He)
0.8-0.9 L/min (Ar)
13.00 L/min (Ar)
Dual (pulse counting and analogue)
1380 W
8-9 x 10-7 mbar (analyzer), 2.0-2.2 mbar (expansion
chamber)
10 ms
43
Ca for Plagioclase, 29Si for glass and Pyroxene
GSE-1G
27
Table 5: Analytical precision and accuracy for LA-ICP-MS. Values for calibration
and secondary standard obtained from GeoRem 2008.
Calibration Standard
GSE-1G
Isotope Accepted
(ug/g)
7Li
430
29Si
43Ca
45Sc
47Ti
51V
55Mn
60Ni
85Rb
88Sr
89Y
90Zr
93Nb
133Cs
137Ba
138Ba
139La
140Ce
141Pr
146Nd
147Sm
153Eu
157Gd
163Dy
166Er
172Yb
208Pb
232Th
238U
1
GSD-1G
Accepted
(ug/g)
43
251028
248691
52887
530
449
440
590
440
356
447
410
410
420
310
427
427
392
414
460
453
488
410
514
524
595
520
378
380
420
51457
52
7433
44
220
58
37.3
69
42
42
42
32
67
67
39
41
45
45
48
41
51
51
40
51
50
41
41
Secondary Standard
Mean 1 Stand
N=5
Dev
Precision
(ug/g)
(ug/g)
%
44
0.8
1.85
24869
1
0.0
0.00
51754
1521.4
2.96
54
1.7
3.30
8134
212.9
2.86
44
0.5
1.12
219
5.3
2.41
58
1.5
2.66
38
0.7
1.94
68
2.1
3.05
40
1.0
2.46
42
1.0
2.36
41
0.9
2.14
34
0.6
2.00
70
2.3
3.40
68
0.9
1.31
39
0.8
2.00
45
1.0
2.48
48
0.7
1.47
45
0.7
1.62
48
1.1
2.29
40
0.8
1.84
50
1.0
2.03
51
1.2
2.27
40
1.0
2.54
50
1.5
3.04
52
1.5
2.91
40
0.7
1.60
46
0.6
1.58
Accuracy
%1
2.33
0.00
0.57
3.85
9.42
0.00
0.45
0.00
2.14
1.59
4.76
0.00
2.38
6.25
4.48
1.49
1.53
9.42
6.67
0.22
0.21
2.44
1.97
0.00
1.00
1.18
4.00
2.44
12.201
Accuracy for a given element calculated though the equation: Accuracy=(X std-Xmean)/Xstd where Xstd
represents the published concentration and X mean represents the mean concentration from analyses.
28
Table 4 Continued: Analytical precision and accuracy for LA-ICP-MS. Values for
calibration and secondary standard obtained from GeoRem 2008.
Calibration Standard
GSE-1G
Isotope
Accepted
(ug/g)
7Li
430
29Si
251028
43Ca
45Sc
47Ti
51V
55Mn
60Ni
85Rb
88Sr
89Y
90Zr
93Nb
133Cs
137Ba
138Ba
139La
140Ce
141Pr
146Nd
147Sm
153Eu
157Gd
163Dy
166Er
172Yb
208Pb
232Th
238U
52887
530
449
440
590
440
356
447
410
410
420
310
427
427
392
414
460
453
488
410
514
524
595
520
378
380
420
BCR-2G
Accepted
(ug/g)
9
254301
50457
33
14100
425
1550
13
47
342
35
184
13
1
683
683
25
53
7
29
7
2
7
6
4
3
11
6
2
Secondary Standard
Mean 1 Stand
N=8
Dev
Precision
(ug/g)
(ug/g)
%
9
0.4
4.70
25365
8
1700.6
0.67
51763
2407.7
4.77
35
2.6
7.96
14490
654.9
4.64
446
8.4
1.97
1455
37.3
2.41
12
0.3
2.68
46
1.2
2.48
341
19.9
5.83
32
3.2
9.21
180
15.4
8.37
12
0.6
4.54
1
0.0
4.18
697
27.5
4.02
656
37.2
5.45
25
1.7
7.07
57
2.0
3.69
7
0.4
6.00
29
1.7
5.72
7
0.5
7.16
2
0.1
5.44
7
0.6
9.31
6
0.5
8.25
4
0.3
8.14
3
0.3
9.44
11
0.3
2.82
6
0.4
6.59
2
0.1
3.23
Accuracy
%1
1.40
0.25
2.59
6.30
2.76
4.93
6.13
6.83
2.23
0.39
9.40
2.39
7.82
8.01
2.05
3.90
1.24
7.18
3.96
0.03
1.06
3.52
2.12
7.32
4.35
5.57
1.04
3.23
6.70
29
was less than the accuracy for several elements including Sc, Mn, Ni, Y, Cs, Ce, Dy ,
Er, Yb. We conclude that all elements, excluding uranium (which is 12.2%), have
accuracies of <10% (Table 5).
4.3.3 X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
XRF of pumice clasts was conducted at Washington State University’s XRF
Geoanalytical Laboratories. Whole pumice clasts were separated from tuff samples
with careful consideration to remove excess adhered tuffaceous material to reduce
contamination. As no single pumice was sufficiently large enough to produce the
volume of material needed for the analysis a collection of pumices from a single
sample, with shared physical properties (color, vesicularity) were used. Samples were
then prepared and analyzed at Washington State University utilizing a single bead Litetraborate low dilution fusion technique summarized by Johnson et al (1990).
5- Results
The results presented below represent a compendium of information gained both
through this study and from Cannon (1984) where noted. In particular the field
observations and petrography described build on those of Cannon (1984) with
additional information (stratigraphic, geochemical) from this study.
5.1 Field Related and Sample Observations
The general stratigraphy includes all ash-flow and pumice fall units within the
study area with emphasis on the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff units. The
exposures of the two units cover a large lateral distance of ~30 km and were first
mapped by Cannon (1984) with revisions made during this study (Plate 1). There are
notable variations in the stratigraphy and facies from north to south. Figures 4
provides a stratigraphic “fence” diagram of exposed units in key areas to the north,
south, east and west.
30
Figure 4: Stratigraphic Fence Diagram overlain on McKenzie Canyon and Lower
Bridge outcrop map modified from Cannon (1984). Large, formally named tuffs are
Osborne Canyon Tuff (OCT), Lower Bridge Tuff (LBT), McKenzie Canyon Tuff
(MCT), Steelhead Tuff (SHT), and Peninsula Tuff (PT). Red and pink fill on the
outcrop map represent outcrop of MCT (pink for inferred) while blue fill represents
LBT
31
32
Sections to the south and west with better exposed sections to the north and east,
owing to increased downcutting of streams and rivers away from the Casacades and
north along the drainage direction of the Deschutes and Crooked rivers.
5.1.1 Stratigraphic Relations
Results of the stratigraphic analysis focus on the Lower Bridge and McKenzie
Canyon Tuffs, several other large, formally named tuffs exist in the field area and are
noted where present. The stratigraphic relations of the major ash-flow tuff units in the
southern Deschutes Basin are best expressed through the use of a “fence” diagram
(Figure 4). To the south the two prominent units exposed are the Lower Bridge Tuff
and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs. Here both units are considerably thicker than to the
North or East and preserve the best record of their internal organization (Figure 5).
The pumice fall and both tuff units of Lower Bridge can easily be identified where
exposed, however in many areas smaller streams have not downcut enough to expose
the whole Lower Bridge section. In many locations the Lower Bridge Tuff directly
underlies the McKenzie Canyon Tuff with local volcaniclastic sediments occasionally
separating the two. In figure 4 Red circles indicate locations from which the
stratigraphic columns were measured and described. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff is
well exposed at the mouth of Deep Canyon and Deschutes River Canyon, typically
showing its uppermost units A and B with lower unit L cropping out in fewer
locations (Figure 5). Unit L is common closer to the inferred source and is limited in
extent to the north and west. The top of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff is often the
highest exposed unit in the southern part of the basin and has a variably eroded top.
In the center of the field area, the Lower Bridge pumice fall deposit remains
between 1-1.25 m thick yet the Lower Bridge Tuff units A and B are often
indistinguishable. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff loses its lower unit (L) and thins
overall. Above the McKenzie Canyon Tuff and following a mixed fluvialvolcaniclastic sequence is a prominent ash-flow named the Steelhead Tuff (Smith,
1986). The Steelhead Tuff includeds a relatively thick ash-flow unit (12 m) and a
basal pumice fall deposit containing two distinctly coarse bands of pumice. Above the
33
Figure 5: Idealized column for the Lower Bridge Tuff and McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
Shapes within tuff units represent pyroclasts (lapilli, pumice, fiamme). Units were
chosen based on a compositional change, or a break in eruption denoted by a
volcaniclastic package between units. Modified from Cannon (1984).
34
Steelhead Tuff is a thick fluvial and volcaniclastic sequence containing 3 prominent
lapilli beds that are between 0.25-1 m thick. The highest exposed unit in the section is
a thin exposure of the Peninsula Tuff. The Peninsula Tuff (Figure 6) is an ash-flow
deposit containing abundant lithics and variably colored pumice (Smith, 1986).
The farthest northward stratigraphic section (Figure 4) is obscured at the base
by a canyon-filling Quaternary basalt. Above this basalt is a thick (21 m) cover of
obscuring talus with a fluvial sequence marking the first locally exposed Deschutes
Formation deposit. Above this fluvial sequence is an unnamed ash-flow tuff, ~3 m
thick, that cannot be correlated anywhere southward. Separated by a thin fluvial
sequence is a thick (21 m) debris-flow deposit containing 0.5 meter basalt clasts with 3
cm white and grey pumice. Above this debris flow is a lahar with a thin 10 cm pumice
fall that has been partially eroded by further lahars. The Lower Bridge Tuff is absent
in the vicinity of the transect, but has been found intermittently in nearby canyons
indicating that it is strongly channelized and eroded at this point. There is a possibility
that the partially eroded pumice fall deposit between the lahars is the pumice fall
typically associated with the Lower Bridge Tuff. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff overlies
the lahar and has a lithic and pumice rich base which grades up into unit A with unit L
and B both absent (see figure 5 for unit descriptions). Above the McKenzie Canyon
Tuff is a very thick sequence of fluvial sediments, and lahars that are partially
obscured by alluvial cover, with ~3 small unnamed ash-flow deposits before reaching
the Peninsula Tuff. The Steelhead Tuff does not crop out here (possibly coved by
talus) and thus is strongly restricted to the center of the field area. The Peninsula Tuff
is thin here (2.5 m) with a typical appearance of multiple pumice types and lithics,
nearly clast supported with little matrix. Above the Peninsula Tuff are several lahars,
a thin ash-flow tuff capped by the 5.43 ±0.05 Ma Canadian Bench flow of the Lower
Desert Basalt (Smith, 1986).
To the west outcrop is poor owing to alluvial cover. The McKenzie Canyon
Tuff crops out above a lahar and includes unit L and A. Unit B appears to have been
eroded from the section. Although not exposed, it is likely that the Steelhead Tuff also
35
Figure 6: Distribution map of outcrop of the Peninsula Tuff (dark) including probable
extent (patterned). From Smith, (1986).
36
occurs in this section as it appears in both the eastward sections. The top of the
section is the Peninsula Tuff, which is thickest (7.5 m) here despite having been
eroded to an unknown extent.
The easternmost section contains the thick (20 m) Osborne Canyon Tuff (Ferns
et al, 1996), formerly the tuff of Hollywood (Smith, 1986), which directly overlies the
5.77 Ma Opal Springs Basalt member (Smith, 1986). As the Osborne Canyon Tuff
only crops out in the Crooked River Canyon it cannot be correlated anywhere else in
the basin but is suspected to have a south-southwesterly source (Smith, 1986).
Following the Osborne Canyon Tuff is a sequence of fluvial and volcaniclastic
deposits with at least three prominent pumice fall deposits intercolated. The Lower
Bridge Tuff is absent in this area, although it is seen farther to the north, indicating a
possible channelizing of the tuff, upstream, or southwest of this location. The
McKenzie Canyon Tuff is thin here (1.5 m) consisting of only unit A with basal and
capping pumice fall. Above the McKenzie Canyon Tuff is a fluvial sequence overlain
by the Steelhead Tuff. Here the Steelhead Tuff is considerably thinner (4.2 m) yet
retains all its typical features including a basal pumice fall deposit. Above the
Steelhead Tuff are two lahar deposits separated by a 0.5 m pumice fall deposit. The
most prominent unit at the top of the section is the ~4 m Peninsula Tuff, which lacks
the basal pumice fall but is otherwise consistent with previous descriptions.
5.1.2 Description of Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs
Internal stratigraphy and overall exposure is best observed for the Lower
Bridge Tuff at Deschutes River Canyon from Deep Canyon (121.3004N, 44.3662W)
and for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff at the entrance to Deschutes River Canyon from
McKenzie Canyon (121.2980N, 44.3829E). An idealized sequence for both units is
shown as figure 5, modified from Cannon (1984). The type section for Lower Bridge
Tuff is characterized by a 0.75 m basal pumice fall consisting of white pumice and
abundant accretionary lapilli both 1.25 cm in diameter, and rare 0.5 cm basaltic lithics.
The basal pumice fall is well sorted and stratified displaying several fine-grained
bands bounded by bands of larger pumice. The basal ash-flow tuff designated unit A,
37
is composed of ash that gradually increases to include pumice size lapilli and blocks
upsection. The flow varies from white to pink with pumice clasts increasing in size
and abundance from 1-35 cm and 5-50% and with the uppermost pumice clasts having
frothy texture with abundant large vesicles (Figure 7).
Basaltic lithics are rare, ~0.5 cm in size and largely ungraded. A thin (10cm)
bed of pyroclastic material consisting of 0.5 cm rounded pumice and lithics locally
separate Lower Bridge flow A from overlying unit B. The bed is clast supported and
is a poorly sorted surge deposit. Overlying Lower Bridge Tuff unit B is grey to purple
and contains 5-10% grey pumice up to 2.5 cm and rare larger (10 cm) black pumice at
the top. The entire tuff is nonwelded and friable causing it to typically be a slope
forming unit. The tuff has abundant (~10%) plagioclase crystals as large as two
millimeters in both the pumice and groundmass of both unit A and B. The Lower
Bridge Tuff is generally thickest to the southwest and thins to the northeast varying
from 15-1.5 m in thickness.
The McKenzie Canyon Tuff lacks any associated widespread pumice fall
deposit. Locally, a deposit occurs at the base that consists of 2 cm lithics with
occasional rip up clasts of underlying material, either volcaniclastic sediment or
Lower Bridge Tuff. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff proper is made up of three units with
the lowermost consisting of one to three flow units formed from overlapping lobes at
the flow front around topographic barriers (Cannon, 1984); the individual units are
separated predominantly by a change in clast size and abundance. The lowermost
unit (MCTL) begins as a 2-5 cm ash-rich basal layer which quickly grades into either a
frothy pumice-rich (50-80%) or pumice-poor (10-15%) unit dominated by white
pumice lapilli, with black and banded pumice clasts representing <1% of the
population. The unit is typically grey to white in color, unwelded, lithic and crystal
poor. The middle unit of McKenzie Tuff has reversely graded white pumice clast
similar to that of the lower unit.
38
Figure 7: Lower Bridge Tuff unit A-B contact at type section. Note the large frothy
pumice of unit A and the thin surge bed between unit A and B.
39
The uppermost unit gradually changes upsection in both welding and color
from pink to red and from unwelded to partially welded. White pumice clasts are
most prominent in the bottom, with black and banded pumice clasts both increasing in
abundance from 5-15% to 10-35% towards the top with the black pumice clasts being
the most prominent in the upper part. Pumice clast size varies greatly with location
and ranges from 1-48 cm with white clasts being largest at the bottom and banded or
black clasts being largest near the top. The middle, partally-welded section contains
abundant fiamme with aspect ratios as great as 15:1; the top has less deformed pumice
clasts. The clasts show signs of alteration and oxidation (white turns pink, black turns
red) which increases upsection with the top being pervasively altered. The term
“banded pumice” is used to describe pumice clasts sub-equal proportions of black
glass and white glass (Figure 8), whereas black pumice have predominantly black
glass with little white glass included.
I divide the units in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff differently from Cannon
(1984). Here the lower and middle McKenzie Canyon unit is grouped into one due to
the lack of compositional change in pumice. Although there is a change in pumice
size in some locations, this is likely due to localized flow changes rather than eruptive
processes. I divide Cannon’s upper unit into two, a middle and upper unit. In short,
the distinct stratigraphic change between Cannon’s middle and upper unit becomes the
contact between this study’s lower and middle unit. However, in several field
locations there is a horizon within Cannon’s upper unit which displays a distinct
increase in abundance of black pumice clasts with only a moderate change in pumice
sizes.
5.1.3 Flow Direction and Source
Imbrication of clasts was noted in 23 locations for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
A median value from measurement of 5-15 clasts provide a best estimate of the overall
direction of flow for that given location (Fig. 11 inset). From this the overall direction
of flow is N35-45°East with local deviations likely influenced by topography. The
40
Figure 8: Various pumice of McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit A. Outcrop in Squaw
Creek Canyon south of Rimrock Ranch. Note the subequal proportions of white and
black pumice clasts. Top center of the picture has an excellent example of banded
pumice; white stringers appear in nearly all black pumice.
41
exact location of the source is unknown, yet a reasonable location was chosen on the
arc near the latitude of the current day Three Sisters Volcanic Complex based on
imbrication of clasts from the McKenzie Canyon Tuff and assuming that the volcanic
center existed on or near to the present day volcanic arc.
5.1.4 Volumes
From the thickness measurements of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon
Tuffs a best fit isopach map (Figure 9-Figure 11) was made for use in volume
calculations. Based on these maps and using density values of 1.43, 1.52, 2.28 g/cm3
from Streck and Grunder (1995) and proportional dacite calculations (this paper) for
nonwelded rhyolite, nonwelded dacite, and partially welded dacite, the deposit volume
was calculated for each unit. These values were then converted to dense rock
equivalent (DRE) using magmatic densities of 2.18 and 2.32 g/cm3 calculated in this
paper to produce calculated volumes for the Lower Bridge pumice fall, Lower Bridge
Tuff, and McKenzie Canyon Tuff of 2.6, 2.4, and 4.3 km3 DRE respectively. This
places each of the eruptions at VEI 5 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, making them
equivalent to the Mount Vesuvius 79 A.D. or Mount St. Helens 1980 eruptions
(Newhall and Self, 1982). A high degree of uncertainty exists as there is no way to
assess how much material has been lost due to erosion in either of the tuffs, outcrop
exposure is limited to areas where erosion and incision of river channels have
uncovered the deposits, and there is no indication if either of these ash-flows deposited
tuffs to the west or produced a caldera filling tuff. Thus the volume estimates of this
study are considered strict minimums with the true volume being undeterminable.
Despite this, the volumes of either the Lower Bridge or McKenzie Canyon Tuff are ~3
times larger than any recent silicic deposits from South Sister (1.6 km3) (Fierstein and
Hildreth, 2011), and together the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff make up
~1/2 the volume of the entire modern South Sister edifice (20 km3) (Fierstein and
Hildreth, 2011).
42
Figure 9: Isopach map for the Lower Bridge pumice fall deposit. Light blue represents a 75cm isopach and 100 cm for
dark blue. The red circle indicates an assumed source location (see text)
43
Figure 10: Isopach map for the Lower Bridge Tuff. Light blue represents a 2 m isopach and 5 m for dark blue. The red
circle indicates an assumed source location.
44
N=24
Max=4
10° Increments
Figure 11: Isopach map for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. Orange represents a 3 m isopach and 9 m for dark red.
The red circle indicates an assumed source location. Triangles point in the direction of imbrication which is
plotted on the rose diagram inset.
45
5.2 Petrology
The mineralogy of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs are broadly
similar, yet each eruption has unique identifiable characteristics. Observations of
mineral grains were made from grain mounts with samples obtained through minerals
separation processes. Both tuffs contain plagioclase, clinopyroxene, and
orthopyroxene as the dominant mineralogy with subordinate magnetite, ilmenite, and
apatite. Minerals unique to each tuff are sparse amphibole in the Lower Bridge and
olivine (Fo83 to Fo79) in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. Additionally, the overall
abundance of minerals is notably different between the two tuffs with the Lower
Bridge pumice containing ~10% minerals and the McKenzie Canyon Tuff ~5%
minerals. Minerals were obtained from pumice clasts of rhyolite and dacite from
Lower Bridge Tuff and rhyolite and basaltic andesite from the McKenzie Canyon
Tuff.
5.2.1 Lower Bridge Tuff Petrology
The first unit of the sequence, the Lower Bridge pumice fall deposit, consists
of only rhyolitic pumice with 1000 μm unzoned plagioclase containing numerous clear
~60 μm melt inclusions and apatite. Pyroxene from this unit also has numerous
apatite inclusions and occasional melt inclusions. Of the two compositions of pumice
clasts in the Lower Bridge Tuff the rhyolitic clasts have generally euhedral, but broken
plagioclase that display faint, patchy, reversed zoning on approximately one quarter of
the crystals analyzed. The plagioclase of the dacitic clasts are equivalent in size (1000
μm) and shape to those in the rhyolite, but includes more patchy reversely zoned
crystals (50%) with a more pronounced contrast between the zones (Figure 12).
Inclusions of brown glass and apatite are common in plagioclase in both clasts with
slightly fewer apatite and glass inclusions in the dacite. Among rhyolite clasts of the
different Lower Bridge units there is an apparent decrease in the occurrence of brown
glass and no change in apatite abundance upsection. Both clast compositions have
clinopyroxene and enstatite crystals up to 1500 μm that are prismatic and have
46
Bright patchy core
Dark zoned rim
Figure 12: BSE of plagioclase crystals from sample LBTA 185 dacite pumice. Note
the right crystal has patchy zoning within the core and the left is unzoned.
47
abundant glass inclusions up to 50 μm and also have larger inclusions of magnetite,
small feldspars, and intergrown pyroxene of the opposing phase (Figure 13). The
proportions of clinopyroxene to orthopyroxene (cpx:opx) changes from 7:8 to 1:4 in
the rhyolite and dacite respectively. Iron-titanium oxides consist of up to 200 μm
magnetite and ilmenite that are subhedral to anhedral often with void or glass
inclusions which are difficult to distinguish in backscatter electron imaging (BSE) and
rare twinning (Figure 14). Cannon (1984) reports amphibole from two samples
coincident with the dacitic pumice in the uppermost unit of the tuff. They are
described as being distinctively black with vitreous luster showing good cleavage. No
amphibole was found however in the samples I collected and processed in this study.
This could be due to a sampling bias as dacitic pumice was only collected from one
location and Cannon (1984) notes that the abundance of amphibole varies greatly.
5.2.2 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Petrology
The rhyolitic pumice of the McKenzie Canyon tuff unit L contains subhedral,
800 μm plagioclase that are unzoned with no melt inclusions. Clinopyroxene are
subhedral, 500 μm, rarely twinned, lack inclusions and appear more stubby than the
Lower Bridge clinopyroxene. Enstatite was rare in this pumice and only a few grains
were obtained which were slightly smaller than the clinopyroxene (300-400 μm) but
retained similar features.
Plagioclases from both the rhyolitic and basaltic andesite pumice in McKenzie
Canyon unit A are 800-1200μm, unzoned, and with few melt or mineral inclusions.
Within unit A, a fraction of clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene crystals display
significant resorption (Figure 15). In the unaltered samples both diopside and enstatite
exist as subhedral grains, 800 μm and 200 μm respectively and contain slightly more
inclusions than pyroxenes from the rhyolitic pumice, but fewer inclusions overall
compared to the Lower Bridge pyroxenes. Similar to the rhyolitic pumice,
orthopyroxene is far less abundant than the clinopyroxene and only a few grains were
recovered. Magnetite crystals tend to be anhedral, 50 μm, and without significant
exsolution.
48
Orthopyroxene
Glass
Fe-Ti
Oxide
Plagioclase
Figure 13: BSE of clinopyroxene crystal from sample LBTA 185. Note it contains
abundant glass, apatite, and Fe-Ti oxide inclusions and has a ragged rim.
49
Glass
Ilmenite Exsolution
Figure 14: BSE of magnetite grains from sample LBTA 185. Note the subhedral to
anhedral form, rare ilmenite exsolution, and glass inclusions.
50
Resorption on
crystal boundary
Figure 15: BSE of clinopyroxene crystals from basaltic andesite pumice of sample
MCTB 209. Note the lack of inclusions, and resorption along cleavage fractures from
post emplacement alteration.
51
In unit B, plagioclases retain similar size and shape yet have numerous melt
inclusions of dark glass typically 5-10μm and up to 60μm. Plagioclase from darker
pumice also has large acicular apatite needles, and larger melt inclusions up to 100μm,
and contain a population of plagioclase ~50% that are reversely zoned with darker
cores and brighter rims indicated they experienced a change from a sodic to a calcic
system (Figure 16). Both pyroxenes commonly display ragged crystallographic faces
and include small (5-10μm) inclusions of black glass and apatite crystals. Olivine
occurs in both white and black basaltic andesite pumice of unit B and is anhedral with
prominent alteration to iddingsite (Cannon, 1984). Apatite and trace zircon occur in
both the rhyolitic and basaltic andesite pumice.
Post emplacement oxidation and vapor phase alteration has caused significant changes
to the appearance of pyroxenes, oxides, and olivine in unit B. This is also evidenced
by ragged crystallographic faces on pyroxenes, magnetite crystals which have
significant exsolution of ilmenite along cleavage boundaries (Figure 17), and olivine
altering to iddingsite.
52
Dark core and Bright rim
Figure 16: BSE of plagioclase crystals in basaltic andesite from sample MCTB 209.
Note on the left crystal the change from a darker core to lighter rim whereas the right
crystal is absent of any zoning
53
Figure 17: BSE of magnetite crystals from basaltic andesite in sample MCTB 209,
with extensive ilmenite exsolution along cleavage boundaries.
54
5.3 Chemical Composition
Major element compositions are typically analyzed by either bulk rock XRF or
EMPA of glass. XRF results from both Cannon (1984) and this study indicate SiO2
variations for bulk pumice clasts from 65-75 wt% for Lower Bridge Tuff and 58-75
wt% for McKenzie Canyon Tuff. This range in composition is distinctly different
than the results of glass analysis. The Lower Bridge suite is almost entirely rhyolitic
with few points falling within the dacitic field. The glass compositions measured in
this study for the McKenzie Canyon Tuff are highly bimodal with most compositions
falling in the rhyolite field with a subordinate population in the basaltic andesite to
andesite fields. Glass analysis in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff by EMPA indicate that
SiO2 composition ranges from ~55 wt% to ~76 wt% with a gap from 62-69 wt%
(Figure 18). The likely reason for this is inclusion of crystal phases driving rhyolitic
pumice to more mafic compositions, and rhyolitic glass contamination from
incomplete mixing in the mafic pumice. As previously noted, nearly all mafic (black)
pumice clasts from the McKenzie Canyon tuff have inclusions of rhyolitic (white)
melt. Even with the most careful sample preparation the risk of contamination is quite
high. For this reason, we determine that analysis by EMPA produce better resolution
of chemical compositions than XRF analysis of whole rock pumice clasts.
5.3.1 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Glass Chemistry
Variations in magmatic composition are identifiable by plotting the suite of
major elements verses SiO2. In a plot of TiO2 verses SiO2 (Figure 19) there is a
distinct compositional trend in the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites averaging 0.25 wt%
TiO2 for a 5 wt% increase in SiO2. There is also a slight enrichment in the basaltic
andesite of McKenzie Canyon unit B relative to unit A with a 1.8 wt% and 1.6 wt%
average TiO2, respectively. Plotting K2O verses SiO2 (Figure 20) produces no notable
trends in the rhyolitic compositions however there is a distinct depletion in the black
pumice of McKenzie Canyon unit B with 0.6 wt% average K2O relative to the white
pumice of the same unit and black pumice of unit A both with 1.75 wt% average K2O.
55
Figure 18: Total Alkali Silica (TAS) Diagram of Le Maitre et al (1989). Unit designations are as follows: Lower Bridge clast
fall (LBTP), Lower Bridge Tuff (LBTT), McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit L (MCTL), McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit A (MCTA),
McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit B (MCTB).
56
Figure 19: Bivariate Plot of TiO2 vs SiO2.
57
Figure 20: Bivariate plot of K2O vs SiO2.
58
There is a slight decrease in MnO (Figure 21) with increasing SiO2 in the basaltic
andesites with a much sharper decrease in MnO in the rhyolitic samples of McKenzie
Canyon unit A for a given SiO2 change.
Analysis and interpretation of Na2O is approached carefully as Na can be lost
due to post emplacement vapor phase alteration, glass hydration, and Na is mobile in
EMPA analysis. I attribute modest normative corundum in the CIPW norm to alkali
loss, with emphasis on Na. This Na loss is expressed as an apparent depletion in Na
concentrations of several glasses in the basaltic andesite and the rhyolite of McKenzie
Canyon Tuff unit L (Figure 22).
Magnesium (MgO) decreases with increasing silica between the basaltic
andesite and rhyolite with a gap from 3-1.25 wt% MgO. This decreasing trend ceases
at 72 wt% SiO2 where McKenzie Canyon rhyolites have consistent values of 0.19 wt%
MgO (Figure 23). Additionally P2O5 has a similar distribution with a slight depletion
of 0.53 wt% average in the basaltic andesite of McKenzie Canyon unit A compared to
all unit B samples at 0.6 wt% average, and constant values of 0.25 wt% average P2O5
with increasing SiO2 in the rhyolite compositions (Figure 24).
Total iron (as FeO*), shows a distinct change between the McKenzie Canyon
units L and A (Figure 25). Most of the McKenzie Canyon unit L samples have a
nearly flat trend of constant FeO at ~2.25 wt%, while unit A ranges to much lower
FeO* (2-0.25 wt%) at high SiO2.
A spider diagram plot of concentrations of trace elements normalized to C1
chondrite (Sun and McDonough, 1989) provides a comparison of trace elements
analyzed in glass for each unit (Figure 26). From this we see that most elements have
relatively small variations in abundance with Rb having a wide compositional range in
the basaltic andesites while Ti and Eu have notable variations in rhyolites. McKenzie
Canyon unit A has the greatest range in element concentrations relating to the two
distinct melt compositions in the system. Trace compositions from basaltic andesite
59
Figure 21: Bivariate Plot of MnO vs SiO2.
60
Figure 22: Bivariate plot of Na2O vs SiO2.
61
Figure 23: Bivariate plot of MgO vs SiO2.
62
Figure 24: Bivariate plot of P2O5 vs SiO
63
Figure 25: Bivariate plot of FeO* vs SiO2.
64
Figure 26: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for glass. Chondrite values from Sun and McDonough (1989).
65
having notable depletion of all elements except Sr, Eu, and Ti relative to rhyolites due
to its mafic nature. The lack of depletion in Sr, Eu, and Ti indicate the mafic
composition has experienced little crystallization. Within unit B there is also variation
between the “white” and “black” pumice. The white pumice is strongly enriched in
Cs, Rb, and K but is slightly depleted in all other elements and strongly depleted in Th
and U compared to the black pumice. These observations are best shown in a plot of
Rb verses SiO2 (Figure 27) where there is a clear difference in basaltic andesite
compositions with equal silica, and a prominent compositional gap to the rhyolite
compositions of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
5.3.2 McKenzie Canyon Tuff Mineral Chemistry
Plagioclase:
The plagioclase of the rhyolitic lower McKenzie Canyon unit L has a
compositional range from An28 to An32 (Figure 28). Upsection, plagioclase
compositions are more diverse. McKenzie Canyon unit A has a bimodal distribution
of plagioclase with a highly restricted composition. Anorthite values cluster around
An30 ±2 and An50.5 ±1.5. The higher anorthite plagioclases are exclusively from the
mafic (black) pumice clasts whereas the lower anorthite plagioclases are
predominately from silicic (white) pumice clasts. There is one instance of low
anorthite plagioclase being sourced from mafic pumice sample likely indicating some
small degree of communication between crystals and melt of opposing compositions,
possibly during eruption. The uppermost unit B of the McKenzie Canyon tuff has a
wide distribution of plagioclase composition (An23 to An51) from both white and black
pumice clasts. The white clasts have a strong cluster of plagioclase with compositions
of An86 to An90 and a small distribution of four crystals at An28 to An37. The black
clasts also have a possible cluster at An86 to An90 and a broad cluster at An43 to An48.
Due to their low abundance and distinctly different composition, the low anorthite
crystals likely represent entrained crystals, either from conduit walls during eruption
or dacitic magma, and do not represent a crystal population inherent to that melt
66
Figure 27: Bivariate plot of Rb vs Si in Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff glass.
67
Figure 28: Plagioclase An-Ab-Or Ternary Diagram. The figure is broken out with each unit represented on its own ternary
starting with Lower Bridge unit P and ending with McKenzie Canyon unit B in the exact order of the observed stratigraphy.
Note the MCTB compositions below An60 likely represent antecrysts and do not represent a population derived from that melt.
68
Similarly, the highly anorthitic plagioclase found in both the white and black pumice
are not in equilibrium with any liquids identified in this system and likely represent a
population which crystallized from some underplating basaltic magma that were
entrained into the system during upward movement of that magma.
Trace element variations in plagioclase plotted in a C1 Chondrite normalized
(Sun and McDonough, 1989) spider diagram (Figure 29) have similar compositional
trends as the major elements. The McKenzie Canyon unit L has a tightly constrained
composition, while unit A has a bimodal distribution of trace element concentrations
with the samples derived from “white” rhyolitic pumice having nearly identical
compositions to Unit L. The trace elements from plagioclase in the “black” basaltic
andesite pumice have a significant overall depletion relative to the rhyolitic
composition with exceptions of Sr, Gd, and Ti. Plagioclase of the uppermost
McKenzie Canyon Tuff, unit B, has two distinct populations. One population of four
analyses overlaps the rhyolitic McKenzie Canyon units and are further support for
entrainment of antecrysts from vent walls during eruption. The bulk of the population
for this unit is strongly depleted by as much as a factor of 10 in all elements with the
exception of Sr, and Ti relative to rhyolitic compositions in unit L. There appears to
be no difference between the plagioclase source from the two different pumice types
and all data follow a tightly constrained trend with the exception of some elements
(Pb, Sm, Gd) which have poorer uncertainties.
Pyroxene:
Pyroxene compositions are best described using a ternary diagram of the
wollastonite-enstatite-ferrosilite series. Composition of clinopyroxene from the
McKenzie Canyon Tuff range from En32Wo32 to En36Wo37, and orthopyroxene are
En48Wo1 to En68Wo0.5 (Figure 30). For both pyroxenes there is no compositional
preference despite deriving from two different pumice (white and black). Assessment
for how close the pyroxenes are to a primitive “mantle” composition can be done by
calculation of a magnesium number (Mg#) though the equation 100*Mg/(Mg+Fe2+).
69
Figure 29: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for plagioclase. Chondrite values from Sun and McDonough
(1989)
70
Figure 30: Pyroxene En-Wo-FS Ternary and olivine Fo-Fa binary for Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
71
Pyroxenes originating from primitive mantle melts within the Cascade Arc are
interpreted to have Mg# >60 (Bacon et al, 1997). Mg# of Lower Bridge Tuff
pyroxenes ranges from 67-42 with 3 samples at 67. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff has
pyroxenes with Mg# 52-74 with one sample at 74 in the white pumice and Mg# 49 to
73 in the black pumice. The apparent lack of compositional changes in the pyroxenes
from the McKenzie Canyon Tuff with respect to surrounding glass compositions
would indicate that many of the pyroxenes experienced minimal change within the
magma chamber possibly as a result of equilibration rates being slower than residence
time within the chamber.
Trace element concentration plots of pyroxenes normalized to C1 Chondrite (Sun and
McDonough, 1989) have two trends with the more enriched compositions representing
clinopyroxene and depleted representing orthopyroxene (Figure 31). Clinopyroxene
has an essentially flat trace element pattern with exceptions being significant
depletions in Nb, Sr, Zr, Ti, and minor depletion in Eu. Orthopyroxene has a
positively sloped trace element pattern with increasing concentration towards the
heavy rare earth elements. Orthopyroxene also has significant depletions in Sr and Ti
with a minor depletion in Zr, Pr, and Eu. Unfortunately, pyroxene analysis from
McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit L and A are too few in number to properly describe.
McKenzie Canyon unit B clinopyroxene are all depleted relative to rhyolites with the
exception of Sr and Ti. The variations in concentration range up to an order of
magnitude for all elements with only Sr and Ti having tightly constrained
concentrations. There appears to be no difference in pyroxenes sourced from the
different pumice types in unit B, however only two samples of orthopyroxene were
analyzed limiting any comparison.
Olivine:
Olivine phenocrysts occur only in the uppermost unit of the McKenzie Canyon
tuff and thus are of limited use in understanding the chemistry variations in the magma
chamber. The olivine range from Fo79 to Fo83 with olivine sourced from “black”
72
Figure 31: Chondrite normalized trace element spider diagram for pyroxene. Note that the enriched REE trend belongs to
clinopyroxene while the relatively depleted trend belongs to orthopyroxene. Chondrite values from Sun and McDonough
(1989).
73
pumice having slight iron enrichment and olivine from “white” pumice being more
magnesian (Figure 30). There are no appreciable changes in MgO or FeO between the
two source pumices, however there is a slight depletion in MnO in the pumices
producing the Fe-rich olivine.
5.3.3 Lower Bridge Tuff Glass Chemistry
The Lower Bridge Tuff has broadly similar in both major and trace element
composition to the rhyolites of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. The TAS diagram of
Figure 18 indicates that the Lower Bridge Tuff overlaps the McKenzie Canyon Tuff
compositions with slightly greater variation in alkalis. Titanium exhibits a distinct
change from McKenzie Canyon rhyolites with enrichment to 0.4 wt % TiO2 for a
given SiO2 (Figure 19). There is no significant differences in K2O (Figure 20), MnO
(Figure 21), MgO (Figure 23), or P2O5 (Figure 24) from the McKenzie Canyon
rhyolites. Na loss from post emplacement vapor phase alteration, glass hydration, and
Na mobility in EMPA analysis is also evident in the Lower Bridge rhyolites. A plot of
Na2O verses SiO2 (Figure 22) indicates that the Lower Bridge Tuff has a wide range of
Na concentrations from 1-6.5 wt% Na2O with the air-fall (unit P) having a seemingly
lower concentration then the tuff.
Total iron (as FeO*) of most of the Lower Bridge samples have a nearly flat
trend of constant FeO at ~2.25 wt%. This range largely overlaps with McKenzie
Canyon unit L and enriched compared to McKenzie Canyon unit A. Despite the
different trends, the FeO* concentration of dacites and rhyolites of the Lower Bridge
and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs are high at a given silica compared to similar rocks from
the Cascades (Figure 32). Only the low FeO* trend of the McKenzie Canyon unit A is
comparable to the Cascades. The FeO* composition for rhyolites of the High Lava
Plains, is also noted for high FeO* for a given SiO2 (Ford, 2012), similar to these
Deschutes Formation tuffs and higher than in the Cascade Arc.
74
Figure 32: Bivariate plot of CaO vs FeO*. The Cascade field represents all but a few chemical analysis of Quaternary Oregon
High Cascade volcanic rocks from the GeoRoc Database. HLP field represents chemical analysis of volcanic rocks in the High
Lava Plains compiled by Ford (2012).
75
Trace elements for the Lower Bridge Tuff rhyolites are similar to that of the
McKenzie Canyon Tuff rhyolites as shown in Figure 26, with notable exceptions
being a depletion in Zr, Eu, and Ti and enrichments in Th, U, and Rb in the McKenzie
unit L compared to the Lower Bridge. A plot of Rb vs Si (Figure 27) indicates that the
Lower Bridge unit P is slightly enriched in Rb over the tuff, and both are depleted
relative to the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites.
5.3.4 Lower Bridge Tuff Mineral Chemistry
Plagioclase:
Plagioclase crystals from the Lower Bridge Tuff have a wide compositional
range from An23 to An56. There is a noticeable change between the Lower Bridge
pumice fall deposit and the ash-flow tuff as the pumice fall deposit has a more
restricted compositional range of An28 to An33 with two crystals at An40 (Figure 28).
The compositional range in plagioclase chemistry of the Lower Bridge Tuff differs
significantly from that of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff despite having similar glass
compositions in which the crystals are found.
Trace element variations in plagioclase plotted in a C1 Chondrite normalized
(Sun and McDonough, 1989) spider diagram (Figure 29) of the Lower Bridge Tuff
shows a considerable range of compositions with up to an order of magnitude
difference between the most depleted and most enriched sample with no apparent
distinction between the rhyolitic and dacitic samples. The Lower Bridge pumice fall
has a more tightly constrained concentration with a mean value identical to the mean
value of the Lower Bridge Tuff. The wide range of compositional variations observed
in trace elements further indicating that plagioclase crystallized in a wide range of
chemical environments despite the surrounding glass having a restricted composition.
Pyroxene:
The wollastonite-enstatite-ferrosilite ternary diagram for pyroxene (Figure 30)
further highlights the distinct difference in mineral composition between the two
eruptive units. Lower Bridge clinopyroxenes form a tight cluster around En36Wo33
with three outliers, two of higher En42Wo36 and one En33Wo31. Orthopyroxene in
76
contrast, have highly variable composition, with crystals ranging from En41Wo2 to
En60Wo1. For both pyroxenes the pumice fall and ash-flow tuff deposit share
overlapping compositions in addition to having no systematic difference between
rhyolitic (white) and dacitic (grey/black) pumice (Figure 30). Both pyroxenes of the
Lower Bridge Tuff trend farther to the Fs endmember compared to the McKenzie
Canyon Tuff indicating an enrichment in FeO. The Mg# of Lower Bridge Tuff
pyroxenes ranges from 67-42 with 3 samples at 67. This is considerably lower than
those found in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff and indicate equilibration with a silicic
melt allowing for longer residence times.
Trace element compositions of pyroxenes sourced from Lower Bridge pumice
fall and tuff both have tightly clustered compositions with slightly more scatter
evident in orthopyroxene samples compared to the McKenzie Canyon Tuff (Figure
31). Pyroxenes from the Lower Bridge Tuff are generally are enriched relative to the
McKenzie Canyon pyroxenes, however orthopyroxene from the McKenzie Canyon
Tuff are too few in number for proper comparison. There is no difference in
composition between the pyroxenes derived from the air-fall or the tuff consistent with
major element compositions.
77
5.4 Modeling
5.4.1 McKenzie Canyon Tuff
The goal of the modeling is to determine whether fractional crystallization
alone can explain the range of pumice compositions observed, and if not then
determine what other processes were active in the magma system and how large of a
role they played. A multistage fractionation model was required in order to account for
changes in phase occurrence and proportion as the melt evolves from a basaltic
andesite to rhyolite. An initial composition of basaltic andesite represented by sample
MCTA 206-18 was chosen as a starting composition (Figure 33). This sample was
chosen due to its relatively high FeO* and MgO values. The first crystallization step
was taken to ~60 wt% SiO2 to assess the change from the most primitive basaltic
andesite to andesite. A second step utilizing the resultant value of step one to ~70
wt% SiO2 was calculated to assess the change from andesite to rhyolite. There are two
paths taken for this step, one to model the typical rhyolite of the McKenzie Canyon
trend and a second path to model several “enriched” compositions from McKenzie
Canyon unit L (Figure 33). This second step is required as there is a change in
mineralogy from andesite to rhyolite within the depleted trend where the proportion of
clinopyroxene sharply drops and orthopyroxene is resorbed.
The final step in both
the enriched and depleted trend was taken from ~70 to 75 wt% SiO2 to determine the
role of fractional crystallization in evolution from low to high SiO2 rhyolite.
Summary results from several XLFRAC runs with the best results are provided in
Table 6 with detailed inputs in Table 7. Many additional runs (not listed) were tested
with varying glass and mineral chemistry with poorer results. Fractional crystallization
produces excellent results for modeling an increase from ~55-61 wt% SiO2 by
crystallizing 46% of the melt. Lacking any melt compositions from ~61-69 wt% SiO2
a jump must be made to 70 wt% SiO2 without any indication of the crystallizing phase
compositions. The greatest amount of uncertainty in the model occurs at this step as
78
Table 6: Summary results of XLFRAC model for both McKenzie Canyon and Lower Bridge Tuff. Total refers to
crystallization within a single step and does not represent a cumulative total.
Xl Run
Step 1
Step 2 MCT
Step 2 MCT (enriched)
Step 3 LBT
Step 3 MCT
Step 3 MCT (enriched)
†
SiO2 wt% Change
55-61
61-71
61-69
70-77
71-75
69-74
Phase percents (removed relative to initial
magma)
Plag Cpx Opx Olv Mag San Total† ∑(R2) Confidence
-24
-13 -2
-1
-6
-46
0.43
High
-23
-8
2
-3
-5
-37
1.01 Moderate
-35
-15
2
-4
-52
0.26
High
-44
4
-4
-1
-45
1.56
Low
-20
3
-3
-3
8 -15
0.30
High
-15
5
-4
-2
-15
0.74 Moderate
Total represents percent of crystals fractionated from or resorbed into the melt
79
Table 7: Detailed XLFRAC model results for McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
Step 1: From basaltic andesite to andesite, samples MCTA 206-18 and MCTA 20919
Init.
Final
Comps. mag.
mag.
Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
18 / 1
19 / 2
Plag
Cpx
Opx
Olv
Mag Magma
SiO2
54.86
61.57
55.22
51.98 54.62 36.00
0.06
61.84
TiO2
1.83
1.41
0.03
0.83
0.04 39.52
8.60
1.48
Al2O3
16.30
16.73
27.72
2.94
1.13
0.02
2.76
16.81
FeO*
9.18
5.93
0.41
8.36 17.17 0.02
77.75
5.53
MgO
4.18
2.11
0.03
15.62 25.26 18.24
2.67
2.39
CaO
7.90
4.70
9.74
18.74 0.80 42.17
0.01
4.98
Na2O
3.41
4.74
5.42
0.44
0.05
0.19
0.00
3.80
K2O
1.59
2.09
0.18
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.86
Total
99.25
99.28
98.75
98.92 99.07 136.16 91.85
99.69
2
∑(R )
Phase percents (relative to initial magma)
Total
0.43
-24
-13
-2
-1
-6
-46
Step 2a: From andesite to rhyolite, step 1 results and sample MCTA 209-20
Init.
Final
Comps. mag.
mag.
Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
Step 1
20 / 2
Plag
Cpx
Opx
Mag
Olv
Magma
SiO2
61.84
71.03
55.25
51.77 54.26 0.13
39.52
71.24
TiO2
1.48
0.28
0.04
0.82
0.03 26.64
0.02
0.12
Al2O3
16.81
15.13
28.63
3.66
1.59
2.99
0.02
15.58
FeO*
5.53
2.94
0.40
7.56 17.16 57.49 18.24
2.79
MgO
2.39
0.34
0.04
15.64 24.06 6.71
42.17
0.02
CaO
4.98
1.63
10.28
18.93 0.56
0.03
0.19
1.75
Na2O
3.8
5.17
5.39
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
4.06
K2O
2.86
3.34
0.17
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.43
Total
99.69
99.86
100.20
98.74 97.70 94.02 100.15 100.00
2
∑(R )
Phase percents (relative to initial magma)
Total
1.01
-23
-8
2
-5
-3
-37
80
Table 7 Continued: Detailed XLFRAC model results for McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
Step 2b enriched: From andesite to enriched rhyolite, step 1 results and sample
MCTA 206-8
Init.
Final
Comps. mag.
mag. Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
Step 1
8/1
Plag
Cpx
Opx
Mag
Magma
SiO2
61.84
70.76
61.04
52.18 53.60 0.13
70.24
TiO2
1.48
0.27
0.02
0.63
0.03 26.64
0.65
Al2O3
16.81
15.70
24.76
2.19
0.75
2.99
16.07
FeO*
5.53
3.78
0.21
11.64 21.97 57.49
3.85
MgO
2.39
0.47
0.00
14.33 21.68 6.71
0.84
CaO
4.98
1.04
5.37
17.45 0.93
0.03
1.04
Na2O
3.80
2.90
7.59
0.33
0.03
0.03
2.28
K2O
2.86
5.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.55
Total
99.69
99.92
99.55
98.75 98.99 94.02
100.52
2
∑(R )
Phase percents (relative to initial magma)
Total
0.26
-35
-15
2
-4
-52
Step 3a McKenzie Canyon: From low silica to high silica rhyolite of the
McKenzie Canyon, samples MCTA 209-20 and MCTA 206-8
Init.
Final
Comps. mag.
mag.
Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
20 / 2
8 / 2 Plag
Cpx
Opx Mag
San
Magma
SiO2
71.03
75.36
59.51
52.51 54.38 0.08
63.58
75.48
TiO2
0.28
0.25
0.00
0.58
0.03 13.57
0.00
-0.13
Al2O3
15.13
13.26
25.40
2.71
1.14
4.19
19.07
13.52
FeO*
2.94
0.25
0.22
7.54 18.20 71.42
0.23
0.53
MgO
0.34
0.08
0.01
16.18 24.12 4.49
0.65
0.02
CaO
1.63
0.81
6.61
19.25 0.81
0.00
0.69
1.08
Na2O
5.17
4.99
7.05
0.27
0.03
0.01
2.77
4.70
K2O
3.34
4.96
0.38
0.02
0.01
0.00
11.96
4.96
Total
99.86
99.95
99.19
93.76 98.71 93.76 98.95 100.00
2
∑(R ) Phase percents (relative to initial magma) Total
0.30
-20
3
-3
-3
8
-15
81
Table 7 Continued: Detailed XLFRAC model results for McKenzie Canyon Tuff
Step 3b McKenzie Canyon: From low silica to high silica rhyolite of the enriched
McKenzie Canyon, from step 2b result and MCTL 88-2
Init.
Final
Comps
mag.
mag.
Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
2b result
88-2
Plag
Cpx
Opx
Mag
Magma
SiO2
70.76
74.22
58.93
52.58
54.90
0.08
73.36
TiO2
0.27
0.26
0.01
0.58
0.32
13.57
0.02
Al2O3
15.70
13.91
25.00
2.77
0.88
4.19
14.08
FeO*
3.78
2.47
0.22
7.59
15.80
71.42
2.43
MgO
0.47
0.19
0.01
16.19
26.23
4.49
0.16
CaO
1.04
1.14
6.70
19.13
1.93
0.00
1.08
Na2O
2.90
2.66
6.97
0.29
0.02
0.01
2.20
K2O
5.00
5.02
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.82
Total
99.92
99.87
98.20
99.13
100.08
93.76
99.15
∑(R2) Phase percents (relative to initial magma) Total
0.74
-14
5
-3
-2
-15
82
Figure 33: Bivariate plot of FeO* vs SiO2 with calculated fractionation paths. Removed or added phases are plagioclase (Plg),
clinopyroxene (Cpx), orthopyroxene (Opx), olivine (Olv), magnetite (Mt), and sanidine (San).
83
no such glass compositions are observed. Due to the lack of observed compositions
and poor model fit, the results indicate fractional crystallization cannot adequately
reproduce formation of all the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites. Regression analysis of the
crystallization model for the depleted trend indicates a ΣR2 of 1.00, the upper limit of
values considered “reasonable”, with 37% crystallization of the melt. The enriched
rhyolites provide a much better fit with fractional crystallization with a ΣR2 of .26
with 52% crystallization of the melt. Within the rhyolite field, the depleted FeO*
trend in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff from ~ 71-75 wt% SiO2 can be produced with a
mixing model (from crustal assimilation) producing an ΣR2 of 0.32. This model
removes plagioclase, orthopyroxene, and magnetite, but adds sanidine as a proxy for
crustal contaminantion. Without sanidine the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites have poor
ΣR2 of >2 indicating that crystal fractionation alone cannot account for K2O and other
incompatible element enrichments. The enriched trend of McKenzie Canyon rhyolites
models fractional crystallization with an ΣR2 of .74 with 15% crystallization. Though
this is considered an acceptable ΣR2 value, trend line of the resultant calculated
magma is depleted in FeO* and falls below the enriched rhyolite trend. For this
reason we hold a lower degree in confidence in the results of fractional crystallization
as the only influence on the enriched trend.
To provide a secondary check to the results from the major element
crystallization models, trace element fractionation and composition within a residual
liquid was also assessed. Results of Rayleigh fractionation on trace elements utilizing
the same step sequence as major elements are tabulated in Table 8. Trace elements are
consistent with the suggestions from major elements that fractional crystallization is
the dominant driver for evolution of the basaltic andesite. Utalizing SiO2 as a progress
variable versus Rb (Figure 34) trace element fractionations paths show similar
agreement to the major element results for step 1 and 3.
84
Table 8: Calculated trace element compositions from Rayleigh fractionation. Steps 13 represent the trace element concentration calculated using phase proportions from
the major element modeling.
Element
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
Initial Compositions
Basaltic
Andesite Rhyolite
MCTB
MCTL
209-1/3
206-13
23
17
8111
1792
176
15
1198
735
14
4
8
91
325
193
24
66
123
483
9.2
15.7
0.8
4.3
343
774
13.9
35.6
36.2
62.7
4.4
8.5
19.0
37.3
5.0
8.6
1.4
1.0
4.8
9.6
4.9
11.0
2.7
7.5
2.4
6.8
8.1
13.3
2.6
10.7
1.3
2.6
Calculated Compositions
Steps follow same phase proportions as
defined in major element calculatons
Step 1
58
20480
509
2817
96
14
814
47
231
17.1
1.6
664
26.2
68.5
8.4
36.1
9.5
3.0
9.2
9.4
5.1
4.6
15.8
4.9
2.5
Step 2b
782
58607
1564
10336
440
33
4307
131
528
70.9
3.3
1502
57.7
151.0
17.6
81.0
22.2
7.4
20.6
22.9
10.9
10.6
45.7
10.3
5.3
Step 2a
174
40756
1034
5656
501
24
1896
83
381
37.2
2.5
1091
42.6
111.3
13.4
59.0
15.8
5.0
15.1
15.9
8.2
7.6
29.5
7.8
4.0
Step 3a
12
2119
3
666
3
93
119
51
487
24.5
5.1
934
35.5
75.8
9.1
40.2
8.4
1.2
8.4
9.0
6.1
6.2
16.6
11.8
3.1
85
Figure 34: Bivariate Plot of Sm (ppm) vs Si (ppk) for McKenzie Canyon glass. Fractionation points and connecting paths
represent results of XLFRAC calculations. Trace element initial composition for Step 3a from Sample MCTL 206-13. Step 3b
omitted due to lack of trace element analysis. Partial melting point calculated from trace element values in Ratajeski (2005)
86
Trace element abundances in the rhyolites are lower than those predicted by
fractional crystallization calculations consistant with major elements. This notable
disconnect between the basaltic andesite and rhyolite compositions suggests fractional
crystallization alone cannot be the origin of the rhyolites. To investigate this further, I
have compared two incompatible elements (Ba and Rb) to assess if other processes are
influencing the composition of the magma (Figure 35). Incompatible elements are
assumed to remain in the liquid phase during crystal fractionation due their inability to
be incorporated into crystal structures. Rubidium is a stongly incompatible element
that is only observed to strongly partition into micaceous minerals. Barium will also
partition into micas in addition to hornblende, and potassium feldspar. As there is no
evidence for the presence of these minerals in the system we can assume
incompatibility for both these elements within the crystallizing phases. While crystal
fractionation might account for variation among basaltic andesites in major and trace
elements (Fig 33, 34). It fails to make rhyolites with poor results in major elements,
trace elements are significantly overpredicted, and there are no intermediate
compositions within the magmatic system. I therefore consider partial melting as an
alternative method for rhyolite production.
In an attempt to identify the active processes other than fractional
crystallization and improve the model of the evolution of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff
system, mafic partial melts from experiements by Ratajeski et al (2005), Sisson
(2005), and Rapp and Watson (1995) were assessed to determine the potential role of
partial melts in the system. The melts I compared to the rhyolites were derived
experimentally from a biotite-hornblende-quartz gabbro (YOS-55a; Ratajeski, 2005),
biotite-hornblende gabbro (87S35a; Ratajeski, 2005), alkali rich basalt (No. 1; Rapp
and Watson, 1995), high-Al basalt (No. 2; Rapp and Watson, 1995), and low-K
olivine tholeiite (No. 3; Rapp and Watson, 1995). Table 9 lists the major composition
of the five partial melting experiments, trace elements calculated from original
87
Figure 35: Bivariate plot of Ba vs Rb for McKenzie Canyon Tuff glass. Green line indicates fractionation trend, black lines
indicate mixing with a partial melt, and dashed tie-lines match percent mixing for a given amount of fractionation. The shaded
orange field contains glass compositions from the McKenzie Canyon with notable depletion in FeO*. Partial melt value
calculated from original composition and phase proportions of Ratajeski et al, (2005).
88
Table 9: Major and trace element composition of partial melts from dehydration
melting of a mafic protolith, (Ratajeski et al, 2005; Sisson et al, 2005; Rapp and
Watson, 1995).
MCTL-206-11
Temperature (°C)
Pressure (kbar)
SiO2
72.55
TiO2
0.23
Al2O3
15.12
FeOt
2.44
MnO
0.08
MgO
0.20
CaO
1.19
Na2O
4.39
K2O
3.76
P2O5
0.04
V
7
Ni
4
Rb
68.8
Sr
139
Y
65
Zr
766
Nb
21
Ba
734
La
36.4
Ce
53.7
Nd
40.0
Sm
9.40
Eu
1.10
Gd
11
Dy
10
Yb
7.17
Th
12.5
Melt Fraction
Plagioclase
Amphibole
Orthopyroxene
Clinopyroxene
Apatite
Oxides
No. 2
825
7
63.43
0.36
19.71
3.69
0.15
0.56
2.61
7.38
2.25
NA
188
12
28.8
356
41
1043
17
149
113.6
108.5
72.7
43.52
33.97
0
0
39.7
No.1
1000
8
71.14
0.18
17.67
2.05
0.08
0.48
1.24
5.04
2.12
NA
262
21
45.5
445
41
334
5
1108
37.8
38.2
0.0
28.75
18.02
0.00
0.00
29.7
0.17
0.12
0.63
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.35
0.07
YOS-55A
1000
8
73.1
0.27
14.7
2.01
0.09
0.49
2.58
2.75
3.93
0.05
87S35a
825
7
74.81
0.2
13.55
1.06
0.11
0.47
1.42
3.36
4.68
0.18
94.9
579
132.2
801
907
46.0
92.3
41.9
7.74
1.75
1541
81.8
161.4
68.8
11.87
2.15
3.74
3.4
0.22
0.35
0.37
0.04
0.005
0.005
0.003
4.10
3.2
0.12
0.51
0.32
0.005
0.01
0.031
No. 3
1000
8
75.06
0.09
14.37
2.26
0.06
0.52
3.57
3.5
0.55
NA
0
25
5.3
170
22
202
8
62
10.4
11.8
9.2
11.54
11.04
18
19
19.5
0.19
0.08
0.68
0.05
89
concentrations and experimentally determined phase proportions, and sample MCTL206-11 for comparison. I chose mafic compositions for two reasons; the continental
crust of western Oregon is made up of accreted oceanic terrains (Whitney and
McGroder, 1989), and the rhyolites are trace element depleted relative to fractional
crystallization models implicating an incompatible element poor parent if partial melt.
There are significant variations between the resultant compositions of partial
melts due to their different starting compositions. The two partial melts that most
closely match the McKenzie Canyon rhyolite major element composition are YOS55a from Ratajeski (2005) and No.1 from Rapp and Watson (1995). Emphasis was
placed on the similarity of FeO and CaO as these elements show consistent behavior
unmodified by post emplacement alteration (K2O, Na2O). Both show matching FeO
values while sample YOS-55a has a higher CaO composition (by ~1 wt%). There is
however, a drastic difference in the calculated trace element concentrations with
sample No.1 being strongly depleted in light REEs, Y, Zr, and Nb while enriched in
heavy REEs, V, and Ni. Thus sample YOS-55a is chosen as the closest partial melt
composition relevant to the McKenzie Canyon system.
Figure 34 and 35 indicate the postulated partial melt is suitable for the range of
Ba and Rb values observed. Mixing of a basaltic andesite and the partial crustal melt
forms trends which differ in slope to those of fractional crystallization. These mixing
lines provide the means of producing the enriched Rb trend observed in basaltic
andesite from white pumice, and many of the rhyolites. Chemical variation in the
basaltic andesite from black pumice indicate the effects of fractional crystallization of
<46% while the white pumice indicates a mixing event with 30-40% partial melt
without fractionation. The rhyolites have a strong mixing component with 50-100%
mixing of a partial melt with the mantle melts. Rhyolite compositions that derivate
from this mixing trend follow fractionation path indicating that fractionation with
assimilation was still occurring during or post mixing.
90
5.4.2 Lower Bridge Tuff
Due to the lesser degree of compositional variation evident in glass
compositions, understanding the role of fractional crystallization, partial melting, and
mixing for the Lower Bridge Tuff is more difficult. Considerably less information is
available for the Lower Bridge Tuff, such as the composition of related mafic magma
and hence insight into magma chamber composition. This limits our ability to model
the system and determine the processes at work to evolve the magma and produce
rhyolites. Though we cannot adequately model the evolution of the Lower Bridge
Tuff from some mafic phase to a rhyolite, the similarity in rhyolite composition
between the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff indicate that the magmas
likely had a similar starting composition. Therefore I use the LBTP-185-1MI
composition as a starting point to assess evolution withing the rhyolites themselves.
Modeling fractional crystallization within the Lower Bridge rhyolite from ~70-75 wt%
SiO2, fails to adequately reproduce the compositional trends of the tuff. The best fit
for the data produces an ΣR2 of 1.25 which is beyond acceptable limits (Table 6 and
Table 10). Introducing “exotic phases” (not observed) such as hornblende, biotite, and
sanidine also does not improve the fit. In a bivariate plot of Sm vs Si (Figure 36), there
is a poor agreement with fractionation trends from a basaltic andesite to rhyolites.
There is a similar depletion in Sm for a given amount of Si than expected from
fractional crystallization as observed in McKenzie Canyon rhyolites.
The results of partial melting can sufficiently explain the major element
composition of the Lower Bridge Tuff. Notable differences between the closest partial
melt (YOS-55a, Ratajeski 2005) and the Lower Bridge Tuff are depletions in TiO2 and
enrichments in CaO and MgO (Table 9). Using Si as a progress variable verses Sm
we see that partial melting provides a reasonable explanation for some of the rhyolites
(Figure 36). Many of the rhyolites however, follow some positive sloping trend that
moves away from the partial melting point. A bivariate plot of Ba vs Rb (Figure 37)
91
Table 10: Detailed XLFRAC model results for Lower Bridge Tuff rhyolites.
Step 3 Lower Bridge: From low silica to high silica rhyolite of the Lower Bridge,
samples LBTP 185-1MI and LBTT 185-25
Init.
Final
Comps. mag.
mag.
Phase analyses (normalized to 100%)
Calc.
1/9
25 / 1
Plag
Cpx
Opx
Mag
Magma
SiO2
69.84
77.99
62.46
52.15 52.77 0.06
76.96
TiO2
0.57
0.41
0.07
0.50
0.00 15.11
0.75
Al2O3
16.32
12.17
23.37
1.76
0.68
1.57
11.02
FeO*
2.50
2.10
0.27
11.74 24.11 74.02
2.08
MgO
0.37
0.26
0.02
13.79 19.70 1.60
0.20
CaO
1.46
0.87
4.51
17.80 1.23
0.01
0.25
Na2O
5.29
1.75
8.22
0.46
0.04
0.02
3.07
K2O
3.30
4.40
0.57
0.01
0.01
0.00
5.54
Total
99.64
99.94
99.47
98.20 98.54 92.39
99.90
2
∑(R )
Phase percents (relative to initial magma)
Total
1.56
-44
4
-4
-1
-45
92
Figure 36: Bivariate Plot of Sm (ppm) vs Si (ppk) for Lower Bridge glass. Fractionation points and connecting paths represent
results of XLFRAC calculations. Partial melting point calculated from trace element values in Ratajeski (2005)
93
Figure 37: Bivariate plot of Ba vs Rb for Lower Bridge Tuff glass. Green line indicates fractionation trend, black lines
indicate mixing with a partial melt, and dashed tie-lines match percent mixing for a given amount of fractionation. Partial melt
value calculated from original composition and phase proportions of Ratajeski et al, (2005).
94
indicates the Lower Bridge rhyolites falls between 30-50% mixing of the presumed
initial composition with the partial melt composition. The positively sloped trend of
the rhyolite population also follows the trajectory expected from a fractional
crystallization trend. This is in conflict with the observation that major elements fail
to adequately produce a fractional crystallization trend. A possible solution to this
would be if the Lower Bridge Rhyolites were mixed with a partial melt following
fractional crystallization. This would account for the displaced fractional
crystallization trend in trace elements as well as the lack of adequate crystallization
paths in major elements.
5.5 Thermobarometry and Oxygen Fugacity Estimates
Calculations of temperature, pressure, oxygen fugacity and water pressure
were derived from as many phases as possible for each unit in order to estimate the
conditions of the magma storage prior to eruption. There is no single thermometer
which can be applied to the whole system, thus requiring the use several thermometers
to obtain an accurate thermal history of the system. This allows for assessment of the
changes in temperature within a single type of calculation, and the overall variability
in the temperatures using different phase calculations. One of the most important
aspects of magmatic systems, the temperature of the magma, is compiled for each unit
and by each calculation type in Figure 38. This plot highlights the existence of a 100°
gap between temperatures obtained from Fe-Oxides and plagioclase-liquid
thermometers for rhyolites from the basaltic andesites and all pyroxene thermometry.
95
Figure 38: Plot of Temperature in different units. Note that Lower Bridge units A and B are combined in LBTT with the
rhyolite having a lower plagioclase-liquid temperature than the dacite. Fe-Oxides and pyroxenes do not show this relationship.
The significantly hotter pyroxenes of the Lower Bridge Tuff are likely not reequlibrated or were entrained (Walker, 2011).
96
5.5.1 Fe-Ti Oxides
Analysis of oxide separates of the Lower Bridge Tuff and McKenzie Canyon
Tuff produced 30 and 7 magnetite-ilmenite oxide pairs respectively, that were in MgMn equilibrium of Bacon and Hirschman (1988). Figure 39 presents the results of
oxide calculations using the methods of Anderson and Lindsley (1985) and Ghiroso
and Evans (2008). Of the Lower Bridge samples 27 were found to produce results of
873 ±12°C average from Anderson and Lindsley (1985) and the Ghiorso and Evans
(2008). The fugacity values differed between the two calculations with and -0.31
±0.02 –LogƒO2 ΔNNO for Anderson and Lindsley (1985) and -0.38 ±0.03 –LogƒO2
ΔNNO for Ghiorso and Evans (2008) (Figure 39). The McKenzie Canyon Tuff had
fewer crystals in equilibrium and those only came from the uppermost unit. Of the 7
pairs in apparent equilibrium only one was found to have reasonable magmatic
temperatures of 983° and 0.73 –LogƒO2 ΔNNO from Anderson and Lindsley (1985)
and 1077° and 0.89 –LogƒO2 ΔNNO from Ghiorso and Evans (2008). Six other pairs
had significantly cooler temperatures (600-800°C) likely associated to postemplacement reequilibration. Appendix B provides the data used in the calculations
and the outputs with each associated sample.
97
Figure 39: -Log ƒO2 vs Temperature °C for Fe-Ti Oxides. Representative Crater Lake data from Mandeville et al, (2009).
Triangles represent results from Anderson and Lindsley (1985) while squares are from Ghiorso and Evans (2008)
98
5.5.2 Two-Pyroxene
Equilibrium test of pyroxenes produced 104 suitable pairs for Lower Bridge
Tuff and 6 for the uppermost unit of McKenzie Canyon Tuff. The Lower Bridge Tuff
pyroxenes gave temperatures 1055 ±12°C. There are few pyroxene pairs from the
McKenzie Canyon tuff producing temperatures from ~985° to ~1070°. This spread of
temperatures average 1019 ±36°C. Pressure estimates from barometry of the
pyroxene pairs was not possible due to their Mg# falling below the recommended
value of 0.75 (Putirka, 2008). Appendix C provides the data used in the calculations
and the outputs with each associated sample.
5.5.3 Plagioclase-Liquid
The plagioclase-liquid equilibrium thermobarometer and hygrometer is widely
applicable owning to the near ebiquity of plagioclase. Calculations of equilibrium
based off of KD(An-Ab) from Putirka, (2008) provide results for 16 Lower Bridge
pumice fall crystals, 43 Lower Bridge tuff including 16 from the dacitic pumice, 16
from McKenzie Canyon (L), 12 from McKenzie Canyon (A), and 12 from McKenzie
Canyon B. Note that 32 crystals from McKenzie Canyon (B) were found to have
compositions that would be in equilibrium with a basaltic melt that was not observed
anywhere in the system and thus not considered for determination of intensive
perameters. Additionally, the thermometry from the basaltic andesite of McKenzie
Canyon unit A was unreliable and is thus not included. This is due to inconstant glass
compositions from the derived sample causing too great an uncertainty in the
calculation. Average temperatures for the Lower Bridge pumice fall and rhyolitic tuff
was 829 ±23° with the dacitic samples being 878 ±23°. McKenzie Canyon samples
had a clear bimodality in temperature with the unit (L) and felsic (A) being 826 ±23°
and unit (B) being 1050±23°. Note that the deviation in the calculated temperatures
are considerably smaller than the uncertainty in the equation and thus each
temperature reported is expected to have an uncertainty of ±23° (Putirka, 2008).
The felsic compositions of both the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon
yielded an average of 5.4 wt% H2O with the mafic melt having 2.8 wt% H2O. The
99
deviation in both results is less than the uncertainty of the equation and thus is taken to
be ±1.1%. Barometry calculations from plagioclase-liquid equilibra have been noted
as being highly unreliable with a calculated error of ±3.3 Kbar (Putirka, 2008) and are
not applied here. Appendix D provides the feldspar and glass composition used and
relevant outputs from the Putirka, 2008 spreadsheet for each point.
6- Discussion
The results from the field and analytical data provide insight into the processes that
lead to formation of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff. In the following I
discuss the stratigraphy, unit and clast characteristics, petrology, geochemistry, and
thermometry and formulate a model for the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff
system. I focus on the chemical and physical processes leading up to and occurring
during the eruption of each of these tuffs. The model provides insight into the
evolution of this system, and also insight into the causes of change in both the
frequency and size of silicic eruptions in the central Cascades Arc.
6.1 Volcanic Source
The field relations described above provide insight into the sources and the
temporal relationship between the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs. These
tuffs are among the oldest known tuffs in the southern half of the Deschutes basin.
Additionally they are the only formally recognized tuffs sourced from southwest based
on outcrop extent and imbrication within the McKenzie Canyon Tuff (Smith, 1986;
This Study, 5.1.2). Though there was no appreciable imbrication found within the
Lower Bridge Tuff, the similarity in outcrop extent, locality, and composition
indicates that it likely shared a source similar to the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. Other
tuffs that occur within the same stratigraphic section, such as the Osborne Canyon
Tuff, have undetermined source directions or are derived from the west based on
outcrop extent such as the Steelhead Tuff and Peninsula Tuff (Smith, 1986). The
Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff likely erupted from some edifice or region
100
predating but in the Three Sisters Volcanic Complex, based on imbrication of clasts
pointing directly away from the complex in addition to its proximity to the deposits.
Understanding the timescales for temporal evolution of the volcanic system
requires determining the age of the tuffs. The exact ages of the tuffs are unknown
though dated basalts provide lower and upper boundaries of 5.77 and 5.43 Ma (Smith,
1986). Thus the age gap between the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff can
only be qualitatively assessed by observations of the type and thickness of
sedimentation between the units. In many locations the McKenzie Canyon can be
found directly overlying the Lower Bridge without any interveining sediment or soil
development. In other locations these tuffs are separated by a lahar and occasionally a
thin fluvial sequence. These observations lead to the conclusion that the eruptions
were not contemporaneous. However the lack of soil development or thick
sedimentation indicates they erupted within a relatively short amount of time, perhaps
1000’s to 10’s of thousands of years. From this, and the inference that they share a
common magmatic source, I postulate that the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon
Tuff provide us with a progressive time sequence of the development and evolution of
a single magmatic system.
6.2 Eruption Characteristics
The physical properties of the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff deposits
provide evidence that can be used to interpret the style and evolution of the eruptions.
These interpretations are based on comparison to similar deposits documented for
other well studied silicic eruptions (Fierstein et al, 1997; Fierstein and Wilson, 2005).
The Lower Bridge Tuff began with a plinian pyroclastic fall raining from an umbrella
cloud and contain several distinct coarse and fine bands both with abundant
accretionary lapilli. This would indicate the eruption began in a moisture-rich
environment and supported a sustained ash column that varied in intensity. The
eruption column then collapsed at least in part creating the Lower Bridge Tuff unit A.
The pumice within unit A is large and frothy indicating that the magma was volatile
saturated that eruption rate decreased evidenced by increasing grain size from reduced
101
magma fragmentation. The surge deposit between tuff units suggests a brief quiescent
period followed by the re-initiation of the eruption and formation of unit B. The
plinian phase likely persisted as evidenced by interbedded surge between the two
units, and by comparison to work on the Bishop Tuff (Wilson and Hildreth, 2007)
Unit B of the Lower Bridge Tuff contains sparse small pumice that are vesicle-poor
indicating high magma fragmentation likely from high eruption rates. The McKenzie
Canyon Tuff does not show evidence for an initial plinian fall-out phase, although the
presence of rip up clasts within the base of the tuff indicates that the flow was
sufficiently turbulent and erosive enough to “digest” a previously deposited airfall.
The first unit of the tuff, unit L, contains large frothy white pumices similar to that of
the Lower Bridge indicating it also was likely volatile saturated. The presence of two
reversely graded subunits indicates the occurrence of two distinct ash-flow events
within unit L. The boundary between unit L and A contains either a lithic rich lag
deposit or fine ash and pumice deposit grading into the next unit. This local variation
could represent a channelized surge deposit coupled with a more widespread ashfall.
McKenzie Canyon Tuff unit A begins with reversely graded white pumice with the
addition of black and banded pumice near the top of the grade indicating incorporation
of mafic melt to the eruption. These black and banded pumice clasts increase in
abundance up section until they become the dominant proportion of the tuff at unit B.
This gradational change in pumice represents compositional grading, commonly noted
in other systems (Hildreth, 1981), and is often interpreted to indicate tapping of deeper
levels within a magma reservoir, and thus incorporating more mafic material. The
banding from magma “mingling” as defined by Sparks and Marshall (1985), observed
in a proportion of the pumice indicates that the black basaltic andesite and white
rhyolite melts mingled immediately prior to eruption without sufficient time to achieve
complete mixing and homogenization. This suggests that the portions of the magma
reservoirs represented by each of these compositions did not interact significantly
prior to eruption. The uppermost unit of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff (unit B)
102
incorporates the largest proportion of black pumice, with lesser white and banded
varieties.
6.3 Deposit Thicknesses and Volume Estimates
Variations in outcrop occurrence and thickness are controlled by both synemplacement and post-emplacement processes. Syn-emplacement processes include
proximity to vent, erupted volume, and topographic change. Post-emplacement
processes include compaction (i.e. welding) and erosion. Vent proximity plays a large
role in the thickness of the McKenzie Canyon and Lower Bridge Tuffs as outcrop
closer to the source (SW) are substantially thicker than distal deposits (Figure 9 to
Figure 11). There is little evidence in the Lower Bridge Tuff for topographic variation
having significant controls on the thickness or lateral extent of the outcrop.
Additionally, as the deposit is not indurated, there is likely little thickness change due
to compaction. However, due to the lack of induration in the Lower Bridge Tuff, and
the presence of rip-up clasts of Lower Bridge in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff it is
evident that erosion may have been extensive, leading to an indeterminate amount of
loss of original material from the top of the unit. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff differs
in that there are more outcrop locations that provide stronger constraint on the
variations in outcrop thickness. As with the Lower Bridge Tuff, the McKenzie
Canyon is thickest proximal to the source (SW) and decreases in thickness to the
northwest. There is also strong evidence for topographic and paleostream control on
the thickness and occurrence of outcrop as several locations exhibit run-up features
from the pyroclastic current flowing over a topographic high, as well as channelization
to the north. The extent of outcrop and run-up features indicate that the McKenzie
Canyon Tuff was deposited as a sheet flow for a majority of its lateral extent and
exhibits transitioning to channelized flow to the far north and east. Post-emplacement
thickness loss due to compaction and welding is prevalent to the southwest where the
highest degrees of welding exist. In these areas the thickness loss due to erosion will
be significantly decreased from the resistivity of the welded unit to erosive processes.
103
In areas where welding is absent however, erosion can be extensive leading to a partial
or complete loss of the unit.
6.4 Petrology
The petrography of minerals separated from each unit of the Lower Bridge Tuff
provides additional qualitative constraints on magma chamber dynamics. Of
particular interest is the presence (or lack) of chemical zonation, melt inclusions, and
mineral inclusions within plagioclase and pyroxene. The Lower Bridge Tuff exhibits
a systematic increase in the occurrence of zoned plagioclase crystals up section. This
zoning is characterized by few zoned crystals with sodic cores and calcic rims within
units P and A. This progresses to sub-equal distributions of zoned crystals with calcic
cores and sodic rims in unit B. The zoned crystals represent “relic” crystals whose
cores crystallized prior to a compositional change in the system. This would indicate
that the crystals with calcic rims in unit P and A experienced an increase in CaO in the
surrounding melt, likely attributed to a mafic recharge event while crystals in unit B
with calcic cores are represent crystals formed from the intruding magma. The
occurrence of significant (50%) relic crystals in the lowest part of the chamber and
relatively few (10%) at the top suggests that either crystal fractionation proceeded at
different rates at different depths within the chamber or crystal settling was occurring.
These interpretations are based on the observation that during eruptions the first
magma erupted (and thus entrained crystals) originate from the top of the chamber and
progress to deeper levels with continued eruption (Hildreth, 1981; Spera et al, 1986).
Melt inclusions within plagioclase were observed to progressively decrease in
abundance from crystals sourced from the top of the magma chamber to the bottom.
Plagioclase of Lower Bridge unit P contains abundant melt and mineral inclusions
while units A and B have considerably fewer inclusions though they typically are
larger in size. Melt inclusions in plagioclase typically form by rapid growth followed
by slower growth or dissolution followed by growth (Kent, 2008). Thus this
observation would indicate that the crystals from the top of the chamber experienced
either rapid growth or growth following dissolution and those crystals in the lower part
104
of the chamber grew more slowly or did not experience rapid dissolution.
Interestingly, the presence (or absence) of melt inclusions is independent of chemical
zonation within the crystal as the population with the largest proportion of zoned
crystals has the fewest melt inclusions (unit B).
Clinopyroxene hosted melt
inclusions are also abundant in all levels of the magma chamber. This would indicate
that all pyroxenes in the Lower Bridge system experienced rapid uneven growth, or
dissolution followed by growth. The lack of chemical zoning within the crystals
indicates that dissolution followed by growth is not a likely cause for the melt
inclusions as we would expect to see compositional zonation if that were the case.
Plagioclase crystals from the McKenzie Canyon Tuff differ from the Lower
Bridge in that zoning and melt inclusions are apparent only in crystals in the
uppermost unit B. This lack of zonation and melt inclusions indicates that the crystals
formed slowly in equilibrium with the melt. The upper most unit B contains zoned
inclusions with sodic cores and calcic rims. The unzoned crystals are also highly
calcic indicating that the cores of zoned crystals represent relic sodic plagioclase that
was incorporated into a CaO rich underplating magma. The melt inclusions found
within the upper unit B occur in the un-zoned calcic plagioclase. These inclusions are
generally small, occurring in either planar sheets or within the crystal cores. They
likely represent a phase of rapid growth following a temperature decrease as a mafic
melt ascended into the magma chamber.
6.5 Geochemistry
The major element geochemistry highlights several important aspects of the
magmatic system responsible for the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs. This
data can be used to constrain the temporal evolution and regional controls on the
magmatism which produced the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuffs.
6.5.1 Compositional Gap
One of the first order observations apparent in both the field exposures and
chemical analyses is that the Lower Bridge Tuff is almost exclusively rhyolitic with
105
sparse dacite where as the McKenzie Canyon Tuff is a highly bimodal system
consisting of both rhyolite and basaltic andesite (Figure 18). This observation of
rhyolite trending to basaltic andesite is consistent with the theory that nearly all silicic
magma chambers are compositionally zoned with silicic magmas at the top of the
chamber progressing to more primitive magma toward the base (Hildreth, 1981). The
difference in the composition of the erupted products from the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff system can potentially be explained though the relatively
short timescales between eruptions. The relatively restricted composition of the
Lower Bridge Tuff (70-77 wt% SiO2) coupled with the sparse dacite occurring at the
top of the deposit would indicate that the eruption tapped the upper part of a silicic
magma chamber (Hildreth, 1981). This allowed for the removal of rhyolitic melt that
had congregated there through processes of crystal fractionation of basalt and partial
melting of a mafic crust (Figure 35). The relatively short time between the Lower
Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff eruption would allow for addition of a relatively
small volume of magma to the chamber. This addition of new magma could occur
both in the rhyolitic cap with addition of partial melt of the crust, as well as injections
of additional mafic material to the base of the chamber. Experimental studies have
shown that rhyolite production can occur on the order of <103 years (Huppert and
Sparks, 1988) similar to the suggested timescale between the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon eruptions. The rhyolite present would thus be a mix of residual
Lower Bridge rhyolite and new partial melt derived rhyolite. This is supported by the
composition of the first erupted products of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff, unit L, having
broadly similar major element composition to the Lower Bridge Tuff (Figure 18) with
trace elements indicating incorporation of higher degrees of partial melt (Figure 35).
As the McKenzie Canyon eruption proceeded, it would quickly exhaust its rhyolite
supply and begin tapping deeper more mafic magmas in the chamber.
6.5.2 Pre-eruption Chamber Dynamics
Glass and mineral elemental compositions provide a chemical snapshot of the
magma chamber prior to eruption which can be used to determine the petrogenesis of
106
a silicic system (Chesner, 1998) allowing us to expand our interpretation of the
system’s evolution. The Lower Bridge Tuff contains plagioclase and orthopyroxene
with significant variations in An content and Mg# respectively. This indicates that the
minerals were sampling melt with significant local chemical variations. This
observation would suggest that the magma was not experiencing convection sufficient
enough to homogenize the magma and minerals prior to the eruption of the Lower
Bridge Tuff (Huber et al, 2009). Additional evidence lies in the presence of increasing
proportion of zoned plagioclase at the top of the tuff whose cores are similar in
composition to plagioclase at the base of the tuff. This suggests secondary growth
following crystallization from a mafic recharge (this study, 6.4) with little convection
allowing for mixing and re equilibration of the crystal (Figure 40).
Minerals from the McKenzie Canyon Tuff provide evidence for significantly different
processes then those in the Lower Bridge. Plagioclase from each unit of the tuff have
restricted An contents and are compositionally un-zoned in all but the uppermost unit
of the tuff (B). This lack of zoning and restricted An values (Figure 28) would
indicate that the plagioclase were formed from a compositionally homogenous melt.
This suggests that convection was sufficiently rapid enough to thoroughly mix the
melt and remove compositional variations that would be present from fractionation or
assimilation processes. The presence of distinct compositional gaps between
plagioclase from separate units suggests that plagioclase populations were likely
isolated in separate chambers experiencing convection (Figure 40). Evidence for this
is apparent in the lack of communication both in glass and crystal chemistry between
the basaltic andesite and rhyolite, and the presence of a FeO* depleting trend in unit A
rhyolites (Figure 25) due to increased fractionation of oxides(Table 7, step 3a). For
both of these observations to exist in a system with compositional homogeneity from
convection, the basaltic andesite must have a separate chamber from the rhyolites. The
rhyolite of unit A crystallizes oxides creating the FeO* depleting trend due to basaltic
andesite dikes providing heat and small quantaties of mafic material to the chamber
and modifying the rhyolite . Though each sample has a couple crystals of differing
107
Figure 40: Conceptual diagram of the different convective regimes (or lack thereof) within the Lower Bridge and McKenzie
Canyon volcanic system. Changes in Na2O represent chemical variations in plagioclase with darker crystals representing
higher Na2O. Temperature estimates from Fe-Ti oxide and Plag-Liquid thermometry.
108
composition, these crystals have major element compositions consistent with those
from the preceding melt. It is likely that these crystals represent antecrysts scavenged
from conduit walls during eruption and do not represent convective mixing between
units.
6.5.3 Model of the System
Utilizing the results from fractionation and partial melting calculations (Table
7, Table 9, and Table 10) in conjunction with major and trace element variations
observed in minerals and glass (Figure 34 and Figure 35) I can propose a model of the
evolution of the magmatic system responsible for the Lower Bridge and McKenzie
Canyon Tuff. This model will detail the methods by which silicic material forms and
why we see the distinct geochemical variations inherent to the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff.
The onset of the system prior to the eruption of the Lower Bridge Tuff cannot
be well constrained as there is no information regarding primitive magmas during the
time at which the Lower Bridge magmas were formed. The trace element variations
of Rb and Ba (Figure 37) provide us the method by which silicic melts formed to
produce the Lower Bridge rhyolite. The rhyolites show a distinct compositional trend
that is displaced to much higher Rb concentrations than expected from fractionation of
basaltic andesites similar to those observed in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff. XLFRAC
calculations indicate that this fractionation trend cannot be made with any phases
present in the system (Table 10). To resolve this, the model must include mixing with
a partial melt of a mafic crustal component. This would require that the magmatic
system be sufficiently hot enough to begin melting the crust. Thermometry indicates
that the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon magma system is hotter than typical
rhyolitic systems (~850°) supporting a partial melting theory. As the partial melt is
enriched in Rb, mixing it with an evolving fractionating basaltic melt can displace and
preserve the fractionation trend at higher Rb concentrations. Mixing lines drawn from
an assumed fractionation trend (based off of the McKenzie Canyon basaltic andesites)
109
to the partial melt produce a consistent value of 40-60% incorporation of partial melt
to the evolving Lower Bridge mantle melt.
Following the eruption of the Lower Bridge Tuff and the removal of at least
3
4.5 km of rhyolitic magma, the magma chamber then began to evolve to produce
what would become the McKenzie Canyon magmas. The McKenzie Canyon rhyolites
show distinct geochemical similarities to the Lower Bridge Tuff such as major
element compositions and mineral chemistry. The major elements are nearly
indistinguishable, with the exception of TiO2 (Figure 19), and FeO* in rhyolite
pumice from unit A (Figure 25). The overall TiO2 depletion is likely due to the
increasing oxygen fugacity of the system (Figure 39), while the major and trace
element variations observed in McKenzie Canyon unit A are due to additional crystal
fractionation and crustal assimilation at the rhyolite/basaltic andesite boundary as
evidenced by XLFRAC calculations (Table 7). The overall similarity of McKenzie
Canyon rhyolite to the Lower Bridge is likely due to low volumes of residual rhyolite
from the Lower Bridge magma collecting at the chamber roof and forming the initial
magma from which the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites were derived. Rubidium
concentrations in this relic magma are enriched compared to the Lower Bridge
rhyolite (Figure 27), as a consequence of incorporation of additional partial melt to the
system from a gabbroic crust. Underplating of a basaltic melt provides additional
mafic magma to the system producing basaltic andesites which show mixing with
partial melt near the rhyolite boundary (white pumice, dike directly entering chamber),
and crystal fractionation without inclusion of partial melt at depth (black pumice, dike
entering deeper mafic chamber). Figure 41 and Figure 42 provides a conceptualized
illustration of the system and the various processes that are evolving the magmas
which erupted from it. This model indicates that partial melting of a mafic crust is the
dominant reasons for which silicic magma are generated in this system, while
fractional crystallization plays a lesser role. Neither process would be possible
however without the influx of basaltic melt to the crust providing mafic material to
crystallize from in addition to heat required to produce partial melts of the crust
110
(Sisson, 2005). Figure 41 and Figure 42 represent a timestamp series of events in the
Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff system. The sequence of events are as
follows:
1. Input of mafic melt into the system and crystal fractionation up to 70%.
2. Addition of rhyolitic partial melt from a gabbroic crust and continued
fractionation of crystals
3. Eruption of the Lower Bridge Tuff removing ~4 km3 of predominately
rhyolitic magma.
4. McKenzie Canyon chamber begins filling with underlying mafic melt
creating basaltic andesite. The residual rhyolite from the Lower Bridge
chamber moves upwards and begins incorporating additional partial melt
from a gabbroic crust. New rhyolite is produced from incorporation of
additional partial melt to the chamber.
5. Partial melt addtition and fractionation occurs in the rhyolites with
abundant oxide fractionation in unit A, at the boundary with the basaltic
andesite. The basaltic andesite intruding the main chamber incorporates
25-50% partial melt, while basaltic andesite in a sub-chamber at depth
evolves by fractionation of <46% crystals.
6. Eruption of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff removing ~4 km3 of magma. The
rhyolitic cap of the chamber is removed and a large volume of basaltic
andesite is also erupted.
111
Figure 41: Conceptual diagram of the evolution of the Lower Bridge magmatic system. Each snapshot represents a distinct
evolutionary period within the chamber based on petrologic, geochemical, and modeled results. Event 1 (A) represents the
establishment of the Lower Bridge system and fractionation of some mantle melt. Event 2 (B) represents additional
fractionation and growth of crystals with an influx of 40-60% rhyolitic partial melt. Event 3 (C) represents the eruption of the
Lower Bridge Tuff removing ~4 km3 of rhyolitic material.
112
Figure 42: Conceptual diagram of the evolution of the McKenzie Canyon magmatic system. Each snapshot represents a
distinct evolutionary period within the chamber based on petrologic, geochemical, and modeled results. Event 1 (D) represents
influx of new mafic and silicic magma to the chamber following the Lower Bridge eruption. Basaltic melt moves up into the
system while the residual rhyolitic melt becomes saturated with additional partial melt. Event 2 (E) represents further
evolution of the chamber with fractional crystallization occurring up to 46% in basaltic andesites and partial melt continuously
added to the system (25-50%). Event 3 (F) represents the eruption of the McKenzie Canyon Tuff, removing ~4 km3 of
rhyolitic and basaltic andesite magma.
113
6.5.4 Regional Controls on Magmatism
A unique feature of not only the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff,
but also the majority of Deschutes age volcanics is a displacement in major elements
including FeO* and CaO compared to typical Cascade Arc derived magmas (Figure ).
Deschutes Formation volcanics have an enrichment in FeO* and depletion in CaO for
a given SiO2 compared to most Quaternary Cascade Arc magmas. These major
element variations are similar to those observed in the neighboring volcanic province
of the High Lava Plains. The displacement is not as extreme as observed with the
High Lava Plains and thus the Deschutes magmas bridge the gap between the Cascade
Arc and the High Lava Plains, appearing to share influences from both provinces.
This could suggest that the central Oregon Cascades from 8-5 Ma, were being
influenced by some regional tectonic force producing melts broadly similar to that of
the High Lava Plains.
The high FeO trend in basalts of the High Lava Plains identified by Ford
(2012) is similar to that of Icelandic tholeiite basalts whereas the Cascade Arc
produces calc-alkaline basalts. The differences in the tectonic regimes, rifting and
upwelling of mantle in Iceland and slab subduction leading to hydration and melting
of mantle wedge in Cascadia, are the key drivers for the broad scale variations in
major element composition of basalts. Rhyolites associated with the high FeO trend in
the High Lava Plains are demonstrated to have formed primarily due to partial melting
of a mafic crust (Ford, 2012), whereas the rhyolites from the Cascade Arc are
primarily derived by AFC processes (Conrey, 1997).
The tectonic control possibly linking the Deschutes age volcanics and the High Lava
Plains is the effect of slab steepening associated with the High Cascade transition
(Priest, 1990) producing greater asthenospheric flow and mantle upwelling (Ford,
2012). This would cause extension and rifting of the High Cascades along the arc axis
to produce the High Cascades Graben (Conrey et al, 2004). The consequence of this
rifting would be increased basaltic production from mantle upwelling, thermally
priming the crust for high degrees of partial melting.
114
7- Conclusion
The Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon tuff represent two extensive silicic units
originating from the Cascade Arc following the reorganization from Western Cascade
to High Cascade Volcanism at ~8 Ma. Constrained by radiometrically dated basaltic
units of 5.77 and 5.43 Ma emplaced below and above the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff. The Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon units represent the
oldest known silicic material erupted by the High Cascades. These eruptions were
significant in producing a minimum of ~5 km3 DRE each, placing both eruptions at
VEI 5. From field observations it is apparent that although these were two distinct
eruptive events the lack of sedimentation and soil development in many locations
would indicate that they erupted within a relatively short timeframe. Lateral changes
in thickness and imbrication indicates that the two units originate from a similar
source direction. Due to lack of proximal deposits the exact location of the vent is
unknown, however given the presence of the Three Sisters Volcanic Complex in the
direction of the inferred source it is reasonable to assume that the complex was the
source of the eruption and thus has been active for longer than the current edifices
would suggest. The chemistry of the tuff indicates that the Lower Bridge Tuff erupted
predominately rhyolitic magma with dacitic magma occurring only in small quantities
at the end of the eruption. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff erupted first as a rhyolite and
evolved to a basaltic andesite with co-mingling and incomplete mixing of the two
magma types.
The idea that these eruptions occurred from a shared system and possibly a shared
chamber is supported by the similarity of major and trace element concentrations of
the rhyolitic components of both eruptions. The few differences observed in major
elements, notably with FeO and TiO2 are attributable to both increased fractionation of
oxide phases and higher oxidation state in the McKenzie Canyon Tuff system. This
change in oxygen fugacity can be attributed to reduction caused by invading basalt at
the base of the chamber. Trace elements indicate that both the Lower Bridge and
McKenzie Canyon Tuff experienced mixing between a mantle derived basaltic melt
115
and a rhyolitic partial melt derived from gabbroic crust. Rhyolites of the Lower
Bridge Tuff incorporate 30-50% partial melt following 0->60% fractionation of
mantle derived melts. The McKenzie Canyon Tuff incorporates higher degrees of
partial melt (50-100%) with up to 15% post mixing fractionation. The incorporation of
larger amounts of partial melt in the McKenzie Canyon rhyolites may be due to the
Lower Bridge eruption removing much of the preexisting material from the chamber
or an influx of new basaltic material producing additional partial melt. Thermometry
of the rhyolites indicates they are of fairly high temperature (~850°) for a typical
rhyolite melt. This supports models of a thermally mature crust capable of producing
large degrees of crustal mafic partial melt (~20%).
The implications of this model is that to produce eruptions similar to those that
produced the Lower Bridge and McKenzie Canyon Tuff deposits there needs to be
both incoming melts from the mantle mixing with partial melts of the crust. As
oblique convergence increases in the Cascade Arc (Trehu et al, 2002), magmatic
production will slow and less basaltic melt will be introduced to the crust. This will
cause an overall cooling of the crust which would inhibit the production of rhyolitic
partial melts. Without partial melts to provide the rhyolitic end member to the system,
the system will evolve to produce and erupt predominantly mafic melts.
116
8- References
Andersen, D. J., and D. H. Lindsley (1985), New (and final!) models for the Timagnetite/ilmenite geothermometer and oxygen barometer, Eos, Transactions,
American Geophysical Union, 66(18), 416
Annen, C., J. D. Blundy, and R. S. J. Sparks (2006), The Genesis of Intermediate and
Silicic Magmas in Deep Crustal Hot Zones, J. Petrology, 47(3), 505–539
Armstrong, R. L., E. M. Taylor, P. O. Hales, and D. J. Parker (1975), K-Ar dates for
volcanic rocks, central Cascade Range of Oregon, Isochron/West, 13, 5–10.
Arth, J. G. (1976), Behavior of trace elements during magmatic processes; a summary
of theoretical models and their applications, Journal of Research of the U. S.
Geological Survey, 4(1), 41–47.
Aubin, W. L. (2000), Ignimbrites of the Deschutes Formation: A Record of Crustal
Melting and Magma Mixing, Masters, Washington State University, Pullman,
WA.
Bacon, C., and M. Hirschmann (1988), Mg/Mn Partitioning as a Test for Equilibrium
Between Coexisting Fe-Ti Oxides, Am. Miner., 73(1-2), 57–61.
Bacon, C. R., P. E. Bruggman, R. L. Christiansen, M. A. Clynne, J. M. DonnellyNolan, and W. Hildreth (1997), Primitive Magmas at Five Cascade Volcanic
Fields; Melts from Hot, Heterogeneous Sub-Arc Mantle, Can Mineral, 35(2),
397–423
Beattie, P. (1993), The generation of uranium series disequilibria by partial melting of
spinel peridotite; constraints from partitioning studies, Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 117(3-4), 379–391.
117
Bindeman, I. N., A. M. Davis, and M. J. Drake (1998), Ion microprobe study of
plagioclase-basalt partition experiments at natural concentration levels of trace
elements, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62(7), 1175–1193
Bishop, E. M. (1990), A field guide to the geology of Cove Palisades State Park and
the Deschutes Basin in central Oregon, Oregon Geology, 52(1), 3–16.
Camp, V. E., M. E. Ross, and W. E. Hanson (2003), Genesis of flood basalts and
Basin and Range volcanic rocks from Steens Mountain to the Malheur River
gorge, Oregon, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 115(1), 105–128,
Cannon, D. M. (1984), The stratigraphy, geochemistry, and mineralogy of two ashflow tuffs in the Deschutes Formation, central Oregon, Masters, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Chaney, R. W. (1938), The Deschutes flora of eastern Oregon, vol. 476, pp. 185-216,
Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication.
Chesner, C. A. (1998), Petrogenesis of the Toba Tuffs, Sumatra, Indonesia, J.
Petrology, 39(3), 397–438
Conrey, R. M. (1985), Volcanic stratigraphy of the Deschutes Formation, Green Ridge
to Fly Creek, north-central Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Conrey, R. M., A. L. Grunder, and M. E. Schmidt (2004), State of the Cascade Arc:
stratocone persistence, mafic lava shields, and pyroclastic volcanism
118
associated with intra-arc rift propagation, Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries OFR O-04-04, 43.
Dill, T. E. (1988), Stratigraphy of the Neogene Volcanic Rocks Along the Lower
Metolius River, Jefferson County, Central Oregon, Masters, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Dostal, J., C. Dupuy, J. P. Carron, M. Le Guen de Kerneizon, and R. C. Maury (1983),
Partition coefficients of trace elements; application to volcanic rocks of St.
Vincent, West Indies, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 47(3), 525–533
Druitt, T. H., and C. R. Bacon (1988), Compositional zonation and cumulus
processses in the Mount Mazama magma chamber, Crater Lake, Oregon,
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79(2-3), 289–
297.
du Bray, E. A., D. A. John, D. R. Sherrod, R. C. Evarts, R. M. Conrey, and J. Lexa
(2006), Geochemical database for volcanic rocks of the western Cascades,
Washington, Oregon, and California, U. S. Geological Survey : Reston, VA,
United States, United States.
Duke, J. M. (1976), Distribution of the period four transition elements among olivine,
calcic clinopyroxene and mafic silicate liquid; experimental results, Journal of
Petrology, 17(4), 499–521.
119
Dunn, T., and C. Sen (1994), Mineral/matrix partition coefficients for orthopyroxene,
plagioclase, and olivine in basaltic to andesitic systems; a combined analytical
and experimental study, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 58(2), 717–733
Dutton, C. E. (1889), Eighth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey to
the Secretary of the Interior, 1886-1887: Part 1, USGS Numbered Series, 8,
156-165.
Evernden, J. F., and G. T. James (1964), Potassium-argon dates and the Tertiary floras
of North America, American Journal of Science, 262(8), 945–974
Ewart, A., W. B. Bryan, and J. B. Gill (1973), Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the
Younger Volcanic Islands of Tonga, S. W. Pacific, Journal of Petrology,
14(3), 429–465.
Ewart, A., and W. L. Griffin (1994), Application of proton-microprobe data to traceelement partitioning in volcanic rocks, Chemical Geology, 117(1-4), 251–284.
Ferns M. L. (1996), Geologic Map of the Steelhead Falls Quadrangle, Deschutes and
Jefferson Counties, Oregon
Fierstein, J. E., B. F. Houghton, C. J. N. Wilson, and W. H. Hildreth (1997),
Complexities of plinian fall deposition at vent; an example from the 1912
Novarupta eruption (Alaska), Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, 76(3-4), 215–227
120
Fierstein, J., and C. J. N. Wilson (2005), Assembling an ignimbrite; compositionally
defined eruptive packages in the 1912 Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes
ignimbrite, Alaska, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 117(7-8), 1094–
1107
Fierstein, J., W. Hildreth, and A. T. Calvert (2011), Eruptive history of South Sister,
Oregon Cascades, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 207(34), 145–179
Ford, M. T. (2012), Rhyolitic magmatism of the High Lava Plains and adjacent
Northwest Basin and Range, Oregon: implications for the evolution of
continental crust, Ph.D Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Franck, S., K. Kossacki, and C. Bounama (1999), Modelling the global carbon cycle
for the past and future evolution of the earth system, Chemical Geology,
159(1–4), 305–317,
Ghiorso, M. S., and B. W. Evans (2008), Thermodynamics of rhombohedral oxide
solid solutions and a revision of the Fe-Ti two-oxide geothermometer and
oxygen-barometer, American Journal of science, 308(9), 957.
Green, T. H., and N. J. Pearson (1987), An experimental study of Nb and Ta
partitioning between Ti-rich minerals and silicate liquids at high pressure and
temperature, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 51(1), 55–62
121
Green, T. H., J. Adam, and S. H. Site (1993), Proton microprobe determined trace
element partition coefficients between pargasite, augite and silicate or
carbonatitic melts, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 74(16,
Suppl.), 340.
Guffanti, M., and C. S. Weaver (1988), Distribution of Late Cenozoic Volcanic Vents
in the Cascade Range: Volcanic Arc Segmentation and Regional Tectonic
Considerations, J. Geophys. Res., 93(B6), PP. 6513–6529
Hales, P. O. (1975), Geology of the Green Ridge area, Whitewater River Quadrangle,
Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Hayman, G. A. (1983), Geology of a part of the Eagle Butte and Gateway quadrangles
east of the Deschutes River, Jefferson County, Oregon, Masters, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Hewitt, S. L. (1969), Geology of the Fly Creek quadrangle and the north half of Round
Butte Dam quadrangle, Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR.
Hildreth, W. (1981), Gradients in Silicic Magma Chambers: Implications for
Lithospheric Magmatism, J. Geophys. Res., 86(B11), 10153–10,192
Hildreth, W. (2007), Quaternary magmatism in the Cascades; geologic perspectives,
U. S. Geological Survey : Reston, VA, United States, United States.
Hodge, E. T. (1940), Geology of the Madras quadrangle, Oregon State College.
122
Hodge, E. T. (1942), Geology of north central Oregon, Oregon State College.
Hooper, P. R. (1993), The Prineville Basalt, north-central Oregon, Oregon Geology,
55(1), 3–12.
Hooper, P. R., G. B. Binger, and K. R. Lees (2002), Ages of the Steens and Columbia
River flood basalts and their relationship to extension-related calc-alkalic
volcanism in eastern Oregon, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 114(1),
43–50.
Huber, C., O. Bachmann, and M. Manga (2009), Homogenization processes in silicic
magma chambers by stirring and mushification (latent heat buffering), Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, 283(1–4), 38–47
Hughes, G. R., and G. A. Mahood (2008), Tectonic controls on the nature of large
silicic calderas in volcanic arcs, Geology, 36(8), 627
Huppert, H. E., and R. S. J. Sparks (1988), The Generation of Granitic Magmas by
Intrusion of Basalt into Continental Crust, J. Petrology, 29(3), 599–624
Jay, J. B. (1982), The geology and stratigraphy of the Tertiary volcanic and
volcaniclastic rocks, with special emphasis on the Deschutes Formation, from
Lake Simtustus to Madras in central Oregon, Masters, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Johnson, K. T. M. (1998), Experimental determination of partition coefficients for rare
earth and high-field-strength elements between clinopyroxene, garnet, and
basaltic melt at high pressure, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology,
133(1-2), 60–68
123
Jordan, B. T., A. L. Grunder, and R. A. Duncan (2004), Geochronology of ageprogressive volcanism of the Oregon High Lava Plains; implications for the
plume interpretation of Yellowstone, Journal of Geophysical Research,
109(B10)
Keach, R. W., J. E. Oliver, L. D. Brown, and S. Kaufman (1989), Cenozoic Active
Margin and Shallow Cascades Structure: COCORP Results from Western
Oregon, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 101(6), 783–794
Keleman, P.B. and Dunn, J.T. (1992). Depletion of Nb relative to other highly
incompatible elements by melt/rock reaction in the upper mantle. EOS,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 73: 656-657.
Kent, A. J. R. (2008), Melt Inclusions in Basaltic and Related Volcanic Rocks,
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 69(1), 273–331
Legros, F. (2000), Minimum volume of a tephra fallout deposit estimated from a
single isopach, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 96(1–2),
25–32
Lemarchand, F., B. Villemant, and G. Calas (1987), Trace element distribution
coefficients in alkaline series, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 51(5),
1071–1081
Le Maitre, R. W. [editor] et al. (1989), A classification of igneous rocks and glossary
of terms, Blackwell Sci. Publ. : Oxford, United Kingdom, United Kingdom.
124
Leonard, L. J., C. A. Currie, S. Mazzotti, and R. D. Hyndman (2010), Rupture area
and displacement of past Cascadia great earthquakes from coastal coseismic
subsidence, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 122(11-12), 2079–2096
Lepage, L. D. (2003), ILMAT: an excel worksheet for ilmenite–magnetite
geothermometry and geobarometry, Comput. Geosci., 29(5), 673–678
Luhr, J. F., and I. S. E. Carmichael (1980), The Colima volcanic complex, Mexico; I,
Post-caldera andesites from Volcan Colima, Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 71(4), 343–372.
Mandeville, C. W., J. D. Webster, C. Tappen, B. E. Taylor, A. Timbal, A. Sasaki, E.
Hauri, and C. R. Bacon (2009), Stable isotope and petrologic evidence for
open-system degassing during the climactic and pre-climactic eruptions of Mt.
Mazama, Crater Lake, Oregon, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 73(10),
2978–3012
McBirney, A. R., J. F. Sutter, H. R. Naslund, K. G. Sutton, and C. M. White (1974),
Episodic Volcanism in the Central Oregon Cascade Range, Geology, 2(12),
585–589
McCaffrey, R., A. I. Qamar, R. W. King, R. Wells, G. Khazaradze, C. A. Williams, C.
W. Stevens, J. J. Vollick, and P. C. Zwick (2007), Fault locking, block rotation
and crustal deformation in the Pacific Northwest, Geophysical Journal
International, 169(3), 1315–1340
125
McDannel, A. K. (1989), Geology of the southernmost Deschutes basin, Tumalo
quadrangle, Deschutes County, Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
McKenzie, D., and R. K. O’Nions (1991), Partial melt distributions from inversion of
rare earth element concentrations, Journal of Petrology, 32(5), 1021–1091.
Miller, C. (1990), Volcanic Hazards in the Pacific-Northwest, Geosci. Can., 17(3),
183-187.
Mysen, B. O. (1978), Experimental determination of nickel partition coefficients
between liquid, pargasite, and garnet peridotite minerals and concentration
limits of behavior according to Henry’s law at high pressure and temperature,
American Journal of Science, 278(2), 217–243.
Newhall, C., and S. Self (1982), The Volcanic Explosivity Index (vei) - an Estimate of
Explosive Magnitude for Historical Volcanism, Journal of Geophysical
Research-Oceans and Atmospheres, 87(NC2), 1231–1238
Nielsen, R. L. (1992), BIGD.FOR; Fortran program to calculate trace-element
partition coefficients for natural mafic and intermediate composition magmas,
Computers & Geosciences, 18(7), 773–788
Paster, T. P., D. S. Schauwecker, and L. A. Haskin (1974), The behavior of some trace
elements during solidification of the Skaergaard layered series, Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 38(10), 1549–1577.
Peterson, N. V., and E. A. Groh (1991), Geologic Tour of Cove Palisades State Park
near Madras, Oregon, Oregon Geology, 53(4), 75.
126
Preston, L. A., K. C. Creager, R. S. Crosson, T. M. Brocher, and A. M. Trehu (2003),
Intraslab earthquakes; dehydration of the Cascadia slab, Science, 302(5648),
1197–1200
Priest, G. R., N. M. Woller, G. L. Black, and S. H. Evans (1983), Overview of the
geology of the central Oregon Cascade Range, Special Paper - Oregon,
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 15, 3–28.
Priest, G. R. [editor], and B. F. [editor] Vogt (1983), Geology and geothermal
resources of the central Oregon Cascade Range
Priest, G. R., G. L. Black, N. M. Woller, and E. M. Taylor (1988), Geologic map of
the McKenzie Bridge Quadrangle, Lane County, Oregon
Priest, G. R. (1990), Volcanic and Tectonic Evolution of the Cascade Volcanic Arc,
Central Oregon, Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(B12), 19583–19599.
Putirka, K. D. (2005), Igneous Thermometers and Barometers Based on Plagioclase +
Liquid Equilibria: Tests of Some Existing Models and New Calibrations,
American Mineralogist, 90(2-3), 336–346
Putirka, K. D. (2008), Thermometers and Barometers for Volcanic Systems, in
Minerals, Inclusions and Volcanic Processes, vol. 69, edited by K. Putirka and
F. Tepley, pp. 61–120, Mineralogical Soc Amer, Chantilly.
Rampino, M. R., and S. Self (1982), Historic eruptions of Tambora (1815), Krakatau
(1883), and Agung (1963), their stratospheric aerosols, and climatic impact,
Quaternary Research, 18(2), 127–143.
127
Rapp, R. P., and E. B. Watson (1995), Dehydration melting of metabasalt at 8-32 kbar;
implications for continental growth and crust-mantle recycling, Journal of
Petrology, 36(4), 891–931
Ratajeski, K., T. W. Sisson, and A. F. Glazner (2005), Experimental and geochemical
evidence for derivation of the El Capitan Granite, California, by partial melting
of hydrous gabbroic lower crust, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology,
149(6), 713–734
Reid, F. (1983), Origin of the rhyolitic rocks of the Taupo volcanic zone, New
Zealand, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 15(4), 315–338
Roeder, P. L., and R. F. Emslie (1970), Olivine-liquid equilibrium, Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 29(4), 275–289
Rosenbaum, G., D. Giles, M. Saxon, P. G. Betts, R. F. Weinberg, and C. Duboz
(2005), Subduction of the Nazca Ridge and the Inca Plateau: Insights into the
formation of ore deposits in Peru, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 239(1–
2), 18–32
Roth, J. B., M. J. Fouch, D. E. James, and R. W. Carlson (2008), Three-dimensional
seismic velocity structure of the Northwestern United States, Geophysical
Research Letters, 35(15)
Ruscitto, D. M., P. J. Wallace, E. R. Johnson, A. J. R. Kent, and I. N. Bindeman
(2010), Volatile contents of mafic magmas from cinder cones in the Central
Oregon High Cascades: Implications for magma formation and mantle
conditions in a hot arc, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 298(1–2), 153–
161,
128
Russell, I. C. (1905), Preliminary report on the geology and water resources of central
Oregon, Gov’t print. off.
Salisbury, M. J. (2011), Convergent margin magmatism in the central Andes and its
near antipodes in western Indonesia: spatiotemporal and geochemical
considerations, Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Schnetzler, C. C., and J. A. Philpotts (1970), Partition coefficients of rare-earth
elements between igneous matrix material and rock-forming mineral
phenocrysts; II, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 34(3), 331–340.
Self, S., and G. P. L. Walker (1994), Ash clouds; characteristics of eruption columns,
U. S. Geological Survey : Reston, VA, United States, United States.
Sherrod, D. R. (1986), Geology, petrology, and volcanic history of a portion of the
Cascade Range between latitudes 43 degrees -44 degrees N, central Oregon,
U.S.A, Doctoral, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA,
United States, 1 January.
Sherrod, D. R., and J. G. Smith (2000), Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene
volcanic and related rocks of the Cascade Range, Oregon, U. S. Geological
Survey, Reston VA, United States
Sherrod David R., Taylor Edward M., Ferns Mark L., Scott William E., Conrey
Richard M., and Smith Gary A. (2004), Geologic Map of the Bend 30- X 60Minute Quadrangle, Central Oregon, Geologic Investigations Series Map I2683, U.S. Geological Survey
129
Sisson, T. W., K. Ratajeski, W. B. Hankins, and A. F. Glazner (2005), Voluminous
granitic magmas from common basaltic sources, Contributions to Mineralogy
and Petrology, 148(6), 635–661
Smith, G. A. (1983), A field trip guide to the central oregon cascades, Oregon
Geology, 45(11), 119–126.
Smith, G. A. (1986), Stratigraphy, sedimentology and petrology of neogene rocks in
the Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon: a record of continental-margin
volcanism and its influence on fluvial sedimentation in an arc-adjacent basin,
Doctorate, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Smith, G. A., L. W. Snee, and E. M. Taylor (1987), Stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and
petrologic record of late Miocene subsidence of the central Oregon High
Cascades, Geology, 15(5), 389–392
Smith, G. A. (1991), A field guide to depositional processes and facies geometry of
Neogene continental volcaniclastic rocks, Deschutes basin, central Oregon,
Oregon Geology, 53(1), 3–20.
Smith, G. A., and L. W. Snee (1984), Revised stratigraphy of the Deschutes basin,
Oregon: implications for the Neogene development of the central Oregon, Eos,
65, 330.
Smith, G. A., L. W. Snee, and E. M. Taylor (1987), Stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and
petrologic record of late Miocene subsidence of the central Oregon High
Cascades, Geology, 15(5), 389–392
130
Smith, J. G. (1993), Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene volcanic and related
rocks in the Cascade Range, Washington
Sparks, R. S. J., and L. A. Marshall (1986), Thermal and mechanical constraints on
mixing between mafic and silicic magmas, Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, 29(1–4), 99–124
Spera, F. J., D. A. Yuen, J. C. Greer, and G. Sewell (1986), Dynamics of magma
withdrawal from stratified magma chambers, Geology, 14(9), 723 –726
Spera, F. J. (2000), Physical Properties of Magma, in Encyclopedia of Volcanos, pp.
171–190, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Stearns, H. T. (1931), Geology and Water Resources of the Middle Deschutes River
Basin, Oregon, United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
Water-Supply Paper 637-D.
Stensland, D. E. (1970), Geology of part of the northern half of the Bend quadrangle,
Jefferson and Deschutes counties, Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Stormer, J. C., and J. Nicholls (1978), XLFRAC; a program for the interactive testing
of magmatic differentiation models, Computers & Geosciences, 4(2), 143–159
Stormer, J. C. (1983), The effects of recalculation on estimates of temperature and
oxygen fugacity from analyses of multicomponent iron-titanium oxides,
American Mineralogist, 68(5-6), 586–594.
131
Streck, M., and A. Grunder (1995), Crystallization and Welding Variations in a
Widespread Ignimbrite Sheet - The Rattlesnake Tuff, Eastern Oregon, USA,
Bull. Volcanol., 57(3), 151–169
Taylor, E. M. (1987), Record of early High Cascade volcanism at Cove Palisades,
Oregon: Deschutes Formation volcanic and sedimentary rocks, Geological
Society of America Centennial Field Guide, Cordilleran Section, 313–315.
Taylor, E. (1990), Volcanic History and Tectonic Development of the Central High
Cascade Range, Oregon, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth and
Planets, 95(B12), 19611–19622,
Taylor, E. M. (1998), Geologic Map of the Hinkle Butte Quadrangle, Deschutes
County Oregon
Thormahlen, D. J. (1984), Geology of the northwest one-quarter of the Prineville
Quadrangle, central Oregon, Masters, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Tilling, R. I., and P. W. Lipman (1993), Lessons in reducing volcano risk, Nature
[London], 364(6435), 277–280.
Trehu, A. M., T. M. Brocher, K. C. Creager, M. A. Fisher, L. A. Preston, and G. D.
Spence (2002), Geometry of the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate; new
constraints from SHIPS98, U. S. Geological Survey : Reston, VA, United
States, United States
Verplanck, E. P., and R. A. Duncan (1987), Temporal variations in plate convergence
and eruption rates in the western Cascades, Oregon, Tectonics, 6(2), 197–209
132
Villemant, B. (1988), Trace element evolution in the Phlegrean Fields (central Italy);
fractional crystallization and selective enrichment, Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 98(2), 169–183.
Walker, B. A. Jr, (2011), The Geochemical Evolution of the Aucanquilcha Volcanic
Cluster: Prolonged Magmatism and its Crustal Consequences, Dissertation,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States.
Waters, A. C. (1968), Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the Madras Quadrangle,
Jefferson and Wasco Counties, Oregon
Wells, F. G., D. L. Peck, Geological Survey (U.S.), and Oregon. Dept. of Geology and
Mineral Industries. (1961), Geologic map of Oregon west of the 121st
meridian
Whitney, D. L., and M. F. McGroder (1989), Cretaceous crust section through the
proposed Insular-Intermontane suture, North Cascades, Washington, Geology
[Boulder], 17(6), 555–558
Williams, H. (1953), The ancient volcanoes of Oregon. 2d ed., x,
Williams, H. (1957), A geologic map of the Bend Quadrangle, Oregon,: And a
reconnaissance geologic map of the central portion of the High Cascade
Mountains, State of Oregon, Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries
Williams, I.A., (1924), Geology of the Pelton Dam site, Oregon; Unpublished report
in the files of the Federal Power Commission
133
Yogodzinski, G. M. (1985), The Deschutes Formation–High Cascade transition in the
Whitewater River area, Jefferson County, Oregon, Masters, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
134
Appendix A
List of Microprobe Calibration and Runtime Data
135
Table 1: Settings for EMPA analysis.
Na
Mg
Si
Al
Fe
Ca
K
Ti
Mn
Ni
Cr
Spectrometer
2
2
1
1
4
5
3
Crystal
LTAP
LTAP
TAP
TAP
LIF
PET
LPET
Peak Time (s)
10
30
10
20
30
10
20
5,3
PET,
LPET
30
Background Time (s)
5
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
Calibration Material
LABR
BAL
LABR
LABR
BASL
LABR
KSPR
BASL
Spectrometer
2
2
1
1
4
3
5
Crystal
LTAP
LTAP
TAP
TAP
LIF
LPET
PET
3
4
4
3
LPET
LIF
LIF
Peak Time (s)
10
30
10
30
30
30
LPET
20
30
30
30
Background Time (s)
5
15
5
15
15
30
15
10
15
15
15
Calibration Material
KANO
FO83
FO83
LABR
15
FO83
KAUG
KSPR
BASL
PYMN
NiSi
CROM
2
LTAP
10
5
KANO
1
TAP
30
15
CROM
1
TAP
10
5
KANO
2
LTAP
20
10
GAHN
4
LIF
10
5
MAGT
3
LPET
30
15
KAUG
5
PET
20
10
RUTI
4
LIF
20
10
PYMN
4
LIF
30
15
NiSi
3
LPET
30
15
CROM
2
LTAP
10
5
KANO
2
LTAP
30
15
FO83
1
TAP
10
5
KAUG
1
TAP
30
15
LABR
4
LIF
10
5
FO83
5
PET
30
15
KAUG
3
LPET
30
15
KAUG
4
LIF
30
15
PYMN
V
Plagioclase
Olivine
Fe-Ti Oxides
Spectrometer
Crystal
Peak Time (s)
Background Time (s)
Calibration Material
Orthopyroxene
Spectrometer
Crystal
Peak Time (s)
Background Time (s)
Calibration Material
Table 1 Continued: Settings for EMPA analysis.
5
PET
20
10
KSPR
3
LPET
30
15
CROM
4
LIF
20
10
VANA2
P
Cl
S
F
136
Na
Mg
Si
Al
Fe
Ca
K
Ti
Mn
Ni
Cr
2
LTAP
10
5
KANO
2
LTAP
30
15
KAUG
1
TAP
10
5
KAUG
1
TAP
30
15
LABR
4
LIF
10
5
KAUG
5
PET
30
15
KAUG
5
PET
20
10
KSPR
3
LPET
30
15
KAUG
4
LIF
30
15
PYMN
4
LIF
30
15
NiSi
3
LPET
30
15
CROM
Na
Mg
Si
Al
Fe
Ca
K
Ti
Mn
Ni
Cr
2
LTAP
10
5
RHYO
2
LTAP
30
15
BASL
1
TAP
30
15
RHYO
1
TAP
30
15
RHYO
4
LIF
30
15
FO83
5
PET
30
15
BASL
5
PET
20
10
KSPR
3
LPET
30
15
BASL
4
LIF
30
15
PYMN
Na
Mg
Si
Al
Fe
Ca
K
Ti
Mn
2
LTAP
10
5
RHYO
2
LTAP
30
15
BASL
1
TAP
30
15
RHYO
1
TAP
30
15
RHYO
4
LIF
30
15
FO83
5
PET
30
15
BASL
5
PET
20
10
KSPR
3
LPET
30
15
BASL
4
LIF
30
15
PYMN
V
P
Cl
S
F
V
P
Cl
S
F
P
Cl
S
F
3
LPET
60
30
FLAP
3
LPET
60
30
TUGT
3
LPET
60
30
CHAL
2
LTAP
30
30
FLAP
Clinopyroxene
Spectrometer
Crystal
Peak Time (s)
Background Time (s)
Calibration Material
Glass
Spectrometer
Crystal
Peak Time (s)
Background Time (s)
Calibration Material
3
LPET
30
15
FLAP
Ni
Cr
V
Melt Inclusion Glass
Spectrometer
Crystal
Peak Time (s)
Background Time (s)
Calibration Material
137
Tables 2: Standards, Detection Limits, and Mean Values.
EMPA Plagioclase Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuarcy Mean Detection
LABR
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
SiO2
51.25
51.13
0.15
0.23
319
Al2O3
30.91
30.87
0.23
0.13
411
TiO2
0.05
0.04
0.03
20.83
285
FeO
0.49
0.45
0.03
9.15
798
MgO
0.14
0.14
0.01
0.53
135
CaO
13.64
13.56
0.04
0.59
339
Na2O
3.45
3.42
0.05
0.92
325
K2O
0.18
0.12
0.01
31.72
267
Total
99.72
0.29
*Mean is based off of 7 points
EMPA Pyroxene Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuracy Mean Detection
KAUG
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
SiO2
50.73
51.00
0.36
0.53
573
Al2O3 8.73
8.60
0.02
1.44
255
TiO2
0.74
0.74
0.02
0.66
207
FeO
6.45
7.14
0.16
10.70
1041
MgO
16.65
16.72
0.14
0.40
220
MnO
0.13
0.18
0.08
37.77
1641
CaO
15.82
14.80
0.11
6.44
318
Na2O 1.27
1.30
0.04
2.29
386
K2O
0
0
0
507
Cr2O3
0.16
0.01
513
NiO
0.05
0.07
2051
Total
100.70 0.62
*Mean is based off of 5 points
Table 2 Continued: Standards, Detection Limits, and Mean Values.
EMPA Olivine Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuracy Mean Detection
FO83
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
138
SiO2
38.95
39.12
0.05
0.43 315
Al2O3
0.01
0.01
236
TiO2
0.00
0.01
241
FeO
16.62
16.54
0.13
0.48 1008
MgO
43.58
43.64
0.10
0.14 300
MnO
0.30
0.29
0.05
4.07 880
CaO
0.01
0.01
181
Na2O
0.00
0.00
331
K2O
0.00
0.00
474
Cr2O3
0.02
0.01
0.01
38.80 459
NiO
0.00
0.00
1134
Total
99.62
0.20
*Mean is based off of 5 points
EMPA Fe-Ti Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuracy Mean Detection
MAGT
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
SiO2
0.15
0.06
0.01
60.53 336
Al2O3
0.04
0.01
174
TiO2
0.19
0.14
0.01
24.07 399
FeO
97.7
91.34
0.29
6.51 1391
MgO
0.20
0.08
0.01
57.53 332
MnO
0.17
0.11
0.02
36.22 889
CaO
0.00
0.01
202
Na2O
0.03
0.01
336
Cr2O3
0.16
0.02
270
NiO
0.03
0.02
1487
V2O3
0.26
0.06
1154
Total
92.26
0.29
*Mean is based off of 3 points
Table 2 Continued: Standards, Detection Limits, and Mean Values.
EMPA Glass Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuracy Mean Detection
RHYO
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
SiO2
76.71
76.97
0.26
0.34 516
Al2O3
12.06
12.43
0.04
3.08 243
TiO2
0.12
0.08
0.02
32.99 338
FeO
1.28
1.16
0.06
9.05 839
MgO
0.10
0.03
0.01
66.18 130
MnO
0.03
0.03
0.02
14.44 831
139
CaO
0.50
0.45
0.02
9.49 298
Na2O
3.75
4.27
0.10
13.76 345
K20
4.89
5.05
0.15
3.23 420
P2O5
0.01
0.02
0.02
50.33 258
Total
100.49
0.40
*Mean is based off of 6 points
EMPA MI Glass Analytical Standard, Uncertianty, Detection Limit
Standard Overall 1 Std. Accuracy Mean Detection
RHYO
Mean* Dev
(%)
(ppm)
(wt%)
(wt%)
SiO2
76.71
76.58
0.41
0.16 516
Al2O3
12.06
12.47
0.05
3.37 243
TiO2
0.12
0.08
0.02
33.39 338
FeO
1.28
1.05
0.08
18.11 839
MgO
0.10
0.03
0.00
66.78 130
MnO
0.03
0.05
0.03
76.50 831
CaO
0.50
0.42
0.02
15.68 298
Na2O
3.75
4.18
0.07
11.49 345
K20
4.89
4.96
0.08
1.50 420
P2O5
0.01
0.01
0.01
19.00 258
Cl
0.10
0.01
S
0.00
0.00
F
0.00
0.00
Total
99.94
0.26
*Mean is based off of 6 points
Appendix B:
Fe-Ti Oxide Thermometry Pairs and Calculated Values
140
Table 1: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
LBTT_185
27 / 2 .
0.05
15.13
1.54
75.71
0.84
1.56
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.37
0.00
95.23
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
26 / ave
0.07
15.20
1.46
75.82
0.85
1.45
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.05
95.27
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley (1985)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
X'Usp & X'Ilm from: Temp (°C)
Stormer (1983)
866
-0.381
867
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
20 / 1 .
0.08
15.19
1.60
76.34
0.80
1.59
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.36
0.01
95.99
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
22 / ave
0.08
15.28
1.57
76.14
0.79
1.60
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.03
95.88
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
ΔNNO
-0.385
Temp (°C)
866
ΔNNO
-0.379
Temp (°C)
867
ΔNNO
-0.385
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
881
-0.387
882
-0.407
880
-0.381
882
-0.387
141
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
LBTT_185
24 / ave
0.07
15.22
1.51
75.86
0.84
1.54
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.37
0.02
95.49
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
27 / 2 .
0.05
15.13
1.54
75.71
0.84
1.56
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.37
0.00
95.23
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley (1985)
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
Stormer (1983)
867
-0.385
866
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
26 / ave
0.07
15.20
1.46
75.82
0.85
1.45
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.05
95.27
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Magnetite
LBTT_185
20 / 1 .
0.08
15.19
1.60
76.34
0.80
1.59
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.36
0.01
95.99
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
ΔNNO
-0.381
Temp (°C)
867
ΔNNO
-0.385
Temp (°C)
866
ΔNNO
-0.379
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
882
-0.394
881
-0.387
882
-0.407
880
-0.381
Magnetite
LBTT_185
24 / ave
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
Magnetite
LBTT_185
27 / 2 .
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
23 / 2 .
Magnetite
LBTT_185
26 / ave
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
23 / 2 .
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
Magnetite
LBTT_185
22 / ave
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
18 / ave
142
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
0.08
15.28
1.57
76.14
0.79
1.60
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.03
95.88
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley
(1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
867
-0.385
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Temp (°C)
882
ΔNNO
0.07
15.22
1.51
75.86
0.84
1.54
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.37
0.02
95.49
0.02
47.99
0.13
46.80
1.14
2.49
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.01
98.76
0.05
15.13
1.54
75.71
0.84
1.56
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.37
0.00
95.23
0.00
47.72
0.14
46.51
1.13
2.66
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
98.46
0.07
15.20
1.46
75.82
0.85
1.45
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.05
95.27
0.00
47.72
0.14
46.51
1.13
2.66
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
98.46
Temp (°C)
867
ΔNNO
-0.385
Temp (°C)
873
ΔNNO
-0.333
Temp (°C)
874
ΔNNO
-0.338
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
-0.387
882
-0.394
888
-0.350
890
-0.369
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
Magnetite
LBTT_185
20 / 1 .
0.08
15.19
1.60
76.34
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
23 / 2 .
0.00
47.72
0.14
46.51
Magnetite
LBTT_185
22 / ave
0.08
15.28
1.57
76.14
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
23 / 2 .
0.00
47.72
0.14
46.51
Magnetite
LBTT_185
24 / ave
0.07
15.22
1.51
75.86
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
23 / 2 .
0.00
47.72
0.14
46.51
Magnetite
LBTT_185
39 / 2 .
0.11
15.17
1.57
76.40
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
37 / 1 .
0.00
47.74
0.14
46.60
143
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
0.80
1.59
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.36
0.01
95.99
1.13
2.66
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
98.46
0.79
1.60
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.03
95.88
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley (1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
872
-0.332
874
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Temp (°C)
887
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
-0.344
889
1.13
2.66
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
98.46
0.84
1.54
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.37
0.02
95.49
1.13
2.66
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
98.46
0.85
1.61
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.29
0.01
96.07
1.12
2.65
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.24
0.03
98.54
ΔNNO
-0.338
Temp (°C)
874
ΔNNO
-0.337
Temp (°C)
872
ΔNNO
-0.324
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
-0.349
889
-0.356
887
-0.335
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Magnetite
LBTT_185
40 / ave
0.08
15.23
1.60
76.01
0.82
1.62
0.00
0.01
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
37 / 1 .
0.00
47.74
0.14
46.60
1.12
2.65
0.02
0.00
Magnetite
LBTT_185
41 / 2 .
0.07
15.27
1.52
75.35
0.82
1.56
0.00
0.01
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
37 / 1 .
0.00
47.74
0.14
46.60
1.12
2.65
0.02
0.00
Magnetite
LBTT_185
45 / 1 .
0.05
15.23
1.59
75.31
0.82
1.66
0.03
0.04
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
37 / 1 .
0.00
47.74
0.14
46.60
1.12
2.65
0.02
0.00
Magnetite
LBTT_185
39 / 2 .
0.11
15.17
1.57
76.40
0.85
1.61
0.02
0.02
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
42 / ave
0.01
47.86
0.12
46.53
1.04
2.51
0.02
0.00
144
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
0.02
0.33
0.00
95.73
0.01
0.24
0.03
98.54
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley
(1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
874
-0.333
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Temp (°C)
890
ΔNNO
0.01
0.29
0.00
94.91
0.01
0.24
0.03
98.54
0.02
0.38
0.04
95.17
0.01
0.24
0.03
98.54
0.02
0.29
0.01
96.07
0.01
0.16
0.00
98.27
Temp (°C)
876
ΔNNO
-0.341
Temp (°C)
875
ΔNNO
-0.336
Temp (°C)
862
ΔNNO
-0.395
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
-0.334
893
-0.347
891
-0.335
874
-0.411
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
LBTT_185
40 / ave
0.08
15.23
1.60
76.01
0.82
1.62
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.33
0.00
95.73
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
42 / ave
0.01
47.86
0.12
46.53
1.04
2.51
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.16
0.00
98.27
Magnetite
LBTT_185
41 / 2 .
0.07
15.27
1.52
75.35
0.82
1.56
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.00
94.91
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
42 / ave
0.01
47.86
0.12
46.53
1.04
2.51
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.16
0.00
98.27
Magnetite
LBTT_185
45 / 1 .
0.05
15.23
1.59
75.31
0.82
1.66
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.38
0.04
95.17
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
42 / ave
0.01
47.86
0.12
46.53
1.04
2.51
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.16
0.00
98.27
Magnetite
LBTT_185
39 / 2 .
0.11
15.17
1.57
76.40
0.85
1.61
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.29
0.01
96.07
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
43 / ave
0.03
47.74
0.13
46.42
1.04
2.66
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.00
98.20
145
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley
(1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
864
-0.404
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Temp (°C)
866
ΔNNO
-0.413
Temp (°C)
865
ΔNNO
-0.408
Temp (°C)
866
ΔNNO
-0.362
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
877
-0.411
880
-0.424
878
-0.411
881
-0.377
Magnetite
LBTT_185
41 / 2 .
0.07
15.27
1.52
75.35
0.82
1.56
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.00
94.91
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
43 / ave
0.03
47.74
0.13
46.42
1.04
2.66
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.00
98.20
Magnetite
LBTT_185
45 / 1 .
0.05
15.23
1.59
75.31
0.82
1.66
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.38
0.04
95.17
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
43 / ave
0.03
47.74
0.13
46.42
1.04
2.66
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.00
98.20
Magnetite
MCTB_209
9/1.
0.11
1.83
6.23
78.11
0.67
5.76
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.84
0.05
93.69
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
2 / ave
0.01
43.59
0.41
47.40
0.51
5.31
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.34
0.01
97.61
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
LBTT_185
40 / ave
0.08
15.23
1.60
76.01
0.82
1.62
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.33
0.00
95.73
Ilmenite
LBTT_185
43 / ave
0.03
47.74
0.13
46.42
1.04
2.66
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.00
98.20
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley
(1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
146
Stormer (1983)
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
869
-0.370
871
-0.379
870
-0.374
722
2.359
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
883
-0.377
886
-0.390
884
-0.377
597
2.041
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
MCTB_209
1 / ave
0.08
12.40
3.65
73.99
0.51
3.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.53
0.01
94.22
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
4/2.
0.11
40.94
1.05
47.84
0.63
6.09
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.48
0.01
97.23
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley
(1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
960
0.598
Geothermobarometer
by:
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Magnetite
MCTB_209
13 / 1 .
0.05
3.90
4.90
81.27
0.45
2.33
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.65
0.01
93.64
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
4/2.
0.11
40.94
1.05
47.84
0.63
6.09
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.48
0.01
97.23
Magnetite
MCTB_209
7/1.
0.08
2.65
4.28
83.05
0.68
2.49
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.32
0.00
93.59
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
5/1.
0.00
46.37
0.29
46.53
0.77
4.38
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.15
0.01
98.50
Magnetite
MCTB_209
7/1.
0.08
2.65
4.28
83.05
0.68
2.49
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.32
0.00
93.59
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
8/2.
0.02
47.53
0.31
45.61
0.59
3.36
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.18
0.04
97.66
Temp (°C)
804
ΔNNO
1.698
Temp (°C)
731
ΔNNO
1.559
Temp (°C)
700
ΔNNO
1.005
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
147
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
1077
0.893
772
1.520
Table 1 Continued: Magnetite-Ilmenite Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Spot #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cr2O3
V2O3
NiO
Sum:
Magnetite
MCTB_209
6/1.
0.05
2.83
5.36
82.80
0.50
2.41
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.79
0.02
94.82
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
13 / 2 .
0.09
46.52
0.32
44.77
0.78
5.77
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.22
0.06
98.59
Magnetite
MCTB_209
14 / ave
0.04
4.22
3.61
80.56
0.63
3.27
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.43
0.05
92.85
Geothermobarometer by: Anderson and Lindsley (1985)
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Stormer (1983)
744
1.535
764
Geothermobarometer
by:
Ghiorso and Evans
(2008)
Ilmenite
MCTB_209
13 / 2 .
0.09
46.52
0.32
44.77
0.78
5.77
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.22
0.06
98.59
ΔNNO
1.298
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
Temp (°C)
ΔNNO
644
1.215
685
1.053
611
1.302
571
0.868
148
Appendix C:
Two Pyroxene Thermobarometry Calculations
Table 1: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Cpx
LBTT_156
32 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
33 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
32 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
34 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
32 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
35 / 2
53.46
0.26
0.87
11.28
0.89
14.39
18.11
0.44
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.46
0.26
0.87
11.28
0.89
14.39
18.11
0.44
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
52.15
0.50
1.76
11.74
0.78
13.79
17.80
0.46
0.01
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
1047
1047
1052
0.95
0.95
1.04
Cpx
LBTT_156
Opx
LBTT_156
Cpx
LBTT_156
Opx
LBTT_156
Cpx
LBTT_156
Opx
LBTT_156
149
Crystal/Point #
32 / 2
36 / 2
33 / 1
37 / 2
33 / 1
38 / 2
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
52.15
0.50
1.76
11.74
0.78
13.79
17.80
0.46
0.01
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
54.22
0.26
0.83
11.32
0.78
14.32
18.32
0.40
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
54.22
0.26
0.83
11.32
0.78
14.32
18.32
0.40
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1052
1045
1045
1.04
0.96
0.96
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_156
33 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
39 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
33 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
40 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
34 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
41 / 2
53.82
0.25
0.82
11.36
0.80
14.37
18.28
0.38
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.82
0.25
0.82
11.36
0.80
14.37
18.28
0.38
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.33
0.27
0.90
11.33
0.77
14.33
18.14
0.39
0.00
0.02
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
1048
1048
1049
0.96
0.96
0.96
Cpx
LBTT_156
34 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
42 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
34 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
43 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
34 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
44 / 2
53.33
0.27
0.90
11.33
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
53.70
0.26
0.88
11.54
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
53.70
0.26
0.88
11.54
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
150
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
0.77
14.33
18.14
0.39
0.00
0.02
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
0.94
14.46
17.82
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
0.94
14.46
17.82
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
1049
1059
1059
0.96
0.97
0.97
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_156
35 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
45 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
35 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
46 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
36 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
47 / 2
53.76
0.26
0.88
11.47
0.66
14.47
18.29
0.42
0.00
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.76
0.26
0.88
11.47
0.66
14.47
18.29
0.42
0.00
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.28
0.25
0.85
11.30
0.53
14.28
18.35
0.40
0.01
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
1049
1049
1045
0.97
0.97
0.96
Cpx
LBTT_156
36 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
48 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
37 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
49 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
37 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
50 / 2
53.28
0.25
0.85
11.30
0.53
14.28
18.35
0.40
0.01
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.97
0.26
0.79
11.51
0.80
14.16
17.98
0.41
0.01
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.97
0.26
0.79
11.51
0.80
14.16
17.98
0.41
0.01
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
151
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1045
1050
1050
0.96
0.99
0.99
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_156
38 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
34 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_156
38 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
35 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_156
38 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
51 / 2
53.47
0.26
0.68
13.58
1.08
13.06
17.40
0.41
0.00
0.03
53.09
0.04
0.93
22.64
0.27
20.79
1.35
0.07
0.01
1.37
53.47
0.26
0.68
13.58
1.08
13.06
17.40
0.41
0.00
0.03
53.09
0.04
0.93
22.64
0.27
20.79
1.35
0.07
0.01
1.37
53.16
0.26
0.82
11.08
0.68
14.10
18.22
0.37
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1104
1104
1042
0.95
0.95
0.96
Cpx
LBTT_156
38 / 2
Opx
LBTT_156
52 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
39 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
53 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
39 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
54 / 2
53.16
0.26
0.82
11.08
0.68
14.10
18.22
0.37
0.00
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
51.87
0.42
1.53
11.25
0.77
14.02
18.39
0.39
0.01
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
51.87
0.42
1.53
11.25
0.77
14.02
18.39
0.39
0.01
0.00
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
1042
1044
1044
0.96
0.98
0.98
152
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_156
40 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
55 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_156
40 / 1
Opx
LBTT_156
56 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
53.52
0.26
0.91
11.27
0.80
14.34
18.18
0.42
0.00
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.52
0.26
0.91
11.27
0.80
14.34
18.18
0.42
0.00
0.01
54.38
0.00
1.07
19.24
0.32
23.44
1.14
0.02
0.01
1.46
53.10
0.23
0.76
12.03
0.82
13.99
18.03
0.38
0.01
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1047
1047
1052
0.96
0.96
1.15
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
20 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
22 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
53.10
0.23
0.76
12.03
0.82
13.99
18.03
0.38
0.01
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.10
0.23
0.76
12.03
0.82
13.99
18.03
0.38
0.01
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.10
0.23
0.76
12.03
0.82
13.99
18.03
0.38
0.01
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
1056
1059
1063
1.08
1.07
1.01
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
153
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
21 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
23 / 1
53.71
0.25
0.82
11.70
0.81
14.16
18.05
0.44
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
53.71
0.25
0.82
11.70
0.81
14.16
18.05
0.44
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.71
0.25
0.82
11.70
0.81
14.16
18.05
0.44
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
1050
1054
1058
1.10
1.04
1.03
Cpx
LBTT_185
22 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
25 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
22 / 2
53.71
0.25
0.82
11.70
0.81
14.16
18.05
0.44
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
53.45
0.29
0.89
11.74
0.84
13.84
18.27
0.44
0.00
0.01
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
53.45
0.29
0.89
11.74
0.84
13.84
18.27
0.44
0.00
0.01
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1061
1040
1044
0.97
1.13
1.06
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
29 / 1
53.45
0.29
53.52
0.02
53.45
0.29
53.52
0.00
52.58
0.33
54.62
0.03
154
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
0.89
11.74
0.84
13.84
18.27
0.44
0.00
0.01
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
0.89
11.74
0.84
13.84
18.27
0.44
0.00
0.01
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
1.05
11.75
0.77
13.56
18.04
0.47
0.00
0.00
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
1048
1052
1039
1.05
1.00
1.16
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
25 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
31 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
52.58
0.33
1.05
11.75
0.77
13.56
18.04
0.47
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
52.58
0.33
1.05
11.75
0.77
13.56
18.04
0.47
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
52.58
0.33
1.05
11.75
0.77
13.56
18.04
0.47
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1043
1046
1050
1.09
1.08
1.02
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
53.74
0.26
0.75
11.63
0.75
14.21
18.10
0.41
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
53.74
0.26
0.75
11.63
0.75
14.21
18.10
0.41
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
53.74
0.26
0.75
11.63
0.75
14.21
18.10
0.41
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
155
K2O
Cr2O3
0.00
0.00
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
0.00
1.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.41
1050
1054
1058
1.09
1.03
1.02
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
25 / 2
53.74
0.26
0.75
11.63
0.75
14.21
18.10
0.41
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
52.74
0.25
0.76
11.64
0.81
14.21
18.28
0.41
0.04
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
52.74
0.25
0.76
11.64
0.81
14.21
18.28
0.41
0.04
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1062
1047
1052
0.96
1.09
1.03
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
29 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
32 / 1
52.74
0.25
0.76
11.64
0.81
14.21
18.28
0.41
0.04
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
52.74
0.25
0.76
11.64
0.81
14.21
18.28
0.41
0.04
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
53.32
0.25
0.81
11.83
0.89
14.22
18.11
0.48
0.02
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
1055
1059
1049
1.02
0.96
1.11
156
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
53.32
0.25
0.81
11.83
0.89
14.22
18.11
0.48
0.02
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.32
0.25
0.81
11.83
0.89
14.22
18.11
0.48
0.02
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.32
0.25
0.81
11.83
0.89
14.22
18.11
0.48
0.02
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1053
1056
1060
1.04
1.03
0.98
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
33 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
29 / 1
52.37
0.26
0.79
12.32
0.73
14.13
17.63
0.41
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
52.37
0.26
0.79
12.32
0.73
14.13
17.63
0.41
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
52.37
0.26
0.79
12.32
0.73
14.13
17.63
0.41
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
1067
1071
1074
1.17
1.09
1.08
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
24 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
34 / 1
157
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
52.37
0.26
0.79
12.32
0.73
14.13
17.63
0.41
0.00
0.00
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
52.37
0.26
0.79
12.32
0.73
14.13
17.63
0.41
0.00
0.00
53.87
0.00
1.13
20.80
0.28
22.70
1.10
0.05
0.01
1.26
53.33
0.24
0.76
11.42
0.86
14.17
18.23
0.41
0.00
0.02
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
1078
1089
1045
1.02
0.95
1.08
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
28 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
35 / 1
53.33
0.24
0.76
11.42
0.86
14.17
18.23
0.41
0.00
0.02
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.33
0.24
0.76
11.42
0.86
14.17
18.23
0.41
0.00
0.02
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.40
0.27
0.73
11.24
0.81
14.16
18.26
0.35
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
1049
1052
1044
1.01
1.00
1.06
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
29 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
25 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
31 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
36 / 1
53.40
0.27
0.73
11.24
0.81
14.16
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
53.40
0.27
0.73
11.24
0.81
14.16
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
53.29
0.23
0.72
12.02
0.78
13.89
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
158
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
18.26
0.35
0.00
0.00
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
18.26
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
18.30
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
1048
1052
1044
1.00
0.99
1.16
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
30 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
32 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
32 / 1
53.29
0.23
0.72
12.02
0.78
13.89
18.30
0.39
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.29
0.23
0.72
12.02
0.78
13.89
18.30
0.39
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.29
0.23
0.72
12.02
0.78
13.89
18.30
0.39
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
1048
1052
1056
1.09
1.07
1.02
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
37 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
31 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
33 / 1
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
1061
1065
1068
159
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1.18
1.11
1.10
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
33 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
25 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
21 / 2
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
53.87
0.00
1.13
20.80
0.28
22.70
1.10
0.05
0.01
1.26
52.97
0.29
0.88
12.34
0.82
13.97
17.59
0.45
0.01
0.01
53.25
0.00
1.54
20.75
0.34
22.50
1.13
0.03
0.00
1.16
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1072
1082
1070
1.04
0.96
0.96
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
38 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
32 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
34 / 1
53.91
0.26
0.83
11.87
0.79
14.18
18.19
0.46
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
53.91
0.26
0.83
11.87
0.79
14.18
18.19
0.46
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.91
0.26
0.83
11.87
0.79
14.18
18.19
0.46
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
1048
1053
1056
1.12
1.05
1.04
160
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
34 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
39 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
33 / 2
53.91
0.26
0.83
11.87
0.79
14.18
18.19
0.46
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1060
1055
1059
0.98
1.18
1.10
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
35 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
35 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
26 / 2
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
53.87
0.00
1.13
20.80
0.28
22.70
1.10
0.05
0.01
1.26
1062
1066
1076
1.09
1.03
0.96
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Cpx
LBTT_185
Opx
LBTT_185
Cpx
LBTT_185
Opx
LBTT_185
Cpx
LBTT_185
Opx
LBTT_185
161
Crystal/Point #
27 / 2
22 / 2
28 / 1
40 / 1
28 / 1
34 / 2
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
54.13
0.26
0.76
12.26
0.74
13.93
18.09
0.37
0.00
0.00
53.25
0.00
1.54
20.75
0.34
22.50
1.13
0.03
0.00
1.16
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
1064
1054
1058
0.95
1.22
1.15
Cpx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
36 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
36 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
27 / 2
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
53.87
0.00
1.13
20.80
0.28
22.70
1.10
0.05
0.01
1.26
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1061
1065
1075
1.14
1.07
1.00
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
Cpx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
28 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
23 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
41 / 1
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
53.25
0.00
1.54
20.75
53.16
0.26
0.82
12.60
53.29
0.02
0.97
21.09
54.14
0.27
0.87
11.19
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
162
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
0.34
22.50
1.13
0.03
0.00
1.16
0.84
13.76
17.80
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.26
22.16
1.14
0.04
0.01
1.35
0.76
14.31
18.36
0.41
0.01
0.01
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
1063
1077
1044
0.99
0.96
1.04
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
35 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
37 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
42 / 1
54.14
0.27
0.87
11.19
0.76
14.31
18.36
0.41
0.01
0.01
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
54.14
0.27
0.87
11.19
0.76
14.31
18.36
0.41
0.01
0.01
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.38
0.26
0.91
11.67
0.74
14.22
18.16
0.38
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.03
1.08
18.41
0.26
24.59
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.32
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1048
1052
1052
0.98
0.97
1.10
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
36 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
38 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
30 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
37 / 1
53.38
0.26
0.91
11.67
0.74
14.22
18.16
0.38
0.00
0.00
54.47
0.08
1.22
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.83
0.02
0.00
1.30
53.38
0.26
0.91
11.67
0.74
14.22
18.16
0.38
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.02
1.22
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.91
0.03
0.00
1.41
53.38
0.26
0.91
11.67
0.74
14.22
18.16
0.38
0.00
0.00
53.52
0.00
1.03
19.83
0.26
23.28
1.00
0.03
0.01
1.30
163
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
1056
1059
1063
1.03
1.02
0.96
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
40 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
44 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 1
Opx
LBTT_185
40 / 1
52.50
0.41
1.36
11.91
0.79
13.60
18.03
0.47
0.02
0.00
54.73
0.00
0.74
18.99
0.24
24.67
0.71
0.01
0.00
1.31
52.50
0.41
1.36
11.91
0.79
13.60
18.03
0.47
0.02
0.00
53.63
0.00
1.20
18.24
0.30
24.67
0.73
0.03
0.01
1.31
52.50
0.41
1.36
11.91
0.79
13.60
18.03
0.47
0.02
0.00
54.44
0.00
0.75
18.76
0.24
24.30
0.96
0.03
0.00
1.27
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1056
1054
1049
1.14
1.18
1.13
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
44 / 1
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
41 / 2
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
45 / 2
53.48
0.27
0.87
11.02
0.79
14.54
18.39
0.42
0.00
0.00
53.70
0.01
1.08
17.32
0.31
25.83
0.64
0.04
0.00
1.34
53.48
0.27
0.87
11.02
0.79
14.54
18.39
0.42
0.00
0.00
54.73
0.00
0.74
18.99
0.24
24.67
0.71
0.01
0.00
1.31
53.48
0.27
0.87
11.02
0.79
14.54
18.39
0.42
0.00
0.00
53.63
0.00
1.20
18.24
0.30
24.67
0.73
0.03
0.01
1.31
1055
1056
1055
1.13
0.99
4.6
1.03
164
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
LBTT_185
41 / 2
Opx
LBTT_185
41 / 1
Cpx
MCTB_209
50 / 2
Opx
MCTB_209
45 / 1
Cpx
MCTB_209
50 / 2
Opx
MCTB_209
49 / 2
53.48
0.27
0.87
11.02
0.79
14.54
18.39
0.42
0.00
0.00
54.44
0.00
0.75
18.76
0.24
24.30
0.96
0.03
0.00
1.27
53.32
0.53
1.82
10.43
0.45
14.99
18.08
0.36
0.01
0.01
54.62
0.04
1.13
17.17
0.32
25.26
0.80
0.05
0.00
1.49
53.32
0.53
1.82
10.43
0.45
14.99
18.08
0.36
0.01
0.01
55.07
0.32
1.16
16.81
0.66
25.57
1.39
0.01
0.00
0.01
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
1050
1066
985
0.98
1.02
1.06
Table 1 Continued: Clinopyroxene-Orthopyroxene Pair Results
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Cpx
MCTB_209
50 / 2
Opx
MCTB_209
49 / 1
Cpx
MCTB_209
50 / 2
Opx
MCTB_209
45 / 2
Cpx
MCTB_209
51 / 1
Opx
MCTB_209
46 / 1
53.32
0.53
1.82
10.43
0.45
14.99
18.08
0.36
0.01
0.01
54.56
0.33
1.14
17.46
0.73
25.51
1.50
0.04
0.00
0.00
53.32
0.53
1.82
10.43
0.45
14.99
18.08
0.36
0.01
0.01
54.78
0.30
1.04
17.82
0.52
25.52
1.42
0.05
0.00
0.00
51.73
0.63
2.22
9.88
0.43
15.24
18.13
0.36
0.00
0.00
54.62
0.04
1.13
17.17
0.32
25.26
0.80
0.05
0.00
1.49
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
Sample #
Crystal/Point #
SiO2
989
1016
1070
1.02
1.00
0.95
Cpx
MCTB_209
51 / 1
Opx
MCTB_209
50 / 2
51.73
55.07
165
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
Cr2O3
Eqn 36 T(C )
Observed
KD(Fe-Mg)
0.63
2.22
9.88
0.43
15.24
18.13
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.32
1.16
16.81
0.66
25.57
1.39
0.01
0.00
0.01
990
0.99
166
Appendix D:
Plagioclase-Liquid Thermobarometry and hydrometry Calculations
Table 1: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
31 / 1
60.54
0.04
23.83
0.31
100.14
0.01
5.49
7.48
0.47
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
31 / 2
60.74
0.03
24.20
0.30
100.14
0.02
5.28
7.71
0.49
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
32 / 1
61.44
0.02
23.67
0.30
100.14
829
5.2
828
5.3
828
5.4
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.01
5.09
7.62
0.49
167
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Feldspar
32 / 2
60.79
0.03
23.94
0.33
0.02
5.46
7.50
0.46
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
Feldspar
33 / 1
60.37
0.03
24.02
0.30
0.02
5.53
7.56
0.47
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
Feldspar
33 / 2
61.21
0.03
23.76
0.37
0.01
5.14
7.69
0.50
829
5.2
829
5.2
828
5.4
0.11
0.11
0.12
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
34 / 1
60.80
0.05
24.05
0.34
0.02
5.57
7.43
0.49
100.14
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
34 / 2
60.68
0.02
23.87
0.33
0.01
5.27
7.54
0.47
100.14
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
35 / 1
61.13
0.03
23.50
0.31
0.01
5.03
7.90
0.54
100.14
830
5.2
828
5.3
827
5.5
0.10
0.11
0.12
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
Feldspar
35 / 2
60.72
0.03
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
Feldspar
37 / 1
61.34
0.01
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
Feldspar
37 / 2
60.01
0.03
168
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
24.15
0.29
0.01
5.29
7.65
0.52
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
23.49
0.32
0.02
4.79
7.73
0.53
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
24.43
0.32
0.02
5.75
7.37
0.46
829
5.3
827
5.5
831
5.1
0.11
0.13
0.10
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
0.01
5.96
7.29
0.43
100.14
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
Feldspar
38 / 1
60.34
0.02
24.20
0.25
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
39 / 1
60.38
0.03
24.23
0.36
0.01
5.48
7.56
0.47
100.14
832
5.0
2
4.45
0.10
Liquid
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
Feldspar
LBTP-185
70.27
0.38
14.46
2.19
0.08
40 / 1
60.72
0.02
23.58
0.34
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.01
5.85
7.43
0.45
100.14
829
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Liquid
Feldspar
39 / 2
60.12
0.05
24.61
0.33
831
5.1
2
4.45
0.10
Feldspar
13 / 1
61.20
0.03
23.89
0.26
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
Feldspar
13 / 2
61.76
0.02
24.14
0.24
169
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
0.30
1.03
3.17
3.78
0.05
4.45
100.14
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
0.01
5.26
7.61
0.51
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
829
5.3
2
4.45
0.11
0.01
5.54
7.60
0.47
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
821
5.2
2
4.45
0.12
0.01
5.25
7.79
0.52
820
5.3
2
4.45
0.13
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Feldspar
14 / 1
61.75
0.02
24.24
0.31
0.01
5.16
7.87
0.53
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
820
5.4
2
4.45
0.13
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
Feldspar
14 / 2
61.84
0.03
24.09
0.33
0.01
5.09
7.82
0.49
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
819
5.4
2
4.45
0.13
Feldspar
15 / 2
62.46
0.07
23.37
0.27
0.02
4.51
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
Feldspar
15 / 1
62.02
0.03
23.86
0.30
0.01
4.86
7.94
0.53
818
5.5
2
4.45
0.14
Feldspar
16 / 1
61.35
0.02
24.11
0.32
0.02
5.17
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
Feldspar
16 / 2
61.98
0.04
23.86
0.32
0.01
4.88
170
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
8.22
0.57
817
5.7
2
4.45
0.15
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
7.84
0.52
820
5.4
2
4.45
0.13
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
8.14
0.49
817
5.6
2
4.45
0.14
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Feldspar
17 / 2
61.45
0.04
23.37
0.28
0.01
5.22
7.84
0.50
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
820
5.4
2
4.45
0.13
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
Feldspar
20 / 1
62.16
0.03
23.32
0.36
0.00
4.69
7.84
0.58
Liquid
LBTT156
69.79
0.36
14.10
2.14
0.07
0.27
0.96
2.69
4.09
0.05
4.45
98.95
819
5.6
2
4.45
0.14
Feldspar
1/1
61.88
0.02
23.72
0.29
0.01
5.14
7.83
0.47
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
Feldspar
20 / 2
62.56
0.02
23.63
0.33
0.01
4.97
7.71
0.57
820
5.4
2
4.45
0.13
Feldspar
1/2
60.99
0.03
23.98
0.29
0.02
5.33
7.63
0.47
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
Feldspar
3/1
61.94
0.02
23.62
0.33
0.01
4.79
7.90
0.57
171
H2O
Total (-H2O)
4.45
102.32
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
4.45
102.32
835
5.3
2
4.45
0.10
4.45
102.32
837
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
835
5.5
2
4.45
0.11
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Feldspar
3/2
61.85
0.01
24.05
0.33
0.01
5.29
7.64
0.49
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
837
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
Feldspar
4/1
61.51
0.03
23.78
0.30
0.01
5.48
7.50
0.48
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
838
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
5/1
61.58
0.02
24.38
0.30
0.01
5.76
7.70
0.46
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
Feldspar
4/2
61.32
0.02
23.88
0.34
0.01
5.43
7.84
0.48
837
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
Feldspar
5/2
61.73
0.04
23.27
0.30
0.01
5.15
7.68
0.50
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
102.32
Feldspar
6/1
62.76
0.02
23.35
0.28
0.01
4.70
8.00
0.57
172
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
838
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
836
5.3
2
4.45
0.10
834
5.5
2
4.45
0.11
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Total (-H2O)
102.32
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
6/2
61.13
0.04
24.22
0.34
0.01
5.63
7.61
0.45
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
102.32
Feldspar
7/1
62.76
0.02
23.05
0.34
0.01
4.64
7.90
0.53
102.32
838
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Feldspar
9/1
61.92
0.03
23.78
0.31
0.02
5.16
7.78
0.54
Feldspar
7/2
61.65
0.05
24.23
0.36
0.01
5.53
7.60
0.47
102.32
834
5.6
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
838
5.2
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
9/2
62.05
0.01
23.82
0.29
0.01
5.43
7.59
0.51
102.32
836
5.3
2
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Feldspar
10 / 1
62.41
0.02
23.60
0.26
0.01
4.72
8.08
0.58
102.32
838
5.2
2
834
5.6
2
173
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
4.45
0.10
4.45
0.09
4.45
0.11
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
LBTT185
71.24
0.39
14.87
2.29
0.09
0.32
1.11
4.06
3.44
0.06
4.45
Total (-H2O)
102.32
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
10 / 2
62.98
0.03
23.79
0.28
0.01
4.71
7.86
0.56
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
104.07
Feldspar
21 / 1
62.28
0.03
23.39
0.28
0.01
4.93
7.79
0.51
104.07
835
5.5
2
4.45
0.11
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Feldspar
22 / 2
61.83
0.04
24.06
0.32
0.01
5.51
7.75
0.48
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
21 / 2
62.06
0.04
23.98
0.35
0.02
5.37
7.55
0.48
104.07
878
5.6
2
4.45
0.13
Feldspar
881
5.4
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
23 / 1
63.29
0.03
23.22
0.26
0.01
4.45
8.14
0.63
104.07
881
5.4
2
4.45
0.11
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
23 / 2
62.75
0.01
23.27
0.31
0.01
4.36
8.09
0.62
104.07
877
5.9
2
4.45
0.15
876
5.9
2
4.45
0.15
174
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Total (-H2O)
104.07
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
24 / 1
62.93
0.02
23.12
0.28
0.00
4.57
8.08
0.57
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
104.07
Feldspar
24 / 2
63.50
0.02
23.08
0.30
0.01
4.32
8.02
0.61
104.07
877
5.9
2
4.45
0.14
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Feldspar
26 / 1
61.75
0.02
24.26
0.32
0.02
5.54
7.62
0.47
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
25 / 2
62.01
0.03
23.92
0.34
0.01
5.47
7.72
0.48
104.07
876
5.9
2
4.45
0.15
Feldspar
880
5.4
2
4.45
0.12
Feldspar
26 / 2
62.08
0.03
23.86
0.31
0.01
5.13
7.93
0.48
104.07
881
5.4
2
4.45
0.11
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
27 / 1
63.12
0.02
23.33
0.25
0.01
4.12
8.34
0.64
104.07
878
5.6
2
4.45
0.13
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
875
6.1
2
4.45
0.17
175
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Total (-H2O)
104.07
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Feldspar
27 / 2
63.94
0.03
22.92
0.28
0.00
3.56
8.34
0.79
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
104.07
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
28 / 1
61.57
0.03
23.62
0.32
0.02
5.15
7.57
0.51
104.07
876
6.4
2
4.45
0.19
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
30 / 1
60.31
0.03
24.55
0.33
0.02
5.71
7.37
0.47
Liquid
LBTT185
69.21
0.27
17.00
1.62
0.05
0.20
1.81
6.43
2.99
0.04
4.45
0.01
5.23
7.82
0.50
879
5.5
2
4.45
0.12
Feldspar
30 / 2
62.38
0.02
23.40
0.33
0.01
4.36
8.05
0.58
104.07
883
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
29 / 2
60.97
0.03
23.44
0.35
104.07
880
5.5
2
4.45
0.12
Feldspar
Feldspar
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
Feldspar
41 / 1
60.56
0.00
24.12
0.18
0.01
5.51
7.61
0.54
104.45
876
5.9
2
4.45
0.15
831
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
Feldspar
41 / 2
60.85
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
Feldspar
42 / 1
61.08
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
Feldspar
42 / 2
61.13
176
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
0.03
23.83
0.25
0.00
5.04
7.59
0.57
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
830
5.3
2
4.45
0.12
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
0.01
23.78
0.21
0.00
5.09
7.57
0.56
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
830
5.3
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
43 / 1
61.01
0.03
24.16
0.18
0.00
5.15
7.68
0.55
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
829
5.3
2
4.45
0.12
0.02
24.18
0.20
0.01
5.24
7.54
0.54
830
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
43 / 2
60.58
0.00
23.89
0.18
0.00
5.31
7.49
0.55
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
831
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
44 / 2
60.75
0.03
23.98
0.21
0.00
5.19
7.84
0.54
829
5.3
2
4.45
0.12
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
Feldspar
45 / 1
61.05
0.01
24.33
0.26
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
Feldspar
45 / 2
60.68
0.02
24.11
0.23
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
Feldspar
46 / 1
61.37
0.01
23.29
0.21
177
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
0.00
5.32
7.76
0.55
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
830
5.3
2
4.45
0.11
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
0.00
5.41
7.44
0.54
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
831
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
46 / 2
60.99
0.02
24.40
0.23
0.00
5.33
7.38
0.54
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
831
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
0.00
4.87
7.72
0.57
828
5.4
2
4.45
0.12
Feldspar
47 / 1
61.63
0.01
24.02
0.25
0.01
4.72
7.87
0.59
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
828
5.5
2
4.45
0.13
Feldspar
47 / 2
62.09
0.02
23.83
0.23
0.01
4.87
7.76
0.57
828
5.4
2
4.45
0.12
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
Feldspar
48 / 1
60.81
0.01
24.31
0.20
0.00
5.48
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
Feldspar
48 / 2
60.45
0.02
24.50
0.24
0.01
5.71
Liquid
MCTL206
73.11
0.24
15.03
2.45
0.08
0.25
1.12
Feldspar
49 / 1
61.27
0.01
23.96
0.18
0.01
5.29
178
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
7.42
0.53
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
831
5.1
2
4.45
0.10
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
7.58
0.49
3.51
4.17
0.04
4.45
104.45
831
5.1
2
4.45
0.10
Feldspar
51 / 1
61.32
0.01
23.49
0.20
0.00
4.88
7.85
0.59
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
820
5.3
2
4.45
0.10
7.58
0.53
830
5.2
2
4.45
0.11
Feldspar
53 / 1
61.35
0.01
24.38
0.21
0.00
5.23
7.60
0.58
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
822
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
53 / 2
61.01
0.01
24.55
0.18
0.06
5.41
7.59
0.57
823
5.0
2
4.45
0.09
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
Feldspar
54 / 2
61.10
0.02
24.07
0.21
0.01
5.09
7.75
0.55
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
Feldspar
55 / 1
61.00
0.00
24.05
0.19
0.00
5.07
7.79
0.59
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
Feldspar
55 / 2
60.82
0.02
24.28
0.24
0.01
5.37
7.75
0.56
179
H2O
Total (-H2O)
4.45
102.29
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
4.45
102.29
821
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
4.45
102.29
821
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
Feldspar
56 / 1
60.94
0.00
24.22
0.23
0.00
5.38
7.74
0.56
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
822
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
822
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
56 / 2
61.20
0.02
23.89
0.24
0.01
5.40
7.78
0.54
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
822
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
57 / 1
61.28
0.01
24.04
0.23
0.01
5.27
7.64
0.53
821
5.1
2
4.45
0.09
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Total (-H2O)
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
Feldspar
57 / 2
60.99
0.01
23.88
0.23
0.01
5.21
7.78
0.54
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
Feldspar
58 / 1
61.23
0.01
23.96
0.24
0.01
5.06
7.72
0.54
Liquid
MCTA209
72.03
0.21
14.62
1.67
0.04
0.14
0.98
3.66
4.46
0.04
4.45
102.29
Feldspar
58 / 2
60.35
0.02
23.99
0.26
0.01
5.51
7.51
0.54
180
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
821
5.1
2
4.45
0.10
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Total (-H2O)
102.72
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
820
5.2
2
4.45
0.10
Feldspar
80 / 1
57.13
0.02
26.16
0.31
0.04
8.25
6.24
0.22
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
823
5.0
2
4.45
0.09
Feldspar
80 / 2
56.56
0.04
26.40
0.26
0.03
8.62
6.06
0.23
102.72
1046
3.2
2
2.63
0.43
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
85 / 1
55.35
0.04
27.14
0.41
0.04
9.66
5.55
0.16
102.72
1057
2.8
2
2.63
0.33
1049
3.1
2
2.63
0.40
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Total (-H2O)
102.72
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Feldspar
85 / 2
56.51
0.03
26.79
0.30
0.03
8.85
5.90
0.21
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
102.72
1051
3.0
2
87 / 3
55.06
0.06
27.41
0.36
0.04
9.75
5.41
0.16
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
102.72
1058
2.8
2
1048
3.1
2
87 / 4
56.70
0.02
26.39
0.28
0.02
8.56
6.18
0.21
181
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
2.63
0.38
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Total (-H2O)
102.72
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
2.63
0.41
2.63
0.32
Feldspar
87 / 5
56.78
0.05
26.69
0.28
0.03
8.49
6.15
0.21
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
87 / 6
54.87
0.03
27.90
0.40
0.04
9.85
5.39
0.18
102.72
1048
3.1
2
2.63
0.41
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
87 / 7
55.25
0.04
28.63
0.40
0.04
10.28
5.39
0.17
102.72
1059
2.7
2
2.63
0.31
1060
2.7
2
2.63
0.30
Table 1 Continued: Liquid-Plagioclase Pair Results
Sample / Crystal
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOt
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
H2O
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Total (-H2O)
102.72
Eqn 24a T(C )
Eqn 25b H2O (wt. %)
Starting Pressure
Starting H2O
Equi. KD(Ab-An)
Feldspar
88 / 3
56.29
0.05
26.87
0.32
0.03
8.89
5.91
0.21
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
102.72
1051
3.0
2
2.63
0.38
88 / 4
56.54
0.03
26.64
0.27
0.03
8.58
6.13
0.20
Liquid
MCTB209
56.34
1.74
16.39
9.14
0.17
3.82
7.05
4.25
0.62
0.58
2.63
Feldspar
102.72
1048
3.1
2
2.63
0.41
1056
2.8
2
2.63
0.33
88 / 5
55.39
0.04
27.77
0.44
0.04
9.60
5.60
0.19
182
APPENDIX E
Normalized XRF Data
Table 1: Normalized Major and unnormalized trace element results from XRF
analysis.
LBT146-1
LBT146-2
LBT156-1
LBT159-1
Normalized Major Elements (Weight %):
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
69.83
0.498
15.00
2.89
0.074
1.71
1.97
4.00
3.89
0.130
100.00
59.82
0.447
13.73
2.46
0.074
2.06
15.22
2.68
3.31
0.195
100.00
70.55
0.529
15.48
3.15
0.080
1.61
1.82
2.99
3.71
0.089
100.00
LBT159-2
LBT183-2
LBT183-3
70.45
0.476
15.65
2.84
0.069
1.83
2.00
2.99
3.62
0.072
100.00
69.50
0.505
16.18
2.91
0.095
2.22
1.84
3.14
3.52
0.090
100.00
68.72
0.612
16.95
3.39
0.093
1.39
1.67
3.00
4.06
0.121
100.00
70.20
0.535
15.87
2.96
0.084
0.89
1.39
3.67
4.31
0.096
100.00
0
5
10
9
691
46
122
0
3
9
13
647
40
150
4
5
10
21
665
42
141
1
7
10
15
771
47
132
Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm):
Ni
Cr
Sc
V
Ba
Rb
Sr
0
3
8
18
677
48
123
4
6
8
9
609
31
283
1
5
10
10
689
45
132
183
Zr
Y
Nb
Ga
Cu
Zn
Pb
La
Ce
Th
Nd
U
366
41
18.3
19
9
61
11
32
50
5
36
1
309
42
15.6
17
15
50
10
31
52
4
33
0
379
37
18.8
20
9
63
11
29
47
6
33
3
382
37
18.4
19
10
66
9
25
51
5
33
1
369
36
18.9
20
7
66
12
34
64
5
33
1
383
37
20.4
22
17
58
9
25
60
4
32
0
375
41
19.6
23
11
68
11
29
63
6
37
2
Table 1 Continued: Normalized Major and unnormalized trace element results from
XRF analysis.
LBT185-1
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
LBT185-2
MCTL88-1
MCTA88-1
MCTA88-2
Normalized Major Elements (Weight %):
70.96
0.532
15.22
3.07
0.084
0.72
1.47
3.95
3.89
0.107
100.00
69.22
0.556
16.31
3.18
0.096
0.95
1.93
4.38
3.26
0.116
100.00
0
4
9
17
785
52
113
368
61
20.2
19
7
68
12
54
0
3
11
18
745
45
170
347
44
17.8
20
10
70
12
34
67.26
0.285
16.23
2.80
0.073
2.62
4.56
2.60
3.50
0.067
100.00
70.77
0.336
15.48
2.93
0.081
0.81
1.55
3.20
4.64
0.211
100.00
MCTB88-1
57.98
1.559
15.65
8.47
0.196
3.40
6.56
3.90
1.67
0.610
100.00
59.27
1.494
15.61
8.11
0.159
3.53
6.61
3.31
1.41
0.505
100.00
14
25
24
172
543
31
388
169
35
12.0
20
38
130
11
19
12
24
21
173
442
29
401
154
31
11.0
20
19
93
6
17
Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm):
Ni
Cr
Sc
V
Ba
Rb
Sr
Zr
Y
Nb
Ga
Cu
Zn
Pb
La
2
6
7
6
502
52
119
312
33
15.2
19
19
66
10
24
0
6
9
10
686
68
109
301
39
15.7
18
20
34
7
29
184
Ce
Th
Nd
U
60
5
60
4
64
5
37
1
45
6
26
2
62
7
28
1
43
3
28
0
38
2
28
1
Table 1 Continued: Normalized Major and unnormalized trace element results from
XRF analysis.
MCTL206-1
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
MCTA206-1
MCTA206-2
MCTL208-1
MCTA209-1
Normalized Major Elements (Weight %):
70.41
0.309
17.33
3.07
0.100
2.35
1.35
2.12
2.93
0.037
100.00
70.14
0.361
16.44
2.93
0.067
0.80
1.57
3.30
4.30
0.082
100.00
5
7
8
12
490
50
112
331
31
16.2
20
16
75
12
20
51
8
23
2
2
7
10
11
713
67
123
303
39
16.4
21
22
23
11
31
53
6
29
2
57.97
1.512
16.32
8.45
0.163
3.31
6.23
3.58
2.01
0.458
100.00
68.89
0.645
16.03
4.03
0.119
0.92
2.24
4.36
2.62
0.146
100.00
MCTA209-2
67.22
0.304
13.47
2.72
0.072
1.40
3.87
5.09
5.71
0.154
100.00
65.87
0.722
14.69
4.54
0.119
1.61
2.78
6.23
3.19
0.254
100.00
0
5
8
24
714
76
236
255
36
14.2
15
11
44
8
22
51
6
30
1
2
7
13
44
639
60
224
241
39
14.5
18
18
131
10
28
47
4
27
2
Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm):
Ni
Cr
Sc
V
Ba
Rb
Sr
Zr
Y
Nb
Ga
Cu
Zn
Pb
La
Ce
Th
Nd
U
11
22
23
161
476
36
376
185
39
12.7
21
38
117
12
21
41
3
35
0
1
4
14
11
729
34
272
239
43
13.6
22
8
89
10
33
49
3
37
4
185
Table 1 Continued: Normalized Major and unnormalized trace element results from
XRF analysis.
MCTB209-1
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
MCTB209-2
2082A
certified
6500A
Normalized Major Elements (Weight %):
60.95
1.061
17.01
6.65
0.158
2.35
5.04
4.98
1.37
0.432
100.00
58.21
1.414
16.69
8.13
0.169
3.26
6.29
4.40
0.96
0.484
100.00
12
28
20
100
587
12
342
230
42
16.3
21
47
93
10
27
50
5
29
0
15
29
22
153
472
11
416
175
35
12.5
18
21
97
8
16
33
2
22
1
54.69
2.304
13.58
12.89
0.202
3.61
7.23
3.30
1.83
0.362
100.00
54.93
2.295
13.71
12.61
0.199
3.65
7.23
3.21
1.82
0.355
100.00
certified3
67.69
0.680
15.06
4.60
0.042
0.97
2.15
2.98
5.53
0.297
100.00
67.88
0.673
15.19
4.49
0.042
0.98
2.14
2.83
5.48
0.296
100.00
17
19
8
52
1352
251
243
559
29
26.8
24
47
118
41
180
450
110
199
1
17
20
6
52
1340
245
240
550
28
27.0
22
43
120
42
180
445
105
200
2
Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm):
Ni
Cr
Sc
V
Ba
Rb
Sr
Zr
Y
Nb
Ga
Cu
Zn
Pb
La
Ce
Th
Nd
U
3
13
13
33
410
694
50
342
189
38
14.5
22
20
139
9
21
55
6
33
0
18
33
416
683
48
346
188
37
23
19
127
11
25
53
6
28
2
Samples 2082A and 6500A are results of standard analysis with their respective certified values.
186
APPENDIX F
Unnormalized EMPA Data
187
Table 1: Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K 2O
P2O5
Total
LBTP_146-1
21 / 1 .
69.69
0.40
14.09
2.16
0.05
0.30
0.99
2.00
3.38
0.06
93.11
LBTP_146-1
22 / 1 .
65.87
0.35
12.80
2.18
0.07
0.37
1.02
1.74
4.10
0.10
88.59
LBTP_146-1
22 / 2 .
69.42
0.38
14.34
2.25
0.05
0.30
1.07
3.49
3.49
0.06
94.87
LBTP_146-1
23 / 1 .
71.16
0.35
14.04
2.04
0.06
0.25
0.90
2.18
3.17
0.05
94.19
LBTP_146-1
23 / 2 .
70.76
0.35
13.98
2.04
0.08
0.24
0.87
2.71
3.28
0.06
94.36
LBTP_146-1
24 / 1 .
70.38
0.39
14.47
2.14
0.07
0.28
1.02
2.54
4.30
0.07
95.65
LBTP_146-1
24 / 2 .
66.92
0.36
12.73
2.13
0.04
1.42
1.24
1.07
3.77
0.06
89.73
LBTP_156-1
11 / 1 .
68.24
0.38
13.68
2.21
0.09
0.30
1.03
1.88
4.81
0.06
92.68
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K 2O
P2O5
Total
LBTP_156-1
11 / 2 .
70.19
0.37
14.21
2.24
0.06
0.29
1.00
3.27
3.42
0.05
95.09
LBTP_156-1
12 / 1 .
70.13
0.36
14.39
2.16
0.06
0.27
0.96
2.76
3.73
0.07
94.88
LBTP_156-1
12 / 2 .
70.40
0.34
14.32
2.17
0.05
0.27
0.97
2.64
3.70
0.05
94.91
LBTP_156-1
13 / 1 .
70.09
0.35
14.07
2.02
0.05
0.25
0.92
2.60
4.09
0.06
94.50
LBTP_156-1
13 / 2 .
70.39
0.36
13.81
2.10
0.07
0.24
0.87
2.49
4.38
0.05
94.77
LBTP_156-1
14 / 1 .
70.16
0.38
14.47
2.20
0.05
0.29
1.05
3.63
3.48
0.04
95.75
LBTP_156-1
14 / 2 .
70.27
0.39
14.44
2.14
0.08
0.29
1.02
3.21
3.45
0.05
95.36
LBTP_156-1
15 / 1 .
69.99
0.32
13.72
1.95
0.08
0.21
0.78
2.60
5.15
0.02
94.82
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
LBTP_156-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
LBTP_159-1
188
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
15 / 2 .
68.01
0.35
13.86
2.17
0.06
0.30
0.95
1.77
4.70
0.05
92.23
LBTP_159-1
9/2.
69.61
0.38
14.35
2.19
0.05
0.29
1.00
2.78
3.55
0.05
94.26
6/1.
70.57
0.38
14.07
2.08
0.08
0.24
0.87
2.80
3.44
0.05
94.58
LBTP_159-1
10 / 1 .
69.87
0.38
12.94
2.07
0.07
0.29
0.98
1.37
3.77
0.04
91.76
6/2.
69.18
0.39
14.18
2.15
0.10
0.28
0.98
2.29
3.88
0.04
93.47
LBTP_185-1
26 / 1 .
70.14
0.37
14.68
2.25
0.08
0.31
1.07
4.01
3.42
0.07
96.39
7/1.
70.50
0.40
14.35
2.22
0.09
0.29
1.00
2.18
4.28
0.06
95.37
LBTP_185-1
26 / 2 .
69.86
0.38
14.76
2.19
0.07
0.31
1.06
4.20
3.32
0.05
96.19
7/2.
69.37
0.37
14.27
2.26
0.12
0.28
1.02
2.89
3.62
0.04
94.24
LBTP_185-1
27 / 1 .
70.18
0.37
14.65
2.22
0.10
0.30
1.09
3.38
3.72
0.06
96.06
8/1.
69.79
0.33
13.68
1.90
0.08
0.27
0.78
1.77
5.73
0.03
94.36
LBTP_185-1
27 / 2 .
70.04
0.43
14.09
2.25
0.11
0.33
1.08
2.12
4.03
0.06
94.54
8/2.
70.36
0.34
13.70
1.99
0.05
0.18
0.73
3.21
3.74
0.04
94.33
9/1.
69.70
0.36
14.41
2.21
0.10
0.30
1.00
2.88
3.29
0.05
94.29
LBTP_185-1
28 / 1 .
69.55
0.39
14.44
2.27
0.08
0.31
1.06
1.56
4.72
0.05
94.43
LBTP_185-1
28 / 2 .
70.73
0.40
14.73
2.25
0.06
0.32
1.10
3.78
3.31
0.07
96.75
LBTT_146-1
12 / 2 .
71.07
LBTT_146-1
13 / 1 .
71.37
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
LBTP_185-1
29 / 1 .
70.96
LBTP_185-1
29 / 2 .
70.15
LBTP_185-1
30 / 1 .
70.74
LBTP_185-1
30 / 2 .
70.33
LBTT_146-1
11 / 2 .
70.63
LBTT_146-1
12 / 1 .
71.63
189
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
0.37
14.17
2.00
0.10
0.24
0.87
3.43
3.47
0.04
95.65
LBTT_146-1
13 / 2 .
51.00
0.30
6.65
1.51
0.09
0.25
0.60
0.90
3.83
0.02
65.15
0.36
13.96
2.06
0.05
0.27
0.91
2.64
4.72
0.03
95.15
LBTT_146-1
14 / 1 .
72.63
0.34
14.20
1.88
0.06
0.21
0.86
3.84
3.85
0.02
97.89
0.37
14.49
2.20
0.05
0.28
0.98
3.44
3.52
0.05
96.11
LBTT_146-1
14 / 2 .
59.94
0.34
11.66
1.97
0.09
0.85
1.23
1.60
4.73
0.05
82.44
0.36
14.60
2.22
0.06
0.30
1.06
3.09
3.59
0.06
95.68
LBTT_146-1
15 / 1 .
68.71
0.37
13.83
2.05
0.08
0.28
1.07
3.56
3.56
0.07
93.60
0.34
13.95
1.96
0.09
0.21
0.77
3.22
4.88
0.04
96.07
LBTT_146-1
15 / 2 .
68.71
0.35
14.50
2.21
0.09
0.34
1.08
2.88
4.78
0.05
94.99
0.36
14.58
2.18
0.10
0.28
1.09
3.39
3.35
0.05
97.01
LBTT_159-1
1/1.
71.02
0.41
14.86
2.24
0.12
0.33
1.12
3.98
3.38
0.05
97.51
0.39
14.57
2.12
0.07
0.29
1.19
3.47
4.32
0.04
97.53
0.35
14.38
2.08
0.09
0.28
1.02
3.54
4.08
0.03
97.23
LBTT_159-1
1/2.
71.06
0.37
14.92
2.31
0.04
0.33
1.09
3.63
3.58
0.05
97.39
LBTT_159-1
2/2.
69.86
0.37
14.38
1.89
0.11
0.93
0.85
2.20
5.29
0.07
95.94
LBTT_183-1
6/1.
72.37
0.29
15.15
LBTT_183-1
6/2.
73.10
0.30
14.08
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
LBTT_159-1
3/1.
73.10
0.32
14.08
LBTT_159-1
3/2.
73.00
0.33
14.22
LBTT_159-1
4/1.
72.27
0.33
14.23
LBTT_159-1
4/2.
72.87
0.32
14.24
LBTT_159-1
5/1.
72.19
0.33
14.20
LBTT_159-1
5/2.
71.72
0.30
14.17
190
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
2.03
0.08
0.21
0.78
3.20
3.59
0.02
97.41
LBTT_183-1
7/1.
71.01
0.36
14.89
2.24
0.06
0.30
0.86
4.71
3.82
0.06
98.31
2.09
0.08
0.21
0.76
4.20
3.76
0.03
98.67
LBTT_183-1
7/2.
72.03
0.38
14.88
2.27
0.04
0.29
0.79
5.26
3.63
0.05
99.63
2.05
0.08
0.21
0.73
3.70
4.73
0.04
98.38
LBTT_183-1
8/2.
72.78
0.33
14.34
1.77
0.02
0.20
0.76
4.30
4.77
0.04
99.31
1.98
0.05
0.21
0.72
3.98
3.68
0.04
98.10
LBTT_183-1
9/1.
72.46
0.36
14.50
2.09
0.05
0.23
0.72
4.93
3.59
0.03
98.96
2.01
0.04
0.21
0.77
3.83
3.68
0.04
97.30
LBTT_183-1
9/2.
73.28
0.31
13.98
1.75
0.04
0.18
0.68
3.97
4.99
0.04
99.21
2.05
0.06
0.22
0.77
4.01
3.66
0.03
96.99
LBTT_183-1
10 / 1 .
72.05
0.39
15.06
2.41
0.06
0.32
1.07
4.78
3.93
0.03
100.11
1.80
0.07
0.17
1.10
4.76
3.50
0.03
99.24
2.00
0.01
0.19
0.69
4.47
3.98
0.03
98.85
LBTT_183-1
10 / 2 .
70.85
0.40
15.07
2.28
0.04
0.31
0.91
4.83
3.79
0.05
98.53
LBTT_183-2
6/1.
72.24
0.36
14.56
2.10
0.04
0.26
0.90
4.68
3.52
0.05
98.71
LBTT_185-1
21 / 2 .
71.87
0.38
14.78
2.25
0.06
LBTT_185-1
22 / 1 .
71.33
0.43
15.18
2.35
0.10
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
LBTT_183-2
6/2.
71.42
0.36
14.84
2.07
0.06
LBTT_183-2
7/2.
70.47
0.37
14.43
1.79
0.07
LBTT_183-2
8/1.
70.62
0.37
14.67
2.19
0.06
LBTT_183-2
8/2.
70.04
0.42
14.69
2.27
0.08
LBTT_183-2
9/1.
71.58
0.37
14.78
2.28
0.06
LBTT_185-1
21 / 1 .
58.71
0.28
11.77
1.95
0.10
191
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
0.28
0.90
5.35
4.04
0.06
99.39
LBTT_185-1
22 / 2 .
70.94
0.39
14.95
2.40
0.08
0.34
1.15
4.18
3.50
0.05
97.97
0.20
0.86
3.61
5.13
0.06
96.99
LBTT_185-1
23 / 1 .
71.81
0.43
15.02
2.36
0.10
0.33
1.11
4.14
3.53
0.05
98.89
0.30
1.01
5.37
3.61
0.05
98.23
LBTT_185-1
23 / 2 .
71.67
0.39
15.23
2.38
0.12
0.35
1.18
4.00
3.36
0.07
98.76
0.31
1.08
5.05
3.57
0.05
97.57
LBTT_185-1
24 / 1 .
69.20
0.36
13.87
2.19
0.09
0.30
1.04
3.45
3.54
0.07
94.11
0.30
0.89
4.43
3.77
0.05
98.49
LBTT_185-1
24 / 2 .
71.06
0.38
15.11
2.28
0.06
0.32
1.16
4.49
3.18
0.05
98.09
0.25
0.90
3.09
2.64
0.04
79.74
LBTT_185-1
25 / 2 .
72.07
0.39
14.81
2.11
0.06
0.27
0.97
4.02
3.46
0.04
98.21
0.31
1.02
3.44
3.72
0.05
97.89
0.34
1.20
4.78
3.27
0.08
99.05
MCTA_206-1
6/1.
72.61
0.24
15.00
0.54
0.02
0.06
0.72
4.24
3.72
0.04
97.17
MCTA_206-1
6/2.
73.22
0.17
14.74
0.54
0.01
0.08
0.80
4.56
3.62
0.02
97.76
MCTA_206-1
10 / 1 .
71.16
0.22
14.66
1.97
0.02
0.10
0.73
MCTA_206-1
10 / 2 .
71.39
0.19
14.39
1.45
0.02
0.13
0.80
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
MCTA_206-1
7/1.
72.85
0.22
14.94
0.54
0.00
0.08
1.02
MCTA_206-1
7/2.
73.35
0.23
15.01
0.53
0.01
0.08
0.94
MCTA_206-1
8/1.
64.57
0.25
14.33
3.45
0.02
0.43
0.95
MCTA_206-1
8/2.
59.54
0.19
10.47
0.20
0.00
0.06
0.64
MCTA_206-1
9/1.
55.43
0.18
13.60
2.13
0.05
0.83
0.89
MCTA_206-1
9/2.
67.27
0.19
12.92
1.01
0.05
0.12
0.78
192
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
4.58
3.48
0.06
97.77
MCTA_209-1
1/1.
70.94
0.25
14.80
2.36
0.06
0.23
1.13
3.73
3.71
0.05
97.26
4.21
3.59
0.03
97.99
MCTA_209-1
2/1.
67.86
0.25
11.70
1.22
0.03
0.19
0.90
3.09
4.71
0.04
89.98
2.64
4.57
0.05
91.26
MCTA_209-1
2/2.
72.04
0.16
14.60
2.17
0.06
0.16
1.01
3.99
3.73
0.04
97.96
3.94
3.92
0.04
79.01
MCTA_209-1
3/1.
72.14
0.22
14.66
1.76
0.06
0.12
1.06
4.02
4.84
0.03
98.88
1.32
3.77
0.02
78.21
MCTA_209-1
3/2.
71.67
0.21
14.86
2.13
0.04
0.15
0.93
4.05
4.22
0.05
98.32
2.53
6.20
0.03
91.10
MCTA_209-1
4/1.
72.57
0.20
14.53
0.90
0.00
0.12
0.93
3.33
4.81
0.02
97.41
4.69
4.12
0.04
97.70
4.66
3.77
0.03
96.84
MCTA_209-1
4/2.
72.61
0.22
14.56
1.58
0.04
0.13
0.91
4.10
4.29
0.04
98.48
MCTA_209-1
5/1.
71.88
0.21
14.29
1.45
0.03
0.11
0.96
3.15
4.74
0.04
96.88
MCTA_206-2
18 / 2 .
56.85
1.67
16.77
7.36
0.19
3.68
7.00
4.24
1.88
MCTA_206-2
19 / 1 .
58.46
1.48
16.16
8.02
0.19
3.54
6.39
3.68
1.89
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
MCTA_209-1
5/2.
71.92
0.19
14.26
1.53
0.03
0.12
0.91
3.51
4.74
MCTA_206-2
16 / 1 .
55.44
1.67
16.12
8.52
0.15
4.28
8.31
3.62
1.62
MCTA_206-2
16 / 2 .
56.06
1.76
16.30
9.34
0.17
4.21
7.83
3.12
1.53
MCTA_206-2
17 / 1 .
58.89
1.45
16.86
7.73
0.18
2.66
6.26
6.68
0.49
MCTA_206-2
17 / 2 .
56.82
1.65
16.32
8.64
0.14
3.58
6.22
3.30
2.22
MCTA_206-2
18 / 1 .
54.49
1.81
16.19
9.12
0.20
4.15
7.85
3.39
1.58
193
P 2O 5
Total
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
0.02
97.23
MCTA_206-2
19 / 2 .
56.27
1.58
16.22
9.04
0.22
3.74
6.95
4.25
1.80
0.53
100.60
0.53
100.25
0.59
100.89
MCTA_206-2
20 / 1 .
56.77
1.81
16.41
9.59
0.18
3.72
7.24
2.87
1.72
0.58
100.89
0.54
101.73
MCTA_206-2
20 / 2 .
56.80
1.77
16.50
9.43
0.15
4.19
7.49
3.75
1.65
0.61
102.33
MCTA_209-2
18 / 1 .
72.01
0.20
14.78
2.19
0.04
0.18
1.07
4.37
3.44
0.03
98.31
0.48
99.36
MCTA_209-2
18 / 2 .
70.81
0.25
14.85
2.49
0.07
0.24
1.21
4.66
3.45
0.04
98.07
0.55
99.33
MCTA_209-2
20 / 1 .
70.98
0.25
14.94
2.25
0.03
0.27
1.51
4.40
3.42
0.03
98.08
0.58
100.21
MCTA_88-1
16 / 1 .
69.39
0.20
13.82
0.46
0.05
0.13
0.88
3.11
5.42
0.01
93.45
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
MCTA_88-1
17 / 1 .
39.77
0.09
7.45
0.58
0.17
0.14
0.61
1.61
3.09
0.03
53.53
MCTA_88-1
17 / 2 .
71.97
0.19
14.09
0.33
0.00
0.10
0.91
3.75
4.99
0.04
96.39
MCTA_88-1
18 / 1 .
71.81
0.22
14.66
2.17
0.07
0.18
1.26
4.49
3.51
0.04
98.42
MCTA_88-1
19 / 2 .
71.47
0.23
14.82
2.08
0.02
0.15
1.00
4.65
4.00
0.04
98.46
MCTA_88-1
20 / 1 .
72.59
0.20
14.65
0.71
0.00
0.11
1.02
4.02
4.20
0.05
97.54
MCTA_88-1
20 / 2 .
71.22
0.22
14.83
1.20
0.01
0.21
1.13
4.51
4.02
0.03
97.37
MCTA_88-2
1/1.
58.10
1.35
15.50
7.87
0.14
2.71
5.56
2.73
2.09
0.46
96.50
MCTA_88-2
2/1.
59.68
1.48
15.97
7.88
0.15
3.06
5.89
1.72
1.80
0.47
98.09
0.44
100.27
MCTA_88-1
16 / 2 .
72.71
0.21
14.39
0.27
0.02
0.06
0.79
3.02
6.20
0.04
97.71
194
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
MCTA_88-2
2/2.
56.62
1.61
15.94
9.51
0.21
3.91
6.48
4.45
1.48
0.53
100.74
MCTA_88-2
3/1.
59.84
1.41
15.95
5.48
0.19
3.44
6.51
4.03
1.91
0.48
99.24
MCTA_88-2
3/2.
57.62
1.58
16.07
8.67
0.17
3.53
6.42
4.45
1.57
0.53
100.61
MCTA_88-2
4/1.
55.28
1.85
16.58
9.50
0.18
4.08
6.78
4.69
1.55
0.55
101.03
MCTA_88-2
4/2.
56.51
1.78
16.76
8.43
0.18
3.71
7.18
3.94
1.73
0.58
100.80
MCTA_88-2
5/1.
57.42
1.49
16.21
7.26
0.14
3.61
6.60
4.69
1.73
0.48
99.64
MCTA_88-2
5/2.
57.29
1.57
15.93
9.72
0.15
3.67
5.89
4.64
1.55
0.56
100.96
MCTB_88-1
21 / 1 .
55.67
1.85
16.36
9.01
0.17
3.88
7.56
2.50
1.54
0.63
99.15
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
MCTB_88-1
21 / 2 .
72.20
0.23
15.37
0.65
0.02
0.08
0.27
5.07
4.32
0.05
98.26
MCTB_88-1
22 / 1 .
58.95
1.77
17.11
7.39
0.12
3.38
6.92
2.10
1.76
0.64
100.13
MCTB_88-1
23 / 1 .
56.73
1.87
16.60
9.73
0.16
3.77
6.55
2.28
1.53
0.56
99.79
MCTB_88-1
24 / 1 .
59.31
1.81
16.62
8.04
0.14
3.21
4.88
3.12
2.19
0.61
99.94
MCTB_88-1
25 / 1 .
57.11
1.94
16.52
10.12
0.14
3.65
6.03
1.86
1.59
0.62
99.58
MCTB_88-1
25 / 2 .
57.50
1.70
16.28
8.71
0.17
3.78
6.77
2.64
1.68
0.55
99.77
MCTB_88-2
26 / 1 .
55.25
1.82
16.05
9.74
0.18
4.03
7.06
4.09
0.72
0.56
99.51
MCTB_88-2
26 / 2 .
54.78
1.86
16.02
9.22
0.20
4.64
6.86
3.90
0.75
0.58
98.81
Sample
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
MCTB_88-2
195
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
27 / 1 .
55.65
1.49
16.80
9.31
0.14
3.14
7.75
4.02
0.61
0.56
99.47
27 / 2 .
57.02
1.77
16.75
8.50
0.15
3.39
6.62
4.80
0.55
0.58
100.13
28 / 1 .
56.30
1.72
16.28
9.44
0.19
4.01
6.61
4.44
0.70
0.56
100.24
28 / 2 .
57.02
1.68
16.32
9.26
0.19
3.79
7.27
4.24
0.61
0.57
100.93
29 / 1 .
56.25
1.78
16.18
9.34
0.20
3.87
7.36
3.83
0.50
0.62
99.93
29 / 2 .
57.52
1.74
16.36
8.89
0.13
3.53
7.06
4.05
0.59
0.59
100.44
30 / 1 .
44.94
1.19
13.85
7.39
0.16
2.85
5.53
5.33
0.64
0.38
82.27
30 / 2 .
57.28
1.82
16.76
8.59
0.17
3.94
6.84
4.87
0.54
0.58
101.38
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
MCTL_206-1
11 / 1 .
70.05
0.23
14.55
3.09
0.10
0.20
1.13
3.46
3.55
0.05
96.42
MCTL_206-1
11 / 2 .
70.75
0.23
14.74
2.38
0.08
0.20
1.16
4.28
3.66
0.04
97.51
MCTL_206-1
12 / 1 .
70.84
0.19
14.32
2.17
0.07
0.21
0.97
3.09
4.16
0.00
96.02
MCTL_206-1
12 / 2 .
70.88
0.19
14.46
2.15
0.09
0.17
1.00
4.13
3.71
0.02
96.81
MCTL_206-1
13 / 1 .
63.41
0.23
12.76
2.26
0.06
0.56
1.00
2.07
3.60
0.04
86.00
MCTL_206-1
13 / 2 .
69.22
0.37
14.65
2.40
0.07
0.30
1.25
1.97
6.03
0.06
96.31
MCTL_206-1
14 / 2 .
69.88
0.23
14.70
2.39
0.06
0.19
1.13
3.88
3.53
0.05
96.04
MCTL_206-1
15 / 1 .
71.44
0.21
14.47
2.04
0.04
0.15
0.97
3.54
3.81
0.06
96.73
Sample
Run #
SiO2
MCTL_206-1
15 / 2 .
71.02
MCTL_208-1
26 / 1 .
65.35
MCTL_208-1
26 / 2 .
51.10
MCTL_208-1
28 / 1 .
66.35
MCTL_208-1
28 / 2 .
54.35
MCTL_208-1
29 / 1 .
68.00
MCTL_208-1
29 / 2 .
7.04
MCTL_88-1
1/1.
68.91
196
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
0.21
14.34
2.14
0.09
0.16
0.98
3.86
3.73
0.04
96.56
0.58
14.56
3.37
0.10
0.61
1.71
2.20
2.57
0.15
91.21
0.49
13.31
2.99
0.11
0.61
1.73
3.54
3.23
0.14
77.24
0.53
14.22
3.53
0.13
0.60
1.98
1.44
2.56
0.15
91.48
0.52
13.25
3.02
0.06
0.75
1.48
1.26
1.95
0.14
76.79
0.58
15.79
3.54
0.14
0.64
2.05
1.27
2.57
0.18
94.75
0.07
1.60
0.46
0.02
0.12
0.33
0.23
0.24
0.03
10.14
Table 1 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
MCTL_88-1
1/2.
70.63
0.22
14.76
2.39
0.09
0.20
1.11
4.05
3.61
0.03
97.09
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
MCTL_88-1
5/2.
71.68
0.19
14.61
MCTL_88-1
2/1.
69.91
0.24
14.60
2.37
0.06
0.26
1.14
3.41
3.80
0.04
95.83
MCTL_88-1
2/2.
62.98
0.22
11.80
2.10
0.09
0.16
0.97
2.26
4.26
0.02
84.85
MCTL_88-1
3/1.
70.24
0.22
14.84
2.46
0.11
0.20
1.16
3.87
3.60
0.01
96.71
MCTL_88-1
3/2.
70.84
0.22
14.84
2.42
0.05
0.20
1.15
4.46
3.66
0.03
97.88
MCTL_88-1
4/1.
70.90
0.20
14.89
2.38
0.06
0.19
1.13
4.57
3.62
0.03
97.98
MCTL_88-1
4/2.
70.82
0.24
14.89
2.44
0.07
0.21
1.20
4.07
3.57
0.05
97.55
MCTL_88-1
5/1.
71.80
0.20
14.71
2.23
0.07
0.16
0.99
4.51
3.77
0.04
98.49
0.24
14.38
2.36
0.08
0.19
1.10
3.35
3.70
0.03
94.34
197
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
2.13
0.11
0.16
1.00
4.22
3.87
0.01
97.98
Table 2: Unnormalized major element compositions of mineral hosted glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/2.
67.33
0.43
14.98
2.30
0.11
0.31
1.14
3.44
4.33
0.07
94.65
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/4.
68.76
0.41
15.15
2.80
0.06
0.34
1.34
5.27
2.75
0.04
97.08
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/5.
69.38
0.37
14.63
2.54
0.12
0.28
1.04
4.21
3.13
0.05
95.99
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/7.
67.86
0.37
14.16
2.67
0.13
0.30
1.06
2.32
5.73
0.06
94.84
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/8.
69.54
0.38
15.15
2.32
0.06
0.30
1.19
4.69
3.30
0.07
97.30
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1/9.
67.92
0.55
15.87
2.43
0.07
0.36
1.42
5.14
3.21
0.06
97.26
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
LBTP_185-1-pyx
1 / 10 .
69.33
0.49
15.35
2.50
0.05
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/3.
68.31
0.43
16.12
2.82
0.10
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/5.
67.80
0.51
16.29
2.70
0.07
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/6.
67.26
0.38
15.68
2.57
0.11
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/7.
67.77
0.43
16.15
2.68
0.08
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/8.
68.32
0.39
14.83
2.44
0.07
198
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
0.34
1.33
4.99
3.02
0.06
97.68
0.42
1.49
6.25
2.56
0.12
98.80
0.39
1.36
5.88
3.26
0.11
98.67
0.34
1.11
4.07
5.71
0.06
97.53
0.41
1.50
6.36
2.38
0.07
98.02
0.31
1.01
5.51
3.13
0.05
96.24
Table 2 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of mineral hosted glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3/9.
69.37
0.38
14.75
2.67
0.07
0.30
0.98
5.37
3.18
0.04
97.35
LBTT_185-1-pyx
3 / 10 .
70.12
0.35
14.76
2.37
0.13
0.27
0.92
6.05
3.11
0.04
98.37
LBTT_156-1-pyx
4/1.
72.08
0.31
14.08
2.65
0.08
0.35
0.36
6.33
2.84
0.04
99.30
LBTT_156-1-pyx
4/2.
70.83
0.35
14.81
1.56
0.08
0.36
0.73
5.56
3.83
0.05
98.37
LBTT_156-1-pyx
4/3.
68.95
0.34
16.72
0.92
0.05
0.25
2.33
5.87
3.31
0.06
99.40
LBTT_156-1-pyx
4/4.
68.78
0.43
14.59
1.80
0.05
0.01
0.22
3.87
7.21
0.07
97.14
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/1.
69.55
0.39
14.79
2.43
0.11
0.31
1.05
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/2.
69.60
0.40
15.15
2.60
0.13
0.34
1.19
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/3.
69.79
0.44
15.08
2.54
0.08
0.33
1.11
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/4.
69.86
0.37
14.93
2.66
0.07
0.33
1.15
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/5.
68.47
0.45
15.20
2.48
0.06
0.33
1.13
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/6.
63.31
0.71
16.65
3.69
0.11
1.00
2.71
199
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
5.31
3.35
0.04
97.54
5.32
3.16
0.04
98.15
5.90
3.28
0.06
98.82
5.60
3.36
0.05
98.64
5.59
3.20
0.05
97.19
4.89
2.21
0.21
95.64
Table 2 (Continued): Unnormalized major element compositions of mineral hosted glass by EMPA
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
P 2O 5
Total
LBTT_185-2-pyx
5/7.
63.49
0.68
16.47
3.72
0.10
0.97
2.51
3.96
4.22
0.19
96.43
MCTA_209-2-pyx
2/1.
61.18
0.70
16.50
5.50
0.44
4.38
4.97
7.72
0.17
0.22
101.83
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
MCTB_209-2-pyx
7/6.
62.45
1.12
15.76
5.16
0.10
1.88
3.69
6.95
1.11
LBTT_185-1-plg
9/1.
68.45
0.41
14.47
2.29
0.06
0.31
1.08
3.21
6.27
MCTA_209-2-pyx
2/2.
56.35
0.05
27.67
1.03
0.05
0.04
10.03
6.26
0.18
0.02
101.68
MCTA_209-2-pyx
2/3.
33.35
0.04
0.01
42.19
1.23
18.74
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.05
95.84
MCTA_209-2-pyx
2/4.
0.28
0.00
0.00
1.79
0.13
0.14
54.39
0.02
0.01
41.39
100.11
MCTA_209-2-pyx
2/5.
3.03
0.00
0.00
5.10
0.29
1.68
50.20
0.01
0.01
41.66
103.41
200
P 2O 5
Total
0.33
98.85
0.06
96.85
Table 3: Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
LBTP-185-1
31 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
31 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
32 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
32 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
33 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
33 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
34 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
34 / 2 .
SiO2
60.74
60.54
60.79
61.44
61.21
60.37
60.80
60.68
TiO2
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02
Al2O3
24.20
23.83
23.94
23.67
23.76
24.02
24.05
23.87
FeO
0.30
0.31
0.33
0.30
0.37
0.30
0.34
0.33
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
CaO
5.28
5.49
5.46
5.09
5.14
5.53
5.57
5.27
Na2O
7.71
7.48
7.50
7.62
7.69
7.56
7.43
7.54
K2 O
0.49
0.47
0.46
0.49
0.50
0.47
0.49
0.47
Total
98.76
98.16
98.52
98.65
98.72
98.28
98.75
98.20
Sample
Run #
LBTP-185-1
35 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
35 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
37 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
37 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
38 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
38 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
39 / 1 .
LBTP-185-1
39 / 2 .
SiO2
60.72
61.13
61.34
60.01
60.34
58.19
60.38
60.12
TiO2
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
Al2O3
24.15
23.50
23.49
24.43
24.20
25.35
24.23
24.61
FeO
0.29
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.25
0.29
0.36
0.33
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
CaO
5.29
5.03
4.79
5.75
5.96
7.35
5.48
5.85
Na2O
7.65
7.90
7.73
7.37
7.29
6.52
7.56
7.43
201
K2 O
0.52
0.54
0.53
0.46
0.43
0.35
0.47
0.45
Total
98.66
98.43
98.24
98.39
98.50
98.08
98.52
98.85
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
LBTP-185-1
40 / 2 .
LBTP-185-1
40 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
11 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
11 / 2 .
LBTT-156-1
12 / 2 .
LBTT-156-1
12 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
13 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
13 / 2 .
SiO2
57.99
60.72
57.88
57.18
58.70
57.55
61.20
61.76
TiO2
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
Al2O3
25.97
23.58
26.08
26.85
25.83
26.97
23.89
24.14
FeO
0.39
0.34
0.33
0.39
0.36
0.44
0.26
0.24
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
CaO
7.37
5.26
8.15
8.98
7.71
8.37
5.54
5.25
Na2O
6.66
7.61
6.24
5.95
6.48
6.29
7.60
7.79
K2 O
0.31
0.51
0.28
0.26
0.35
0.23
0.47
0.52
Total
98.76
98.04
99.03
99.69
99.48
99.91
98.98
99.73
Sample
Run #
SiO2
LBTT-156-1
14 / 2 .
61.84
LBTT-156-1
14 / 1 .
61.75
LBTT-156-1
15 / 2 .
62.46
LBTT-156-1
15 / 1 .
62.02
LBTT-156-1
16 / 1 .
61.35
LBTT-156-1
16 / 2 .
61.98
LBTT-156-1
17 / 2 .
61.45
LBTT-156-1
17 / 1 .
57.66
TiO2
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
Al2O3
24.09
24.24
23.37
23.86
24.11
23.86
23.37
26.45
FeO
0.33
0.31
0.27
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.28
0.28
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
CaO
5.09
5.16
4.51
4.86
5.17
4.88
5.22
8.23
Na2O
7.82
7.87
8.22
7.94
7.84
8.14
7.84
6.41
K2 O
0.49
0.53
0.57
0.53
0.52
0.49
0.50
0.26
202
Total
99.69
99.90
99.47
99.55
99.35
99.72
98.72
99.34
LBTT-185-1
1/2.
LBTT-185-1
1/1.
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
LBTT-156-1
18 / 2 .
LBTT-156-1
18 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
19 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
19 / 2 .
LBTT-156-1
20 / 1 .
LBTT-156-1
20 / 2 .
SiO2
56.93
57.18
56.07
54.32
62.16
62.56
60.99
61.88
TiO2
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
Al2O3
26.71
26.84
27.27
28.87
23.32
23.63
23.98
23.72
FeO
0.38
0.41
0.48
0.36
0.36
0.33
0.29
0.29
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
CaO
8.88
8.30
9.38
10.85
4.69
4.97
5.33
5.14
Na2O
5.80
6.23
5.67
4.90
7.84
7.71
7.63
7.83
K2 O
0.22
0.27
0.19
0.16
0.58
0.57
0.47
0.47
Total
99.00
99.31
99.11
99.55
98.98
99.80
98.75
99.36
Sample
Run #
LBTT-185-1
2/1.
LBTT-185-1
2/2.
LBTT-185-1
3/1.
LBTT-185-1
3/2.
LBTT-185-1
4/1.
LBTT-185-1
4/2.
LBTT-185-1
5/2.
LBTT-185-1
5/1.
SiO2
60.69
60.25
61.94
61.85
61.51
61.32
61.73
61.58
TiO2
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
Al2O3
24.49
24.97
23.62
24.05
23.78
23.88
23.27
24.38
FeO
0.30
0.35
0.33
0.33
0.30
0.34
0.30
0.30
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
CaO
6.02
6.60
4.79
5.29
5.48
5.43
5.15
5.76
Na2O
7.41
6.99
7.90
7.64
7.50
7.84
7.68
7.70
K2 O
0.40
0.39
0.57
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.46
Total
99.34
99.64
99.19
99.67
99.10
99.34
98.71
100.22
203
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
LBTT-185-1
6/2.
LBTT-185-1
6/1.
LBTT-185-1
7/1.
LBTT-185-1
7/2.
LBTT-185-1
8/2.
LBTT-185-1
8/1.
LBTT-185-1
9/1.
LBTT-185-1
9/2.
SiO2
61.13
62.76
62.76
61.65
60.76
60.39
61.92
62.05
TiO2
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
Al2O3
24.22
23.35
23.05
24.23
24.28
24.51
23.78
23.82
FeO
0.34
0.28
0.34
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.31
0.29
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
CaO
5.63
4.70
4.64
5.53
5.93
6.19
5.16
5.43
Na2O
7.61
8.00
7.90
7.60
7.25
7.47
7.78
7.59
K2 O
0.45
0.57
0.53
0.47
0.40
0.39
0.54
0.51
Total
99.42
99.69
99.27
99.90
99.00
99.34
99.54
99.70
Sample
Run #
LBTT-185-1
10 / 1 .
LBTT-185-1
10 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
21 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
21 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
22 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
22 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
23 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
23 / 1 .
SiO2
62.41
62.98
62.28
62.06
55.61
61.83
62.75
63.29
TiO2
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.03
Al2O3
23.60
23.79
23.39
23.98
28.02
24.06
23.27
23.22
FeO
0.26
0.28
0.28
0.35
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.26
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
CaO
4.72
4.71
4.93
5.37
10.36
5.51
4.36
4.45
Na2O
8.08
7.86
7.79
7.55
5.20
7.75
8.09
8.14
K2 O
0.58
0.56
0.51
0.48
0.20
0.48
0.62
0.63
Total
99.69
100.22
99.22
99.85
99.78
100.01
99.43
100.02
204
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
LBTT-185-2
24 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
24 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
25 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
25 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
26 / 2 .
LBTT-185-2
26 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
27 / 1 .
LBTT-185-2
27 / 2 .
SiO2
62.93
63.50
57.12
62.01
62.08
61.75
63.12
63.94
TiO2
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
Al2O3
23.12
23.08
27.13
23.92
23.86
24.26
23.33
22.92
FeO
0.28
0.30
0.37
0.34
0.31
0.32
0.25
0.28
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
CaO
4.57
4.32
8.92
5.47
5.13
5.54
4.12
3.56
Na2O
8.08
8.02
5.88
7.72
7.93
7.62
8.34
8.34
K2 O
0.57
0.61
0.26
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.64
0.79
Total
99.57
99.85
99.76
99.98
99.83
99.99
99.83
99.85
Sample
Run #
SiO2
LBTT-185-2
28 / 1 .
61.57
LBTT-185-2
28 / 2 .
58.95
LBTT-185-2
29 / 1 .
55.08
LBTT-185-2
29 / 2 .
60.97
LBTT-185-2
30 / 1 .
60.31
LBTT-185-2
30 / 2 .
62.38
MCTA-209-1
51 / 1 .
61.32
MCTA-209-1
52 / 2 .
61.08
TiO2
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Al2O3
23.62
25.55
27.92
23.44
24.55
23.40
23.49
24.22
FeO
0.32
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.33
0.20
0.21
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
CaO
5.15
6.81
9.85
5.23
5.71
4.36
4.88
5.51
Na2O
7.57
6.85
5.35
7.82
7.37
8.05
7.85
7.45
K2 O
0.51
0.35
0.20
0.50
0.47
0.58
0.59
0.54
Total
98.79
98.83
98.83
98.35
98.79
99.13
98.35
99.03
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
205
Sample
Run #
MCTA-209-1
52 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
53 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
53 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
54 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
54 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
55 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
55 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
56 / 2 .
SiO2
60.67
61.35
61.01
60.74
61.10
61.00
60.82
61.20
TiO2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
Al2O3
23.79
24.38
24.55
23.93
24.07
24.05
24.28
23.89
FeO
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.24
0.24
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
CaO
5.44
5.23
5.41
5.57
5.09
5.07
5.37
5.40
Na2O
7.57
7.60
7.59
7.54
7.75
7.79
7.75
7.78
K2 O
0.53
0.58
0.57
0.53
0.55
0.59
0.56
0.54
Total
98.24
99.36
99.37
98.53
98.80
98.69
99.05
99.06
Sample
Run #
MCTA-209-1
56 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
57 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
57 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
58 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
58 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
59 / 1 .
MCTA-209-1
59 / 2 .
MCTA-209-1
68 / 1 .
SiO2
60.94
60.99
61.28
61.23
60.35
55.43
54.85
55.34
TiO2
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04
Al2O3
24.22
23.88
24.04
23.96
23.99
27.53
27.45
27.48
FeO
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.35
0.39
0.35
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.04
CaO
5.38
5.21
5.27
5.06
5.51
9.66
9.87
9.69
Na2O
7.74
7.78
7.64
7.72
7.51
5.62
5.35
5.47
K2 O
0.56
0.54
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.19
0.18
0.20
Total
99.08
98.65
99.00
98.76
98.17
98.85
98.16
98.61
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
MCTA-209-1
MCTA-209-1
MCTA-209-1
MCTA-209-2
MCTA-209-2
MCTA-209-2
MCTA-209-2
MCTA-209-2
206
Run #
68 / 2 .
69 / 2 .
69 / 1 .
60 / 1 .
60 / 2 .
61 / 2 .
61 / 1 .
62 / 1 .
SiO2
55.37
55.42
55.33
61.00
61.25
55.05
55.33
61.04
TiO2
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.02
Al2O3
27.48
27.79
27.39
24.04
23.98
27.65
27.71
24.76
FeO
0.42
0.39
0.40
0.23
0.22
0.40
0.39
0.21
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.00
CaO
9.85
9.74
9.60
5.05
5.48
9.87
9.69
5.37
Na2O
5.27
5.35
5.49
7.60
7.76
5.29
5.47
7.59
K2 O
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.59
0.52
0.16
0.20
0.56
Total
98.67
98.91
98.50
98.51
99.26
98.53
98.89
99.55
Sample
Run #
MCTA-209-2
62 / 2 .
MCTA-209-2
63 / 2 .
MCTA-209-2
63 / 1 .
MCTA-209-2
64 / 1 .
MCTA-209-2
64 / 2 .
MCTA-209-2
65 / 1 .
MCTA-209-2
65 / 2 .
MCTA-209-2
66 / 2 .
SiO2
61.07
61.05
60.60
55.22
55.18
55.61
55.48
55.24
TiO2
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
Al2O3
23.38
24.34
23.90
27.72
27.53
27.49
27.82
28.02
FeO
0.17
0.22
0.16
0.41
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.33
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
CaO
4.85
5.38
5.41
9.74
9.58
9.49
9.74
9.69
Na2O
7.89
7.53
7.57
5.42
5.60
5.53
5.37
5.45
K2 O
0.62
0.54
0.53
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.16
0.16
Total
98.01
99.07
98.19
98.74
98.49
98.72
99.01
98.94
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTA-209-2
66 / 1 .
MCTA-209-2
67 / 2 .
MCTA-209-2
67 / 1 .
MCTB-209-1
70 / 1 .
MCTB-209-1
70 / 2 .
MCTB-209-1
71 / 1 .
MCTB-209-1
71 / 2 .
MCTB-209-1
72 / 2 .
207
SiO2
55.61
55.98
55.44
45.03
45.15
58.93
62.07
45.70
TiO2
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
Al2O3
27.91
27.06
27.31
34.52
34.75
25.52
23.58
34.21
FeO
0.40
0.34
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.22
0.20
0.39
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.10
CaO
9.81
9.33
9.61
17.79
17.81
6.68
4.38
17.61
Na2O
5.35
5.54
5.46
1.16
1.11
6.99
7.79
1.40
K2 O
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.02
0.40
0.74
0.04
Total
99.37
98.51
98.56
99.05
99.36
98.79
98.79
99.46
Sample
Run #
SiO2
MCTB-209-1
72 / 1 .
45.56
MCTB-209-1
73 / 1 .
45.23
MCTB-209-1
73 / 2 .
45.51
MCTB-209-1
74 / 1 .
60.89
MCTB-209-1
74 / 2 .
60.66
MCTB-209-1
75 / 1 .
45.34
MCTB-209-1
75 / 2 .
45.67
MCTB-209-1
76 / 2 .
45.50
TiO2
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
Al2O3
34.57
34.06
34.02
24.21
23.97
34.20
34.17
34.26
FeO
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.23
0.25
0.41
0.41
0.40
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.10
CaO
17.65
17.59
17.44
5.30
5.28
17.36
17.40
17.28
Na2O
1.36
1.33
1.39
7.56
7.44
1.40
1.44
1.42
K2 O
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.54
0.58
0.03
0.03
0.03
Total
99.77
98.79
98.94
98.76
98.20
98.86
99.25
99.01
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
MCTB-209-1
76 / 1 .
45.42
MCTB-209-1
77 / 2 .
45.64
MCTB-209-1
77 / 1 .
45.84
MCTB-209-1
78 / 2 .
45.45
MCTB-209-1
78 / 1 .
45.61
MCTB-209-2
79 / 4 .
46.21
MCTB-209-2
79 / 2 .
45.15
MCTB-209-2
79 / 1 .
46.39
208
TiO2
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
Al2O3
34.27
33.77
34.04
34.10
33.92
33.72
34.62
34.04
FeO
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.46
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.11
0.11
0.12
CaO
17.40
17.38
17.14
17.44
17.46
17.11
17.67
17.06
Na2O
1.37
1.52
1.53
1.36
1.33
1.59
1.25
1.65
K2 O
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
Total
99.05
98.88
99.12
98.87
98.99
99.21
99.32
99.77
Sample
Run #
MCTB-209-2
79 / 3 .
MCTB-209-2
80 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
80 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
81 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
81 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
82 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
82 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
83 / 2 .
SiO2
46.37
56.56
57.13
45.01
45.35
45.87
46.29
45.31
TiO2
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
Al2O3
34.30
26.40
26.16
34.62
34.40
33.92
34.18
34.13
FeO
0.44
0.26
0.31
0.45
0.39
0.40
0.39
0.44
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.09
CaO
16.98
8.62
8.25
17.71
17.70
17.27
17.24
17.54
Na2O
1.61
6.06
6.24
1.28
1.25
1.45
1.60
1.23
K2 O
0.04
0.23
0.22
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
Total
99.87
98.20
98.37
99.23
99.24
99.06
99.88
98.79
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTB-209-2
83 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
84 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
84 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
85 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
85 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
86 / 2 .
MCTB-209-2
86 / 1 .
MCTB-209-2
87 / 5 .
SiO2
45.62
44.89
45.37
56.51
55.35
44.77
45.40
56.78
TiO2
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
209
Al2O3
34.17
34.11
34.60
26.79
27.14
34.28
34.22
26.69
FeO
0.45
0.38
0.38
0.30
0.41
0.40
0.44
0.28
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.10
0.03
CaO
17.64
17.85
17.75
8.85
9.66
17.76
17.58
8.49
Na2O
1.28
1.24
1.25
5.90
5.55
1.28
1.27
6.15
K2 O
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.21
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.21
Total
99.31
98.60
99.45
98.61
98.36
98.66
99.08
98.67
Sample
Run #
MCTB-209-2
87 / 6 .
MCTB-209-2
87 / 7 .
MCTB-209-2
87 / 3 .
MCTB-209-2
87 / 4 .
MCTB-209-2
88 / 3 .
MCTB-209-2
88 / 5 .
MCTB-209-2
88 / 4 .
MCTL-206-1
41 / 1 .
SiO2
54.87
55.25
55.06
56.70
56.29
55.39
56.54
60.56
TiO2
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.00
Al2O3
27.90
28.63
27.41
26.39
26.87
27.77
26.64
24.12
FeO
0.40
0.40
0.36
0.28
0.32
0.44
0.27
0.18
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.01
CaO
9.85
10.28
9.75
8.56
8.89
9.60
8.58
5.51
Na2O
5.39
5.39
5.41
6.18
5.91
5.60
6.13
7.61
K2 O
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.54
Total
98.67
100.20
98.26
98.38
98.56
99.06
98.42
98.52
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTL-206-1
41 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
42 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
42 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
43 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
43 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
44 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
45 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
45 / 2 .
SiO2
60.85
61.13
61.08
61.01
60.58
60.75
61.05
60.68
TiO2
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.02
Al2O3
23.83
24.18
23.78
24.16
23.89
23.98
24.33
24.11
210
FeO
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.26
0.23
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CaO
5.04
5.24
5.09
5.15
5.31
5.19
5.32
5.41
Na2O
7.59
7.54
7.57
7.68
7.49
7.84
7.76
7.44
K2 O
0.57
0.54
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.54
Total
98.17
98.84
98.30
98.76
98.01
98.53
99.28
98.43
Sample
Run #
MCTL-206-1
46 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
46 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
47 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
47 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
48 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
48 / 2 .
MCTL-206-1
49 / 1 .
MCTL-206-1
50 / 2 .
SiO2
60.99
61.37
61.63
62.09
60.81
60.45
61.27
59.51
TiO2
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
Al2O3
24.40
23.29
24.02
23.83
24.31
24.50
23.96
25.40
FeO
0.23
0.21
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.24
0.18
0.22
MnO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MgO
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
CaO
5.33
4.87
4.72
4.87
5.48
5.71
5.29
6.61
Na2O
7.38
7.72
7.87
7.76
7.42
7.58
7.58
7.05
K2 O
0.54
0.57
0.59
0.57
0.53
0.49
0.53
0.38
Total
98.89
98.03
99.09
99.38
98.77
98.99
98.83
99.19
Table 3 (Continued): Unnomalized major element compositions of plagioclase by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTL-206-1
50 / 1 .
SiO2
58.93
TiO2
0.01
Al2O3
25.00
FeO
0.22
211
MnO
0.00
MgO
0.01
CaO
6.70
Na2O
6.97
K2 O
0.36
Total
98.21
Table 4: Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTP_185-1
1/1.
52.86
0.31
1.00
0.00
11.09
0.70
14.46
0.02
18.18
0.42
0.00
99.03
LBTP_185-1
1/2.
53.03
0.33
1.03
0.00
11.35
0.60
14.37
0.03
18.11
0.37
0.00
99.20
LBTP_185-1
2/1.
53.27
0.38
1.29
0.00
11.26
0.58
14.18
0.01
18.06
0.43
0.01
99.48
LBTP_185-1
3/1.
53.15
0.39
1.39
0.00
11.12
0.67
14.04
0.00
18.20
0.39
0.00
99.35
LBTP_185-1
3/2.
52.99
0.26
0.80
0.00
12.06
0.77
14.10
0.00
18.18
0.38
0.01
99.55
LBTP_185-1
4/1.
52.97
0.25
0.82
0.00
11.74
0.79
14.10
0.01
18.29
0.40
0.00
99.38
LBTP_185-1
4/2.
53.18
0.26
0.80
0.00
11.79
0.85
13.92
0.01
18.08
0.39
0.00
99.28
LBTP_185-1
5/1.
52.95
0.23
0.73
0.00
12.06
0.86
13.56
0.00
18.16
0.42
0.01
98.98
212
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTP_185-1
5/2.
53.22
0.22
0.72
0.01
12.24
0.93
13.54
0.00
18.19
0.42
0.00
99.50
LBTP_185-1
6/1.
53.62
0.25
0.71
0.00
12.06
0.88
13.70
0.01
18.04
0.37
0.01
99.65
LBTP_185-1
6/2.
52.92
0.24
0.77
0.00
12.13
0.89
13.75
0.00
17.96
0.40
0.00
99.08
LBTP_185-1
7/1.
52.66
0.28
0.92
0.00
10.87
0.79
14.08
0.00
18.24
0.41
0.00
98.26
LBTP_185-1
7/2.
52.91
0.31
1.00
0.00
11.04
0.86
14.06
0.00
18.21
0.42
0.00
98.81
LBTP_185-1
8/1.
52.82
0.30
0.99
0.02
11.44
0.85
14.14
0.00
18.12
0.43
0.00
99.12
LBTP_185-1
8/2.
52.53
0.34
1.14
0.00
11.54
0.77
14.01
0.01
17.96
0.42
0.01
98.72
LBTP_185-1
10 / 1 .
52.96
0.24
0.76
0.00
11.65
0.86
13.91
0.04
18.11
0.50
0.00
99.03
Table 4 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTP_185-1
10 / 2 .
53.05
0.29
0.90
0.00
11.76
0.77
14.21
0.00
17.80
0.38
0.00
99.17
LBTT_156-1
32 / 1 .
53.46
0.26
0.87
0.00
11.28
0.89
14.39
0.00
18.11
0.44
0.00
99.72
LBTT_156-1
32 / 2 .
52.15
0.50
1.76
0.00
11.74
0.78
13.79
0.00
17.80
0.46
0.01
98.99
LBTT_156-1
33 / 1 .
54.22
0.26
0.83
0.00
11.32
0.78
14.32
0.00
18.32
0.40
0.00
100.44
LBTT_156-1
33 / 2 .
53.82
0.25
0.82
0.00
11.36
0.80
14.37
0.08
18.28
0.38
0.00
100.18
LBTT_156-1
34 / 1 .
53.33
0.27
0.90
0.02
11.33
0.77
14.33
0.01
18.14
0.39
0.00
99.51
LBTT_156-1
34 / 2 .
53.70
0.26
0.88
0.00
11.54
0.94
14.46
0.02
17.82
0.37
0.00
100.00
LBTT_156-1
35 / 1 .
53.53
0.28
0.87
0.00
11.09
0.78
14.34
0.01
17.99
0.43
0.00
99.30
Sample
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
LBTT_156-1
213
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
35 / 2 .
53.76
0.26
0.88
0.01
11.47
0.66
14.47
0.00
18.29
0.42
0.00
100.22
36 / 1 .
53.14
0.34
1.13
0.00
10.86
0.78
14.29
0.00
18.32
0.41
0.00
99.28
36 / 2 .
53.28
0.25
0.85
0.01
11.30
0.53
14.28
0.02
18.35
0.40
0.01
99.27
37 / 1 .
53.80
0.31
1.06
0.01
10.75
0.67
14.58
0.04
18.36
0.43
0.00
100.00
37 / 2 .
53.97
0.26
0.79
0.01
11.51
0.80
14.16
0.00
17.98
0.41
0.01
99.91
38 / 1 .
53.47
0.26
0.68
0.03
13.58
1.08
13.06
0.00
17.40
0.41
0.00
99.96
38 / 2 .
53.16
0.26
0.82
0.00
11.08
0.68
14.10
0.04
18.22
0.37
0.00
98.74
39 / 1 .
51.87
0.42
1.53
0.00
11.20
0.77
14.02
0.04
18.39
0.39
0.01
98.69
Table 4 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTT_156-1
39 / 2 .
53.37
0.27
0.85
0.01
11.25
0.70
14.32
0.01
18.40
0.42
0.02
99.63
LBTT_156-1
40 / 1 .
53.52
0.26
0.91
0.01
11.27
0.80
14.34
0.00
18.18
0.42
0.00
99.72
LBTT_156-1
40 / 2 .
54.07
0.26
0.84
0.01
11.13
0.78
14.28
0.04
18.24
0.37
0.00
100.01
LBTT_185-1
22 / 1 .
53.10
0.23
0.76
0.00
12.03
0.82
13.99
0.00
18.03
0.38
0.01
99.36
LBTT_185-1
22 / 2 .
53.71
0.25
0.82
0.00
11.70
0.81
14.16
0.02
18.05
0.44
0.00
99.96
LBTT_185-1
23 / 1 .
53.74
0.26
0.75
0.00
11.63
0.75
14.21
0.03
18.10
0.41
0.00
99.87
LBTT_185-1
23 / 2 .
52.74
0.25
0.76
0.00
11.64
0.81
14.21
0.00
18.28
0.41
0.04
99.14
LBTT_185-1
24 / 1 .
53.32
0.25
0.81
0.00
11.83
0.89
14.22
0.05
18.11
0.48
0.02
99.96
Sample
Run #
LBTT_185-1
24 / 2 .
LBTT_185-1
25 / 1 .
LBTT_185-1
25 / 2 .
LBTT_185-1
26 / 1 .
LBTT_185-1
26 / 2 .
LBTT_185-1
27 / 1 .
LBTT_185-1
27 / 2 .
LBTT_185-1
28 / 1 .
214
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
52.37
0.26
0.79
0.00
12.32
0.73
14.13
0.00
17.63
0.41
0.00
98.65
53.33
0.24
0.76
0.02
11.42
0.86
14.17
0.00
18.23
0.41
0.00
99.44
53.40
0.27
0.73
0.00
11.24
0.81
14.16
0.10
18.26
0.35
0.00
99.31
53.29
0.23
0.72
0.00
12.02
0.78
13.89
0.00
18.30
0.39
0.00
99.62
52.97
0.29
0.88
0.01
12.34
0.82
13.97
0.01
17.59
0.45
0.01
99.35
53.91
0.26
0.83
0.00
11.87
0.79
14.18
0.08
18.19
0.46
0.00
100.57
54.13
0.26
0.76
0.00
12.26
0.74
13.93
0.00
18.09
0.37
0.00
100.53
53.16
0.26
0.82
0.00
12.60
0.84
13.76
0.00
17.80
0.48
0.00
99.71
Table 4 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTT_185-1
28 / 2 .
53.44
0.25
0.82
0.00
11.10
0.78
14.23
0.00
18.32
0.38
0.00
99.33
LBTT_185-1
30 / 1 .
54.14
0.27
0.87
0.01
11.19
0.76
14.31
0.01
18.36
0.41
0.01
100.34
LBTT_185-1
30 / 2 .
53.38
0.26
0.91
0.00
11.67
0.74
14.22
0.00
18.16
0.38
0.00
99.72
LBTT_185-1
31 / 1 .
53.45
0.29
0.89
0.01
11.74
0.84
13.84
0.00
18.27
0.44
0.00
99.76
LBTT_185-1
31 / 2 .
52.58
0.33
1.05
0.00
11.75
0.77
13.56
0.00
18.04
0.47
0.00
98.55
LBTT_185-2
41 / 1 .
52.50
0.41
1.36
0.00
11.91
0.79
13.60
0.00
18.03
0.47
0.02
99.09
LBTT_185-2
41 / 2 .
53.48
0.27
0.87
0.00
11.02
0.79
14.54
0.01
18.39
0.42
0.00
99.79
LBTT_185-2
42 / 1 .
52.17
0.96
3.18
0.01
8.80
0.31
15.64
0.00
18.40
0.42
0.00
99.89
Sample
Run #
SiO2
LBTT_185-2
42 / 2 .
52.52
MCTA_209-1
11 / 1 .
52.18
MCTA_209-1
11 / 2 .
51.95
MCTB_209-1
43 / 1 .
52.83
MCTB_209-1
43 / 2 .
52.07
MCTB_209-1
44 / 1 .
53.10
MCTB_209-1
44 / 2 .
53.32
MCTB_209-1
46 / 1 .
52.81
215
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
0.77
2.60
0.03
7.72
0.29
15.93
0.00
19.30
0.38
0.00
99.54
0.63
2.19
0.00
11.64
0.55
14.33
0.01
17.45
0.32
0.00
99.31
0.68
2.28
0.00
12.47
0.71
14.52
0.00
16.45
0.33
0.00
99.39
0.66
2.12
0.01
9.28
0.39
16.62
0.00
17.31
0.30
0.00
99.53
0.76
2.91
0.06
8.24
0.21
15.94
0.00
18.43
0.39
0.00
99.02
0.66
3.08
0.23
6.84
0.19
16.18
0.05
19.36
0.30
0.01
99.99
0.47
2.72
0.46
5.84
0.14
16.98
0.00
19.00
0.30
0.01
99.24
0.55
2.28
0.08
7.25
0.35
16.47
0.00
18.96
0.32
0.02
99.10
Table 4 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
MCTB_209-1
46 / 2 .
53.51
0.53
2.24
0.04
7.04
0.19
16.44
0.00
19.15
0.36
0.01
99.50
MCTB_209-1
47 / 1 .
50.77
0.98
3.62
0.09
8.34
0.25
15.54
0.04
18.41
0.36
0.00
98.74
MCTB_209-1
47 / 2 .
50.99
0.98
3.59
0.09
8.56
0.19
15.52
0.00
18.46
0.32
0.00
98.69
MCTB_209-1
48 / 1 .
51.98
0.93
3.64
0.17
8.19
0.24
15.37
0.00
18.57
0.33
0.03
99.45
MCTB_209-1
48 / 2 .
51.39
0.94
3.58
0.19
8.01
0.26
15.28
0.00
18.66
0.36
0.00
98.68
MCTB_209-1
50 / 1 .
51.87
0.84
2.90
0.03
8.85
0.32
15.26
0.00
18.89
0.40
0.02
99.37
MCTB_209-1
50 / 2 .
53.32
0.53
1.82
0.01
10.43
0.45
14.99
0.00
18.08
0.36
0.01
99.99
MCTB_209-1
51 / 1 .
51.73
0.63
2.22
0.00
9.88
0.43
15.24
0.00
18.13
0.36
0.00
98.62
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
MCTB_209-1
51 / 2 .
51.31
0.98
MCTB_209-2
52 / 1 .
52.41
0.63
MCTB_209-2
52 / 2 .
51.77
0.82
MCTB_209-2
53 / 1 .
52.87
0.53
MCTB_209-2
53 / 2 .
51.98
0.83
MCTB_209-2
54 / 1 .
51.91
0.66
MCTB_209-2
54 / 2 .
51.78
0.84
MCTB_209-2
55 / 1 .
50.53
0.72
216
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
3.28
0.02
9.10
0.34
15.40
0.06
17.80
0.36
0.01
98.66
2.99
0.15
7.59
0.24
15.85
0.00
19.17
0.31
0.01
99.33
3.66
0.27
7.56
0.30
15.64
0.00
18.93
0.36
0.00
99.31
1.77
0.00
8.57
0.39
16.53
0.00
17.76
0.28
0.00
98.70
2.94
0.06
8.36
0.30
15.62
0.00
18.74
0.44
0.01
99.27
2.60
0.01
9.99
0.56
14.91
0.02
18.08
0.37
0.01
99.13
2.92
0.03
8.89
0.38
15.45
0.05
18.28
0.35
0.00
98.98
3.89
0.37
5.97
0.24
15.92
0.00
19.48
0.33
0.00
98.11
Table 4 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of clinopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
MCTB_209-2
55 / 2 .
52.94
0.51
2.71
0.14
7.08
0.24
16.53
0.06
18.98
0.30
0.00
99.47
MCTB_209-2
56 / 1 .
52.64
0.71
2.49
0.01
9.74
0.46
14.98
0.05
18.23
0.36
0.00
99.68
MCTB_209-2
56 / 2 .
51.57
0.35
1.44
0.01
13.31
0.70
12.78
0.00
17.73
0.31
0.00
98.21
MCTB_209-2
57 / 1 .
52.04
0.76
3.74
0.33
7.06
0.28
15.83
0.01
19.10
0.30
0.00
99.45
MCTB_209-2
57 / 2 .
51.59
0.84
2.97
0.00
9.26
0.34
15.42
0.00
17.98
0.35
0.00
98.76
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
MCTB_209-2
59 / 2 .
51.88
0.79
2.62
MCTB_209-2
60 / 1 .
52.23
0.41
1.52
MCTB_209-2
60 / 2 .
51.68
0.67
2.34
MCTL_206-1
21 / 1 .
52.51
0.58
2.71
MCTL_206-1
21 / 2 .
52.58
0.58
2.77
MCTB_209-2
58 / 1 .
51.88
0.82
2.95
0.04
8.35
0.19
15.65
0.00
18.69
0.34
0.01
98.92
MCTB_209-2
58 / 2 .
51.38
0.93
3.33
0.04
8.15
0.16
15.53
0.04
18.87
0.37
0.02
98.82
MCTB_209-2
59 / 1 .
51.56
0.48
1.79
0.02
12.87
0.72
14.74
0.00
16.03
0.35
0.02
98.73
217
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
0.00
9.31
0.35
15.38
0.02
18.30
0.36
0.00
99.01
0.00
13.87
0.70
14.00
0.09
16.58
0.33
0.02
99.74
0.00
10.48
0.45
15.16
0.02
17.60
0.38
0.02
98.79
0.09
7.54
0.20
16.18
0.02
19.25
0.27
0.02
99.37
0.04
7.59
0.28
16.19
0.00
19.13
0.29
0.00
99.45
Table 5: Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTP_185-1
1/1.
53.00
0.00
0.33
1.33
23.69
0.17
19.81
0.00
1.56
0.03
0.01
99.92
LBTP_185-1
1/2.
52.48
0.00
0.32
1.30
23.80
0.16
19.79
0.00
1.57
0.03
0.01
99.46
LBTP_185-1
10 / 1 .
52.50
0.00
0.76
1.20
21.70
0.22
21.80
0.00
0.98
0.02
0.00
99.18
LBTP_185-1
10 / 2 .
54.24
0.02
0.61
1.23
20.98
0.19
22.63
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.00
100.99
LBTP_185-1
2/1.
53.42
0.00
0.34
1.32
23.44
0.17
20.16
0.00
1.55
0.03
0.02
100.46
LBTP_185-1
2/2.
53.27
0.03
0.35
1.58
23.03
0.16
19.93
0.00
1.50
0.04
0.00
99.89
LBTP_185-1
2/2.
52.40
0.31
0.91
0.02
23.29
1.33
20.42
0.00
1.45
0.01
0.00
100.19
LBTP_185-1
3/1.
52.59
0.06
0.39
1.29
23.25
0.18
20.27
0.01
1.43
0.02
0.00
99.49
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
LBTP_185-1
3/2.
53.01
0.08
0.71
1.54
LBTP_185-1
4/1.
52.65
0.00
0.36
1.31
LBTP_185-1
4/2.
53.97
0.01
0.57
1.03
LBTP_185-1
5/1.
51.85
0.00
0.51
1.56
LBTP_185-1
5/2.
52.07
0.00
0.41
1.35
LBTP_185-1
6/1.
53.32
0.00
0.76
1.42
LBTP_185-1
6/2.
52.71
0.00
0.92
1.46
LBTP_185-1
7/1.
52.31
0.07
0.31
1.35
218
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
22.88
0.25
20.41
0.02
1.29
0.02
0.00
100.22
24.10
0.17
19.89
0.00
1.32
0.05
0.00
99.86
18.33
0.18
24.13
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.01
99.30
25.23
0.25
18.48
0.00
1.60
0.04
0.02
99.54
25.01
0.16
19.07
0.01
1.63
0.01
0.01
99.74
20.99
0.25
22.48
0.01
1.08
0.03
0.00
100.33
22.27
0.27
20.96
0.00
1.36
0.04
0.01
99.99
24.00
0.17
20.05
0.02
1.52
0.04
0.00
99.83
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTP_185-1
7/2.
52.77
0.00
0.68
1.32
24.11
0.26
19.70
0.01
1.23
0.04
0.01
100.13
LBTP_185-1
8/1.
52.00
0.04
0.65
1.37
24.39
0.23
19.57
0.00
1.45
0.08
0.02
99.79
LBTP_185-1
8/2.
52.85
0.07
0.39
1.30
24.00
0.15
19.85
0.00
1.47
0.01
0.00
100.09
LBTP_185-1
9/1.
51.96
0.00
0.29
1.34
25.27
0.16
19.24
0.00
1.52
0.02
0.00
99.80
LBTP_185-1
9/2.
53.33
0.00
0.35
1.39
24.10
0.18
19.69
0.00
1.33
0.04
0.01
100.43
LBTP_185-1
9/1.
53.51
0.30
1.16
0.00
21.40
0.96
22.46
0.00
1.24
0.05
0.00
101.25
LBTP_185-1
9/2.
54.15
0.25
1.02
0.00
19.27
0.80
23.79
0.00
1.28
0.02
0.01
100.58
LBTT_156-1
27 / 1 .
53.46
0.05
0.25
1.30
24.46
0.15
19.19
0.01
1.55
0.04
0.00
100.46
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
LBTT_156-1
27 / 2 .
53.24
0.00
0.28
1.34
24.37
LBTT_156-1
36 / 1 .
52.34
0.01
0.30
1.21
24.92
LBTT_156-1
36 / 2 .
52.13
0.02
0.35
1.32
23.13
LBTT_156-1
28 / 1 .
52.93
0.02
0.37
1.34
23.26
LBTT_156-1
28 / 2 .
53.38
0.00
0.39
1.31
23.48
LBTT_156-1
29 / 1 .
52.99
0.00
0.32
1.33
24.47
LBTT_156-1
29 / 2 .
52.93
0.00
0.41
1.33
24.46
LBTT_156-1
30 / 1 .
53.55
0.00
0.33
1.30
23.27
219
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
0.14
19.87
0.00
1.57
0.04
0.01
100.86
0.15
19.40
0.00
1.70
0.04
0.00
100.06
0.16
20.55
0.00
1.38
0.03
0.00
99.07
0.17
20.33
0.01
1.46
0.04
0.01
99.95
0.16
19.99
0.00
1.23
0.01
0.00
99.95
0.16
19.73
0.04
1.58
0.04
0.00
100.66
0.17
19.33
0.02
1.52
0.04
0.00
100.20
0.17
20.70
0.01
1.34
0.04
0.00
100.71
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTT_156-1
30 / 2 .
52.33
0.00
0.61
1.23
24.95
0.29
19.08
0.00
1.50
0.04
0.00
100.02
LBTT_156-1
31 / 1 .
53.14
0.00
0.29
1.22
24.80
0.13
19.40
0.00
1.56
0.01
0.00
100.57
LBTT_156-1
31 / 2 .
53.19
0.02
0.29
1.27
25.08
0.14
19.54
0.00
1.57
0.02
0.00
101.11
LBTT_156-1
32 / 1 .
52.35
0.00
0.81
1.60
24.11
0.26
19.80
0.01
1.38
0.03
0.00
100.35
LBTT_156-1
32 / 2 .
52.89
0.04
0.39
1.31
23.95
0.16
20.50
0.03
1.39
0.06
0.00
100.72
LBTT_156-1
33 / 1 .
52.67
0.00
0.37
1.28
23.40
0.17
20.47
0.01
1.21
0.04
0.00
99.60
LBTT_156-1
33 / 2 .
54.38
0.00
1.07
1.46
19.24
0.32
23.44
0.01
1.14
0.02
0.01
101.09
LBTT_156-1
34 / 1 .
53.09
0.04
0.93
1.37
22.64
0.27
20.79
0.02
1.35
0.07
0.01
100.56
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
LBTT_156-1
34 / 2 .
52.79
0.06
0.33
1.27
24.61
0.15
LBTT_156-1
35 / 1 .
52.67
0.03
0.45
1.30
24.56
0.19
LBTT_156-1
35 / 2 .
52.93
0.07
0.41
1.31
22.87
0.18
LBTT_185-1
18 / 1 .
52.32
0.00
0.34
1.24
25.58
0.15
LBTT_185-1
18 / 2 .
53.41
0.03
0.26
1.30
24.90
0.15
LBTT_185-1
19 / 1 .
52.95
0.00
0.31
1.30
23.74
0.15
LBTT_185-1
19 / 2 .
53.28
0.00
0.49
1.29
24.05
0.19
LBTT_185-1
20 / 1 .
52.59
0.00
0.36
1.33
23.87
0.16
220
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
19.49
0.00
1.49
0.05
0.03
100.27
19.42
0.01
1.45
0.03
0.00
100.12
20.27
0.01
1.51
0.02
0.00
99.58
18.95
0.01
1.65
0.04
0.00
100.28
19.30
0.00
1.56
0.04
0.01
100.96
20.22
0.00
1.52
0.02
0.00
100.21
20.07
0.00
1.56
0.02
0.00
100.95
20.35
0.01
1.44
0.03
0.00
100.14
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTT_185-1
20 / 2 .
54.47
0.08
1.22
1.30
19.04
0.29
23.87
0.00
0.83
0.02
0.00
101.11
LBTT_185-1
21 / 1 .
53.63
0.00
0.38
1.39
22.89
0.17
20.87
0.00
1.24
0.06
0.00
100.63
LBTT_185-1
21 / 2 .
53.25
0.00
1.54
1.16
20.75
0.34
22.50
0.02
1.13
0.03
0.00
100.72
LBTT_185-1
22 / 1 .
53.52
0.02
1.22
1.41
19.17
0.30
23.81
0.00
0.91
0.03
0.00
100.40
LBTT_185-1
22 / 2 .
52.71
0.00
0.38
1.33
24.87
0.17
19.21
0.01
1.49
0.04
0.00
100.21
LBTT_185-1
23 / 1 .
53.00
0.00
0.35
1.31
23.60
0.17
20.19
0.00
1.39
0.00
0.00
100.01
LBTT_185-1
23 / 2 .
53.29
0.02
0.97
1.35
21.09
0.26
22.16
0.01
1.14
0.04
0.01
100.35
LBTT_185-1
24 / 1 .
53.52
0.00
1.03
1.30
19.83
0.26
23.28
0.00
1.00
0.03
0.01
100.26
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
LBTT_185-1
24 / 2 .
53.87
0.00
1.13
1.26
20.80
0.28
22.70
LBTT_185-1
25 / 1 .
52.91
0.01
1.29
1.31
22.38
0.28
20.95
LBTT_185-1
25 / 2 .
52.84
0.00
0.66
1.28
22.82
0.19
21.12
LBTT_185-1
29 / 1 .
53.76
0.18
0.42
0.00
23.25
1.41
21.18
LBTT_185-1
29 / 2 .
53.67
0.17
0.38
0.00
23.26
1.63
20.89
LBTT_185-1
26 / 1 .
54.62
0.03
1.08
1.32
18.41
0.26
24.59
LBTT_185-1
26 / 2 .
53.44
0.08
0.35
1.27
23.51
0.16
19.68
LBTT_185-2
37 / 1 .
52.87
0.00
0.49
1.28
22.93
0.19
21.11
221
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
0.00
1.10
0.05
0.01
101.20
0.01
1.28
0.05
0.02
100.48
0.00
1.25
0.05
0.01
100.23
0.00
1.35
0.05
0.01
102.68
0.03
1.29
0.04
0.02
101.37
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
101.12
0.01
1.33
0.00
0.00
99.83
0.00
1.31
0.02
0.00
100.20
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
LBTT_185-2
37 / 2 .
52.53
0.00
0.62
1.27
22.59
0.20
21.18
0.01
1.36
0.03
0.00
99.80
LBTT_185-2
38 / 1 .
52.50
0.00
0.90
1.64
23.23
0.27
20.23
0.00
1.25
0.03
0.00
100.06
LBTT_185-2
38 / 2 .
52.54
0.00
0.34
1.32
24.57
0.16
19.37
0.02
1.66
0.02
0.02
100.02
LBTT_185-2
39 / 1 .
53.49
0.00
0.45
1.36
23.36
0.17
20.96
0.00
1.29
0.01
0.00
101.09
LBTT_185-2
39 / 2 .
53.91
0.02
0.59
1.33
22.93
0.22
20.77
0.00
1.27
0.04
0.01
101.09
LBTT_185-2
40 / 1 .
54.44
0.00
0.75
1.27
18.76
0.24
24.30
0.00
0.96
0.03
0.00
100.75
LBTT_185-2
40 / 2 .
54.73
0.00
0.74
1.31
18.99
0.24
24.67
0.00
0.71
0.01
0.00
101.39
LBTT_185-2
41 / 1 .
53.16
0.02
0.45
1.26
22.55
0.17
21.44
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.02
100.40
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
LBTT_185-2
41 / 2 .
53.54
0.00
0.76
1.29
21.84
0.24
21.58
0.01
LBTT_185-2
42 / 1 .
53.10
0.03
0.39
1.30
22.53
0.16
21.01
0.00
LBTT_185-2
42 / 2 .
52.85
0.01
0.90
1.24
22.98
0.25
20.78
0.01
LBTT_185-2
43 / 1 .
53.21
0.00
0.30
1.39
23.34
0.15
20.07
0.01
LBTT_185-2
43 / 2 .
53.25
0.00
0.27
1.32
23.05
0.14
20.42
0.02
LBTT_185-2
44 / 1 .
53.70
0.01
1.08
1.34
16.88
0.31
25.83
0.00
LBTT_185-2
44 / 2 .
53.63
0.00
1.20
1.31
18.24
0.30
24.67
0.01
MCTA_209-1
12 / 1 .
53.13
0.30
1.12
0.01
21.01
0.93
22.43
0.00
222
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
1.25
0.03
0.00
100.54
1.28
0.04
0.00
99.83
1.10
0.02
0.01
100.16
1.61
0.04
0.00
100.12
1.47
0.03
0.01
99.97
0.64
0.04
0.00
100.32
0.73
0.03
0.01
100.12
1.44
0.00
0.01
101.30
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
MCTA_209-1
12 / 2 .
52.92
0.30
1.04
0.00
20.56
0.88
22.48
0.04
1.40
0.04
0.00
100.10
MCTA_209-2
13 / 1 .
54.41
0.41
1.43
0.00
16.15
0.55
26.13
0.00
1.60
0.02
0.00
100.83
MCTA_209-2
14 / 1 .
53.60
0.03
0.75
1.34
21.97
0.21
21.68
0.00
0.93
0.03
0.00
100.55
MCTA_209-2
14 / 2 .
52.72
0.06
1.01
1.43
21.28
0.29
22.01
0.02
0.90
0.05
0.00
99.76
MCTA_209-2
15 / 1 .
54.25
0.03
1.59
2.10
17.16
0.40
24.06
0.00
0.56
0.04
0.00
100.20
MCTA_209-2
15 / 2 .
53.58
0.03
1.46
1.84
18.26
0.38
23.49
0.00
0.67
0.02
0.00
99.73
MCTA_209-2
16 / 1 .
50.95
0.02
3.03
17.69
9.95
0.88
14.47
0.00
0.43
0.35
0.01
97.79
MCTA_209-2
16 / 2 .
51.10
0.04
2.90
18.22
9.31
0.86
14.60
0.00
0.36
0.37
0.00
97.76
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
MCTA_209-2
17 / 1 .
52.63
0.02
0.79
1.42
21.47
0.24
21.30
0.00
1.00
MCTA_209-2
17 / 2 .
52.94
0.00
0.78
1.39
22.20
0.24
21.44
0.00
0.85
MCTB_209-1
45 / 1 .
54.62
0.04
1.13
1.49
17.17
0.32
25.26
0.01
0.80
MCTB_209-1
45 / 2 .
55.19
0.01
1.08
1.48
15.99
0.31
25.50
0.00
0.63
MCTB_209-1
45 / 1 .
53.08
0.24
0.77
0.01
18.69
0.78
23.67
0.04
1.45
MCTB_209-1
45 / 2 .
54.78
0.30
1.04
0.00
17.63
0.52
25.52
0.04
1.42
MCTB_209-1
49 / 1 .
54.56
0.33
1.14
0.00
17.22
0.73
25.51
0.00
1.50
MCTB_209-1
49 / 2 .
55.07
0.32
1.16
0.01
16.81
0.66
25.57
0.00
1.39
223
Na2O
K2 O
total
0.01
0.01
98.89
0.03
0.01
99.88
0.05
0.00
100.91
0.04
0.00
100.21
0.01
0.02
100.47
0.05
0.00
101.52
0.04
0.00
101.28
0.01
0.00
101.01
Table 5 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of orthopyroxene by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Cr2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
NiO
CaO
Na2O
K2 O
total
MCTL_206-1
19 / 1 .
54.78
0.32
1.11
0.00
18.29
0.80
24.60
0.04
1.40
0.01
0.00
101.35
MCTL_206-1
20 / 1 .
54.90
0.32
0.88
0.04
15.80
0.41
26.23
0.05
1.93
0.02
0.00
100.58
MCTL_206-1
11 / 1 .
54.38
0.03
1.14
1.42
18.20
0.31
24.12
0.00
0.81
0.03
0.01
100.44
MCTL_206-1
12 / 1 .
54.60
0.05
0.90
1.93
15.60
0.32
25.70
0.07
0.41
0.05
0.00
99.62
MCTL_206-1
13 / 1 .
51.25
0.05
3.20
18.92
7.82
0.64
15.74
0.12
0.23
0.34
0.00
98.32
MCTL_206-1
13 / 2 .
52.04
0.01
2.69
18.81
7.44
0.56
15.97
0.06
0.21
0.29
0.00
98.07
Table 6: Unnomalized major element coompositions of olivine by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
SiO2
MCTB_209-1
4/1.
MCTB_209-1
4/2.
MCTB_209-1
5/2.
MCTB_209-1
5/1.
MCTB_209-1
6/2.
MCTB_209-1
6/3.
MCTB_209-1
6/1.
MCTB_209-1
7/2.
39.59
39.92
39.48
39.73
39.78
39.61
39.90
39.65
224
TiO2
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
Al2O3
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.03
Cr2O3
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
FeO
15.51
15.65
16.84
16.61
15.77
15.97
15.88
15.79
MnO
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.25
MgO
43.30
43.46
42.67
42.96
43.49
43.52
43.62
43.39
CaO
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
total
98.84
99.53
99.48
99.85
99.47
99.52
99.90
99.30
MCTB_209-1
7/3.
MCTB_209-1
7/1.
MCTB_209-1
8/2.
MCTB_209-1
8/3.
MCTB_209-1
8/1.
MCTB_209-1
9/3.
MCTB_209-1
9/2.
MCTB_209-1
9/1.
SiO2
40.02
39.87
39.23
39.58
40.33
39.83
39.59
39.86
TiO2
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
Al2O3
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.02
Sample
Run #
Cr2O3
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
FeO
15.37
15.71
15.70
16.10
15.42
15.61
15.83
15.76
MnO
0.24
0.23
0.18
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.24
MgO
43.57
44.06
43.31
43.39
43.56
43.38
43.55
43.54
CaO
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
total
99.45
100.11
98.65
99.54
99.77
99.29
99.49
99.60
Table 6 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of olivine by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTB_209-1
10 / 1 .
MCTB_209-1
10 / 2 .
MCTB_209-1
10 / 3 .
MCTB_209-1
11 / 3 .
MCTB_209-1
11 / 1 .
MCTB_209-1
11 / 2 .
MCTB_209-1
12 / 3 .
MCTB_209-1
12 / 2 .
SiO2
39.36
39.69
41.35
39.60
39.44
39.48
39.31
39.62
TiO2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
Al2O3
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
225
Cr2O3
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.02
FeO
15.80
15.70
15.70
15.65
15.93
15.74
15.67
15.55
MnO
0.19
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.22
0.21
0.24
MgO
43.45
43.54
43.86
43.53
43.52
43.75
43.73
43.59
CaO
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
total
99.02
99.37
101.49
99.19
99.35
99.44
99.20
99.23
MCTB_209-1
12 / 1 .
MCTB_209-1
13 / 1 .
MCTB_209-1
13 / 3 .
MCTB_209-1
13 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
14 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
14 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
15 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
16 / 2 .
SiO2
39.57
39.44
39.86
39.48
39.53
40.02
39.66
39.63
TiO2
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
Al2O3
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
Cr2O3
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.01
FeO
15.80
15.72
15.50
15.64
16.25
16.16
16.27
16.01
Sample
Run #
MnO
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.19
0.25
0.26
MgO
43.59
43.44
43.31
43.56
43.37
43.83
43.55
43.17
CaO
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
total
99.43
99.04
99.16
99.18
99.67
100.46
99.97
99.30
Table 6 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of olivine by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTB_209-2
16 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
17 / 3 .
MCTB_209-2
17 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
17 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
18 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
18 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
19 / 3 .
MCTB_209-2
19 / 1 .
SiO2
39.73
39.21
39.09
39.52
39.36
39.47
39.55
39.35
TiO2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Al2O3
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
Cr2O3
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
FeO
16.26
18.22
18.22
18.24
18.26
18.43
15.93
15.98
226
MnO
0.25
0.24
0.31
0.27
0.30
0.29
0.21
0.21
MgO
43.42
41.81
41.94
42.17
41.14
41.45
42.88
43.08
CaO
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.16
total
99.88
99.73
99.80
100.44
99.33
99.90
98.81
98.85
MCTB_209-2
19 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
20 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
20 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
21 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
21 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
22 / 2 .
MCTB_209-2
22 / 1 .
MCTB_209-2
23 / 2 .
SiO2
39.47
38.93
39.30
39.55
39.28
39.66
40.35
39.10
TiO2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
Al2O3
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
Sample
Run #
Cr2O3
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
FeO
16.49
17.12
17.20
15.94
16.32
17.68
17.82
17.56
MnO
0.23
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.27
0.25
0.27
MgO
43.25
42.35
42.03
42.99
43.12
41.68
42.76
41.57
CaO
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.18
total
99.67
98.93
99.03
98.98
99.16
99.56
101.44
98.76
Table 6 (Continued): Unnomalized major element coompositions of olivine by EMPA.
Sample
Run #
MCTB_209-2
23 / 1 .
SiO2
39.39
TiO2
0.00
Al2O3
0.04
Cr2O3
0.04
FeO
17.98
MnO
0.29
MgO
41.83
227
CaO
0.18
total
99.76
228
APPENDIX G
LA-ICP-MS Data
229
Table 1: Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
LBTP_185-1
1-1.
16.28
340173.90
10638.21
17.72
2864.49
4.70
699.34
1.39
55.12
118.12
80.00
779.88
22.54
2.58
1065.48
1000.72
45.00
75.36
10.98
49.89
11.24
1.81
11.22
12.66
9.52
9.74
13.88
8.73
1.97
LBTP_185-1
1-2.
13.65
340173.90
10445.58
18.02
3031.59
5.21
677.04
No_Data
54.48
116.85
70.65
730.36
22.18
2.33
965.57
901.08
40.89
67.68
10.10
44.63
11.21
1.63
11.28
12.22
8.62
8.54
12.32
7.89
1.77
LBTP_185-1
1-3.
8.49
339472.70
10842.79
18.60
3044.14
5.28
669.88
1.77
58.01
125.99
86.86
817.26
22.52
2.39
1003.25
1064.94
55.82
81.35
13.56
59.82
14.18
2.20
15.92
15.69
10.26
9.91
15.11
10.65
1.80
LBTP_185-1
1-4.
7.53
339472.70
11018.90
18.62
3209.23
5.99
667.24
No_Data
56.62
125.97
79.66
879.91
24.54
2.28
970.49
1015.72
45.90
69.78
10.87
49.81
11.74
1.77
12.87
13.77
9.23
8.74
13.36
9.67
2.01
LBTP_185-1
2-1.
6.88
341529.54
10916.25
20.08
3051.01
4.71
669.46
No_Data
62.44
122.02
82.13
769.57
20.80
2.47
980.24
1011.68
53.61
70.46
12.23
55.29
13.13
2.17
12.81
13.99
8.73
10.43
13.46
9.52
1.88
LBTP_185-1
2-2.
11.38
341529.54
11155.20
19.01
3393.82
5.67
688.12
3.05
53.93
121.82
75.90
892.10
24.81
2.30
1031.90
1004.66
50.04
73.04
11.65
53.86
12.25
1.82
13.43
13.44
9.08
9.37
12.87
8.72
1.99
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
LBTP_185-1
2-3.
8.00
341529.54
9936.54
16.83
2714.83
LBTP_185-1
2-4.
9.29
341529.54
11413.10
22.55
3578.32
LBTP_185-1
3-1.
6.38
341529.54
11423.07
19.31
3442.67
LBTP_185-1
3-2.
12.98
341529.54
9998.78
15.98
2881.93
LBTP_185-1
3-3.
6.16
341529.54
10681.06
17.32
2834.76
LBTP_185-1
4-4.
13.83
341529.54
17280.74
19.96
3167.01
230
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
4.63
623.60
2.77
52.76
113.38
72.57
739.51
22.53
2.34
913.86
874.67
40.74
64.41
9.79
44.64
10.05
1.59
10.53
11.39
8.11
8.12
13.55
7.77
1.85
6.25
593.79
1.79
56.60
131.41
77.67
959.63
27.03
2.14
874.63
946.09
43.68
67.09
10.46
46.91
10.86
1.67
13.31
13.63
8.32
9.17
13.52
9.96
1.97
5.95
586.47
0.91
56.65
125.61
85.47
874.55
25.41
2.12
872.73
926.96
60.10
61.33
13.67
61.52
14.95
2.08
14.34
15.11
10.08
7.93
12.88
10.53
1.75
4.51
697.17
0.73
56.93
114.96
65.64
652.19
20.99
2.43
1034.94
965.41
41.48
66.90
9.90
44.24
10.57
1.82
10.55
11.18
7.66
7.83
13.30
7.16
1.71
5.35
658.92
No_Data
53.98
122.26
76.68
752.35
22.09
2.14
953.45
974.76
42.28
65.59
10.52
44.90
11.23
1.65
11.46
13.04
8.56
8.18
17.03
7.93
1.75
6.82
724.43
No_Data
63.36
207.35
90.96
846.85
22.75
3.33
1091.10
1069.89
53.89
78.34
12.26
52.81
12.85
1.99
13.77
14.90
9.95
9.69
14.13
10.17
1.93
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
LBTP_185-1
4-1.
13.75
346811.89
6213.69
11.78
2382.80
4.65
639.33
1.14
58.12
59.04
40.41
435.51
20.91
LBTP_185-1
4-2.
14.17
346811.89
8836.40
16.70
2754.68
4.03
655.21
2.95
63.59
91.81
77.16
740.05
24.09
LBTP_185-1
4-3.
18.95
344661.56
7045.41
11.77
2697.97
4.61
681.23
0.79
55.81
76.35
39.45
414.37
21.98
LBTP_185-1
4-4.
10.05
344661.56
9968.62
16.18
2530.29
3.83
650.43
1.36
59.35
110.27
70.34
657.13
19.61
LBTP_185-1
5-1.
10.00
344053.85
12922.64
19.47
3271.74
5.38
710.85
1.49
58.49
134.02
90.88
929.09
25.64
LBTP_185-1
5-2.
11.22
344053.85
12381.31
22.17
3899.85
6.33
525.36
2.40
55.72
123.62
88.88
1017.27
27.62
231
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
2.78
741.13
786.10
26.96
65.15
7.46
31.69
6.75
1.09
6.77
6.96
4.99
4.88
16.39
5.16
2.15
2.73
1084.51
970.94
47.17
76.74
12.19
51.93
12.39
1.66
12.87
13.87
9.54
9.21
15.27
8.67
2.16
2.63
847.66
805.29
26.82
65.45
7.69
30.29
6.94
1.15
7.00
7.01
4.87
4.77
13.13
5.38
2.16
2.66
1032.71
983.74
38.87
65.74
9.62
45.03
11.53
1.62
11.56
11.80
8.67
9.68
12.90
7.40
1.75
2.62
1128.78
1128.83
55.95
78.02
14.99
59.57
13.77
2.15
15.32
15.63
11.03
10.33
14.79
12.07
2.17
2.11
861.49
885.65
57.54
61.16
14.12
64.93
14.30
2.08
15.48
14.37
9.54
9.79
12.32
12.95
1.84
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
LBTP_185-1
5-3.
8.32
343586.39
11793.38
20.93
3396.43
5.30
661.68
No_Data
62.02
124.67
88.99
937.38
26.15
2.48
1027.13
1062.80
53.24
69.69
13.13
57.73
12.39
LBTP_185-1
5-4.
11.04
343586.39
11266.30
20.56
3225.71
4.64
707.01
No_Data
62.87
126.04
92.96
928.42
24.98
2.99
1164.63
1190.57
53.36
78.54
13.17
63.24
13.81
LBTT_183-2
1-1.
10.02
342090.50
8221.92
16.49
2923.11
4.55
418.69
1.87
61.60
85.64
88.66
874.74
23.48
2.83
1028.40
1056.52
49.13
80.03
11.59
52.58
11.27
LBTT_183-2
1-2.
7.65
342090.50
8089.00
19.96
2844.62
4.14
374.04
No_Data
58.26
85.62
82.42
903.03
24.04
2.51
902.58
917.09
43.72
70.57
10.58
46.90
10.64
LBTT_183-2
1-3.
12.58
335919.97
9979.26
20.05
3022.45
7.07
526.13
0.99
53.56
100.50
79.15
888.79
22.86
2.33
892.74
929.40
44.34
69.74
10.72
46.17
10.62
LBTT_183-2
1-4.
13.58
335919.97
9459.94
17.33
2672.20
19.54
629.13
1.97
52.39
92.96
70.55
755.48
21.13
2.53
823.41
852.58
38.99
60.78
9.69
40.05
9.62
232
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
1.93
14.25
14.45
9.96
10.30
12.65
11.44
1.89
1.92
14.06
15.75
10.95
11.01
16.61
11.73
2.08
1.40
12.29
13.42
10.46
10.62
11.16
9.88
2.24
1.37
11.46
12.99
8.70
8.98
8.76
9.21
1.97
1.69
12.37
13.41
8.75
8.92
10.54
9.29
1.79
1.36
10.38
11.02
8.10
8.27
15.30
7.86
1.62
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
LBTT_183-2
2-2.
14.25
335919.97
9132.99
19.00
2909.54
5.66
476.57
0.03
57.47
108.97
78.18
787.64
22.62
2.79
994.49
936.36
45.86
74.08
11.12
49.02
11.49
1.68
12.53
12.92
9.49
9.34
10.39
9.19
2.09
LBTT_183-2
2-3.
17.26
335919.97
11341.25
24.04
3246.88
7.69
413.67
2.24
47.43
97.77
54.35
898.31
23.30
2.25
644.87
663.33
30.96
44.70
7.43
34.58
8.03
1.23
8.23
8.46
6.39
7.01
10.20
8.86
1.52
LBTT_183-2
2-4.
16.41
335919.97
9358.04
20.67
3074.67
5.03
479.29
1.93
53.53
110.31
75.09
869.29
22.78
2.34
939.14
886.55
42.10
69.41
9.96
45.05
10.81
1.54
11.96
13.02
8.02
8.84
11.66
8.98
1.99
LBTT_183-2
3-1.
20.61
336060.21
8651.37
14.17
3303.98
8.32
604.55
2.22
61.27
86.52
49.93
588.00
25.05
3.01
974.07
900.59
34.49
77.20
9.34
37.11
8.13
1.39
8.39
8.50
6.17
5.74
11.98
7.03
2.35
LBTT_183-2
3-2.
21.33
336060.21
11480.59
26.34
3713.70
16.32
441.11
2.90
51.89
107.24
62.79
950.86
23.53
2.89
683.42
696.54
34.59
53.87
8.28
37.74
8.48
1.04
8.84
10.41
7.05
7.21
12.24
9.05
1.69
LBTT_183-2
4-4.
14.23
335592.74
10499.57
20.40
3131.99
12.67
522.29
0.84
52.78
110.53
76.74
880.37
23.33
2.37
928.26
941.57
41.64
67.15
9.91
44.08
10.25
1.57
11.29
12.21
8.77
8.25
11.88
9.03
1.87
233
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
LBTT_183-2
4-1.
12.25
339706.43
8537.15
17.41
2819.67
4.51
472.41
No_Data
53.69
101.45
80.56
823.05
23.11
2.38
937.98
967.20
46.35
71.82
10.91
49.34
11.02
1.58
12.52
13.13
9.13
9.18
13.31
9.28
2.08
LBTT_183-2
4-2.
9.95
339706.43
8660.47
19.92
3064.76
5.38
422.68
No_Data
57.20
110.98
80.63
875.66
23.50
2.45
957.27
986.80
46.27
70.61
11.03
50.93
11.58
1.46
11.45
12.98
9.38
8.72
11.08
9.51
1.84
LBTT_183-2
4-3.
19.00
339706.43
11953.14
13.62
2677.07
4.32
548.03
No_Data
50.58
175.43
51.71
523.12
20.62
2.19
1144.95
1076.35
35.40
70.01
9.18
37.75
8.92
1.85
7.62
8.52
5.99
6.26
11.54
6.31
1.83
LBTT_183-2
4-4.
17.30
339706.43
9899.84
19.39
2988.93
5.60
535.58
1.70
56.07
115.58
78.89
812.17
23.38
2.47
987.08
988.38
45.98
75.93
11.08
48.82
11.37
1.80
12.03
13.34
9.36
9.58
13.45
9.29
1.98
LBTT_183-2
5-3.
11.44
339145.47
9431.36
18.85
2855.14
8.07
379.36
2.59
59.92
77.02
59.91
828.22
21.84
2.43
710.91
722.56
35.46
52.90
8.59
38.60
8.79
0.84
9.21
10.49
6.53
7.49
11.46
9.08
1.58
LBTT_183-2
5-4.
11.13
339145.47
15874.59
13.58
2132.74
3.47
422.20
0.71
46.14
308.99
66.45
660.18
17.53
2.16
1398.25
1325.70
40.69
61.17
9.10
40.51
9.36
2.66
9.31
10.82
7.59
6.86
10.08
7.60
1.58
234
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
LBTT_185_1
1-1.
15.20
343212.42
12808.26
18.17
2885.07
6.90
583.23
176.84
56.95
116.50
73.81
1049.77
23.40
2.56
916.67
923.20
41.99
151.55
10.59
45.34
10.19
1.55
10.62
12.42
8.78
9.08
15.26
8.31
2.14
LBTT_185_1
1-2.
12.92
343212.42
11399.23
19.41
2578.24
5.12
492.86
22.70
49.93
112.32
63.15
750.96
23.80
2.55
780.97
782.00
33.59
60.72
8.87
37.08
8.70
1.20
9.67
10.72
7.43
7.44
11.89
6.75
2.06
LBTT_185_1
1-3.
12.63
343212.42
16924.32
19.96
2976.32
7.36
543.16
9.02
50.46
131.97
66.69
794.49
23.38
2.46
831.95
830.34
41.44
61.56
10.33
44.53
10.40
1.56
9.96
12.14
8.09
9.04
19.44
10.12
2.21
LBTT_185_1
1-4.
10.52
343212.42
12215.73
18.41
2972.23
4.97
530.16
3.26
53.09
115.24
64.48
811.24
23.04
2.56
799.94
806.29
39.00
57.34
11.01
41.00
8.34
1.38
10.22
10.41
7.33
7.46
14.84
7.48
1.73
LBTT_185_1
2-1.
20.84
336621.17
10795.09
18.19
2962.56
7.52
638.46
0.22
50.30
121.78
70.77
739.51
22.17
2.27
882.03
805.95
38.96
67.60
9.87
42.32
9.40
1.48
10.03
10.76
7.55
8.06
14.78
7.66
1.92
LBTT_185_1
2-2.
18.95
336621.17
11185.05
19.61
3024.21
6.79
667.85
2.64
54.73
124.19
80.80
802.87
23.33
2.61
982.77
995.56
46.26
76.33
11.42
49.95
11.45
1.66
12.89
13.43
9.14
9.58
15.61
9.18
2.10
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
LBTT_185_1
2-3.
25.53
338491.02
13047.87
17.71
3031.74
LBTT_185_1
2-4.
22.44
338491.02
9504.62
17.05
2643.32
LBTT_185_1
3-1.
18.06
339425.95
10950.45
17.33
2522.19
LBTT_185_1
3-2.
19.72
339425.95
11676.58
20.43
3076.04
LBTT_185_1
3-3.
16.30
339238.97
11995.84
15.38
2745.99
LBTT_185_1
4-4.
16.61
339238.97
10311.90
18.35
2905.43
235
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
8.83
686.40
0.77
54.16
146.90
70.26
693.91
21.50
2.71
1047.08
933.69
39.85
77.55
10.06
43.64
10.13
1.76
11.06
11.66
7.80
7.79
14.95
7.45
2.23
6.74
643.04
4.51
50.40
110.85
71.35
992.62
19.92
2.29
858.30
966.29
38.93
118.45
9.78
48.49
10.00
1.66
12.39
11.61
8.87
8.76
16.80
8.53
2.06
5.47
570.74
0.54
49.23
110.33
60.22
641.93
18.80
2.35
762.93
712.15
33.59
57.00
8.07
36.92
8.76
1.53
9.84
10.46
7.28
7.47
14.63
6.57
1.76
6.16
668.74
1.13
52.13
127.88
81.44
806.69
21.94
2.43
961.40
971.14
49.76
76.01
12.77
52.80
11.88
1.94
13.47
14.12
9.42
9.43
15.32
8.36
2.03
7.60
563.06
19.60
53.65
99.01
59.06
862.00
21.69
2.58
689.78
698.58
34.60
105.15
8.13
38.76
8.34
1.38
9.48
9.48
6.62
6.69
32.64
6.84
1.90
6.24
627.12
0.99
53.00
122.11
76.32
747.53
21.87
2.38
957.35
880.91
42.16
70.13
10.84
45.95
11.18
1.69
11.96
12.66
8.62
8.26
16.04
8.57
2.02
LBTT_185_1
5-2.
12.87
343072.18
9737.57
17.54
2671.34
5.25
494.91
2.73
52.38
89.73
65.06
779.83
22.41
LBTT_185_1
5-3.
10.94
343072.18
12981.95
18.75
2428.04
5.79
327.51
1.15
44.76
96.34
55.78
706.80
23.34
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
LBTT_185_1
4-1.
11.75
338631.26
9913.29
16.72
2693.66
4.84
508.21
2.82
52.93
100.47
64.20
734.84
21.48
LBTT_185_1
4-2.
12.73
338631.26
11131.64
19.12
3027.77
5.56
582.65
0.56
52.86
108.56
74.40
819.28
24.02
LBTT_185_1
4-3.
16.10
338631.26
13988.87
18.76
3090.16
8.54
500.23
1.87
48.34
156.07
85.27
770.65
22.48
LBTT_185_1
4-4.
13.64
338631.26
10904.11
18.11
2884.56
5.68
600.86
0.57
53.25
114.71
77.31
794.76
22.58
236
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
2.44
767.39
768.90
35.53
62.30
9.03
38.56
8.74
1.26
9.91
10.56
7.07
6.77
11.88
7.85
1.78
2.58
827.20
843.87
41.76
62.87
10.52
44.83
10.10
1.51
11.25
11.80
8.15
8.72
18.82
9.42
1.90
2.55
807.37
771.47
51.42
68.89
12.25
53.85
12.45
1.85
13.55
14.25
9.63
9.11
16.49
9.95
1.78
2.58
839.10
890.08
45.36
67.20
11.03
47.85
10.75
1.56
11.80
12.06
8.66
8.04
15.06
9.17
1.87
2.51
748.92
768.50
36.92
56.65
8.82
38.86
8.68
1.29
9.08
11.19
8.03
7.23
12.21
8.17
1.61
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
LBTT_185_1
5-4.
11.86
343072.18
12122.53
18.58
2482.03
5.59
427.22
5.66
48.98
93.27
67.22
2084.24
22.27
2.40
699.07
701.97
40.63
170.96
10.28
43.99
9.22
MCTA_209_1
1-1.
16.35
340968.59
24313.54
12.15
1559.60
10.74
501.62
2.18
77.62
208.76
45.83
384.09
15.37
3.69
892.55
736.72
30.87
63.64
7.73
33.18
7.96
MCTA_209_1
1-3.
13.25
345082.27
18095.71
15.86
1727.51
6.78
819.39
2.68
89.67
135.72
65.32
552.42
17.29
4.08
823.26
747.67
38.11
67.00
8.30
37.73
8.71
MCTA_209_1
1-4.
15.03
345082.27
11019.08
18.26
1864.67
13.95
608.64
2.79
92.80
117.79
65.12
532.99
16.27
3.81
723.82
729.39
36.42
64.78
8.68
36.87
9.24
MCTA_209_1
2-1.
15.76
343773.37
8824.27
13.84
1638.82
6.05
597.62
2.05
89.36
122.60
61.18
536.35
15.96
3.99
821.21
737.40
33.63
69.23
8.16
37.40
8.97
1.99
546.39
564.85
33.91
43.01
9.25
37.94
8.49
0.98
8.80
8.99
5.82
6.43
14.84
8.50
1.85
237
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
1.43
11.09
11.43
8.06
7.72
16.77
9.08
1.59
1.07
7.64
8.01
5.48
5.23
11.13
8.62
2.99
1.28
10.25
10.96
7.48
7.52
13.70
10.43
3.20
1.06
10.21
10.28
7.28
6.51
12.05
10.60
2.72
1.17
10.65
11.09
7.27
6.51
15.03
9.66
2.72
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTA_209_1
2-2.
16.50
343773.37
7992.87
13.88
1522.37
4.05
680.65
2.10
92.36
104.15
59.66
509.22
16.55
4.37
780.48
692.82
34.50
63.45
8.23
36.61
8.77
1.02
9.55
10.23
7.08
6.86
14.82
10.29
2.76
MCTA_209_1
2-4.
17.86
343773.37
16651.01
16.35
1806.79
12.43
470.80
1.51
102.70
124.04
76.53
600.76
18.82
4.41
869.66
867.13
42.21
74.86
9.77
41.95
10.29
1.36
11.54
11.89
8.70
8.25
16.32
12.86
3.22
MCTA_209_1
3-1.
17.13
340781.60
16648.70
16.58
1792.09
15.12
734.63
3.96
91.09
192.70
66.07
482.55
15.66
4.28
773.74
692.53
35.58
62.69
8.53
37.32
8.64
1.01
9.62
11.03
7.49
6.76
13.25
10.67
2.63
MCTA_209_1
3-2.
14.51
340781.60
14677.78
15.41
1608.99
7.24
452.19
2.14
97.29
145.12
73.48
563.18
17.89
4.73
864.51
839.87
40.03
71.09
9.60
40.44
9.68
1.12
10.33
12.69
8.45
7.61
14.04
12.50
3.02
MCTA_209_1
3-3.
13.98
340781.60
14831.86
15.05
1499.03
6.60
530.53
1.59
91.27
134.90
66.40
502.51
16.41
4.47
928.93
785.18
36.83
65.26
8.74
37.14
8.40
1.04
10.43
11.24
7.87
7.79
14.65
10.91
2.63
238
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTA_209_1
4-4.
12.37
340781.60
27186.53
14.82
1626.36
8.14
517.31
2.19
90.28
182.08
66.36
509.19
16.95
4.39
808.31
708.27
36.29
64.11
8.51
36.99
8.60
1.02
9.84
10.56
7.28
7.04
12.87
10.78
2.69
MCTA_209_1
4-1.
15.16
348214.29
12965.75
15.95
1640.32
6.69
520.82
2.84
103.55
119.33
75.77
565.81
18.42
4.67
849.92
838.38
40.99
69.91
9.75
40.87
9.49
1.37
11.82
12.13
8.70
7.51
16.61
12.72
2.82
MCTA_209_1
4-2.
13.81
348214.29
8558.95
13.94
1637.87
5.76
397.76
3.21
93.85
103.17
69.99
514.98
17.29
4.59
805.36
780.18
37.33
64.43
8.66
39.60
8.87
1.07
9.87
11.52
7.49
7.30
15.64
11.92
2.65
MCTA_209_1
4-3.
13.02
344661.56
17445.07
14.63
1639.29
7.11
620.69
2.03
94.92
148.76
63.00
513.11
16.51
4.40
753.49
756.37
34.27
58.82
8.04
35.32
8.77
1.14
9.50
9.89
7.31
6.53
16.74
10.12
2.47
MCTA_209_1
4-4.
16.03
344661.56
12650.15
16.54
1754.25
8.32
777.84
4.24
94.57
164.05
63.68
522.44
16.07
4.39
752.97
748.28
33.42
61.00
8.07
34.18
8.15
1.11
9.47
10.23
7.19
7.41
18.60
9.99
2.59
239
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTA_209_1
5-1.
16.76
345783.47
18945.60
15.48
2020.14
10.38
534.77
3.19
89.47
142.59
67.18
520.93
17.88
4.37
818.11
804.99
37.84
63.72
8.91
38.87
8.95
1.17
10.87
10.78
7.56
7.26
24.02
11.26
2.71
MCTA_209_1
5-2.
26.61
345783.47
9052.98
31.63
4007.42
39.67
656.68
12.55
104.48
139.85
63.20
550.16
19.04
5.41
738.34
732.09
37.12
66.75
8.94
38.57
9.69
1.71
10.09
11.26
7.72
6.88
17.35
10.56
2.28
MCTA_209_1
5-3.
16.73
345783.47
18447.12
14.62
1623.57
6.89
599.64
3.60
92.50
128.15
65.46
511.59
17.44
4.58
810.84
759.64
37.00
65.08
9.42
37.54
9.14
1.16
9.14
10.76
7.88
7.29
15.69
11.51
2.60
MCTA_209_1
5-4.
15.42
345783.47
19861.74
15.25
1612.03
5.52
640.60
2.16
97.92
141.20
68.37
527.02
17.24
4.81
803.60
781.68
37.87
64.61
8.84
37.93
9.12
1.03
10.60
10.84
7.62
7.26
15.16
11.23
2.66
MCTA_209_2
1-1.
22.11
338257.29
9141.20
10.39
1814.50
2.87
509.69
No_Data
81.21
115.68
44.19
365.48
18.08
4.05
794.42
754.63
29.45
70.00
8.12
31.24
7.18
1.05
7.25
7.70
5.37
5.13
10.07
8.46
2.75
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
MCTA_209_2
1-2.
24.66
338257.29
9235.36
10.92
1745.18
MCTA_209_2
1-3.
20.33
338257.29
11521.17
14.12
2341.72
MCTA_209_2
1-4.
21.55
338257.29
8971.88
11.30
1867.60
MCTA_209_2
2-3.
24.53
334704.56
13998.91
19.07
2641.66
MCTA_209_2
2-4.
24.54
334704.56
11971.29
12.95
2347.78
240
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
3.37
498.97
0.64
83.23
120.98
44.58
354.95
18.46
4.45
743.43
735.84
28.87
67.27
7.76
29.95
6.37
0.94
7.28
7.71
5.30
4.88
10.56
8.23
2.96
10.59
550.10
0.83
77.14
155.90
57.54
485.53
16.46
4.10
819.30
778.10
33.98
67.16
8.54
36.64
8.44
1.46
7.88
9.82
6.85
5.97
10.31
8.50
2.17
5.27
501.00
1.61
75.67
115.23
46.81
393.28
17.71
3.77
802.24
799.35
30.09
67.86
8.14
31.87
7.25
1.06
7.98
7.78
5.65
5.40
10.19
8.06
2.65
14.78
483.11
1.42
73.83
189.86
75.36
591.99
16.72
3.96
932.72
912.10
40.12
71.37
9.70
43.62
11.07
1.49
12.06
13.77
9.37
9.14
10.31
10.49
2.18
13.39
504.41
1.81
76.77
164.33
47.58
382.04
18.91
4.13
805.59
766.59
33.15
70.75
8.71
33.86
8.16
1.17
8.99
7.74
6.15
5.55
10.71
8.78
2.52
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
MCTA_209_2
4-3.
25.78
338257.29
27085.63
25.21
4807.99
38.50
751.57
3.96
64.86
341.71
89.10
610.61
17.95
MCTA_209_2
4-4.
32.37
338257.29
47612.00
36.93
9454.44
93.98
1779.66
6.40
55.78
508.44
77.16
433.44
14.36
MCTA_209_2
5-1.
24.88
338304.04
20259.14
19.97
3222.04
19.71
546.84
1.53
73.73
233.38
86.26
635.45
19.50
MCTA_209_2
5-3.
24.00
338304.04
19071.26
19.40
2827.15
15.32
524.53
2.32
75.52
244.91
94.18
656.26
18.77
MCTA_209_2
5-4.
21.92
338304.04
22748.41
22.73
4283.23
33.47
687.22
No_Data
72.11
312.10
86.66
584.45
17.93
241
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
3.86
863.79
898.60
46.55
73.94
11.07
51.58
13.57
2.10
15.44
15.35
10.80
9.94
14.84
12.26
2.21
2.84
867.12
863.11
36.13
61.42
9.92
47.79
11.90
3.06
14.21
14.14
9.51
8.44
18.21
6.81
1.46
3.89
996.28
968.78
45.72
79.76
11.07
52.19
12.28
1.81
14.07
13.29
9.60
8.64
13.32
13.20
2.73
4.04
970.38
984.35
51.69
83.39
11.60
53.35
14.05
2.17
13.90
17.34
11.13
10.85
13.63
14.30
2.56
3.96
853.49
900.39
45.44
70.53
10.82
47.20
12.18
1.61
14.50
14.03
9.99
9.11
14.42
11.79
2.27
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
MCTB_209_2
1-1.
18.04
259536.28
37432.33
27.37
10045.52
191.94
905.77
15.82
12.53
379.09
54.40
157.93
10.01
1.69
380.52
405.11
20.56
34.55
6.58
30.92
7.65
MCTB_209_2
1-2.
12.06
259536.28
51204.27
32.41
11375.06
206.51
1436.33
15.55
8.11
519.42
34.85
205.37
10.22
0.87
435.51
456.77
19.29
51.49
6.36
28.10
6.44
MCTB_209_2
1-3.
11.16
259536.28
34700.31
22.87
8111.04
176.01
1197.83
13.78
7.65
325.41
24.02
123.22
9.18
0.82
343.45
344.37
13.91
36.23
4.39
18.97
5.00
MCTB_209_2
1-4.
12.95
259536.28
47782.04
30.93
10700.35
175.74
1370.32
14.42
7.97
440.87
40.83
177.06
13.51
0.69
438.14
466.13
21.68
48.59
6.98
30.54
7.44
MCTB_209_2
2-1.
8.13
261546.37
56399.83
34.16
11835.12
212.26
1576.70
14.12
8.68
545.49
36.35
190.66
11.53
0.99
469.44
496.76
20.91
46.38
6.28
30.59
7.56
242
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
1.88
8.26
8.25
4.87
4.14
8.01
2.14
0.97
1.98
6.98
6.53
3.90
3.36
6.77
2.36
0.81
1.41
4.77
4.93
2.66
2.42
8.07
2.62
1.31
1.92
7.77
7.48
4.52
4.29
8.85
3.25
1.05
2.29
7.96
7.36
4.08
3.46
6.99
2.78
1.02
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTB_209_2
2-2.
5.72
261546.37
49339.70
30.35
10410.79
196.61
1297.59
13.37
8.42
462.44
32.08
167.58
8.95
1.12
408.39
435.22
18.12
43.15
5.83
26.10
6.15
1.85
6.85
6.30
3.75
3.37
7.15
2.48
0.90
MCTB_209_2
2-4.
23.64
266221.02
43904.60
26.76
8437.70
140.62
1290.45
12.26
11.09
426.18
43.84
203.42
11.05
0.75
593.34
621.32
26.49
66.08
7.63
31.53
7.38
1.94
7.51
7.21
4.61
4.71
10.28
4.50
1.28
MCTB_209_2
3-1.
3.98
262528.05
53944.96
34.48
12006.58
207.86
1343.82
14.31
10.01
529.44
37.44
197.32
11.41
1.34
464.87
483.93
20.57
45.57
6.67
29.47
7.15
2.08
7.39
7.12
3.64
3.73
6.72
2.80
0.91
MCTB_209_2
3-2.
6.74
262528.05
57872.48
36.23
12192.55
212.15
1559.90
14.24
10.19
582.95
41.55
213.39
11.05
0.93
489.56
522.88
22.65
48.63
7.16
32.04
8.73
2.25
8.90
8.01
4.65
4.51
8.41
3.23
1.08
MCTB_209_2
3-3.
12.52
262528.05
48384.95
31.59
10800.06
194.10
1513.02
13.06
8.85
480.77
32.27
181.91
11.59
0.70
412.73
442.24
18.08
40.71
5.65
26.01
6.28
1.92
6.39
6.20
3.43
3.22
9.17
2.64
0.91
243
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTB_209_2
4-4.
1.58
262528.05
50102.13
32.64
10841.68
193.32
1292.63
12.52
10.16
501.36
36.79
196.53
10.53
0.95
468.59
509.32
20.99
46.21
6.76
29.88
8.00
1.97
7.49
6.96
4.22
3.24
6.87
3.00
0.97
MCTB_209_2
4-1.
17.91
263135.75
55159.79
34.98
11746.30
201.91
1593.73
14.39
10.52
559.54
37.66
254.47
13.71
0.91
488.90
514.41
22.49
48.19
6.84
31.04
7.78
2.07
8.62
7.49
4.72
3.70
9.42
4.10
1.32
MCTB_209_2
4-2.
9.45
263135.75
49959.17
28.75
11016.23
199.35
1326.30
14.31
9.15
490.28
29.71
172.84
10.57
0.89
413.81
441.60
17.55
41.83
5.69
25.28
6.20
1.70
5.88
5.85
3.36
3.25
7.94
2.61
0.83
MCTB_209_2
4-3.
17.10
267670.16
61198.17
42.50
11712.32
197.46
1797.36
13.42
11.16
626.71
54.07
248.25
10.26
0.83
491.30
521.19
23.92
54.17
7.02
32.34
9.02
2.56
10.73
9.88
6.10
5.35
8.24
3.45
0.90
MCTB_209_2
4-4.
5.54
267670.16
53511.94
32.74
11555.85
196.64
1446.26
13.66
10.28
516.27
38.94
186.67
10.40
1.12
459.24
484.83
20.79
45.70
6.39
29.30
6.87
2.06
7.53
6.44
4.19
3.70
6.70
2.84
0.99
244
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTB_209_2
5-1.
10.38
263135.75
45575.58
28.08
10460.54
194.01
1315.83
14.00
8.96
468.28
33.44
191.17
11.05
1.15
436.13
459.11
19.24
44.58
6.39
28.15
6.66
1.91
6.71
6.28
3.78
3.30
7.72
2.67
1.10
MCTB_209_2
5-2.
7.56
263135.75
52269.57
32.98
11162.79
226.87
1371.56
16.26
8.03
515.23
34.70
169.22
10.62
1.21
422.62
445.37
19.11
43.50
6.19
27.69
6.61
2.03
7.23
6.54
3.69
3.35
6.08
2.43
0.89
MCTB_209_2
5-3.
8.38
263135.75
49528.90
31.19
10895.89
204.34
1386.05
16.04
7.46
475.91
31.35
159.29
9.32
0.75
389.80
409.81
16.31
38.56
5.34
24.36
5.74
1.86
6.21
5.85
3.47
2.88
8.75
2.17
0.70
MCTB_209_2
5-4.
13.16
263135.75
48779.47
28.41
11040.93
190.00
1375.01
14.32
7.26
471.81
31.87
186.53
12.68
0.86
401.45
432.93
17.23
42.47
5.75
25.52
6.00
1.88
6.72
5.76
3.24
3.01
8.85
4.12
0.90
MCTB_88_1
1-3.
1.70
262434.55
56992.50
30.25
11464.63
233.19
1311.75
14.26
10.92
772.31
27.80
140.48
9.36
1.12
321.08
338.24
15.81
40.32
5.49
24.00
5.79
1.88
6.09
5.16
3.19
2.63
5.06
1.75
0.79
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
MCTB_88_1
1-4.
5.61
262434.55
48143.79
28.21
10200.01
MCTB_88_1
2-1.
6.61
275196.34
60590.32
35.46
12683.16
MCTB_88_1
2-3.
13.77
275196.34
52693.81
30.82
11834.36
MCTB_88_1
2-4.
30.47
275196.34
53757.23
32.08
12194.12
MCTB_88_1
3-1.
3.39
265753.55
49340.99
27.56
10256.23
MCTB_88_1
3-3.
32.71
265753.55
53822.07
32.02
12155.34
245
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
197.96
1228.96
13.92
39.21
350.03
28.87
151.91
9.45
1.42
462.08
491.31
16.55
40.54
5.62
24.27
5.45
1.69
5.95
5.34
3.21
2.83
7.67
2.26
0.87
247.68
1445.90
18.02
31.76
508.98
33.30
161.82
9.74
1.08
416.90
439.87
17.81
43.39
5.94
27.32
6.44
2.16
6.86
6.56
3.60
3.13
8.48
2.06
0.80
246.17
1309.84
15.30
32.95
408.33
29.08
145.88
9.38
1.28
433.73
458.65
16.43
41.81
5.56
25.86
6.27
1.91
5.98
6.01
3.24
2.86
8.31
2.09
0.91
248.40
1424.33
15.86
29.52
325.44
30.21
141.57
9.65
1.24
418.61
447.99
17.00
42.60
5.77
25.85
6.13
2.12
6.09
5.75
3.33
2.76
6.81
1.99
0.87
212.78
1253.52
15.53
27.43
443.40
25.77
132.70
8.53
1.10
361.38
374.48
14.52
35.98
4.79
22.35
5.37
1.66
5.75
5.09
3.04
2.64
7.50
1.90
0.79
239.86
1352.85
16.62
31.76
379.52
29.51
144.36
9.38
1.33
405.16
426.33
17.06
42.75
5.78
25.15
5.93
2.07
6.75
5.24
3.30
3.26
5.49
1.96
0.89
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
MCTB_88_1
4-4.
8.58
265753.55
51042.90
30.30
11070.27
234.16
1310.77
15.28
29.83
431.11
29.50
152.20
9.13
MCTB_88_1
4-1.
24.38
277440.16
48240.36
32.06
11811.89
225.90
1348.20
356.17
41.73
284.98
30.96
161.10
9.98
MCTB_88_1
4-3.
24.75
259302.54
46428.22
29.98
10943.94
215.68
1298.05
12.40
44.40
319.86
29.56
158.58
9.46
MCTB_88_1
4-4.
32.74
259302.54
34199.53
22.27
9020.06
216.22
1087.51
12.92
46.96
224.23
23.07
123.71
7.99
MCTB_88_1
5-1.
8.78
268090.88
56786.61
31.66
11917.86
236.38
1346.69
13.81
12.33
627.87
30.05
146.63
9.45
MCTB_88_1
5-2.
6.57
268090.88
47855.98
27.46
10505.99
230.37
1255.06
15.43
43.20
359.03
27.01
144.05
9.19
246
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
1.22
395.09
414.33
16.24
41.01
5.46
23.90
6.01
1.72
5.51
5.11
3.15
2.84
7.89
2.18
0.90
1.34
428.76
455.04
17.90
43.68
5.94
26.22
6.30
1.83
6.25
6.03
3.54
3.20
7.41
2.46
0.95
1.34
424.95
435.55
16.94
43.23
5.53
24.13
5.86
1.86
6.12
5.76
3.47
2.91
5.79
2.36
0.89
1.46
322.10
339.64
13.13
35.35
4.42
19.80
4.57
1.36
4.48
4.39
2.52
2.33
5.46
1.85
0.99
1.07
371.49
398.49
17.28
41.89
5.83
26.18
5.67
1.91
6.17
5.72
3.37
3.00
4.95
1.95
0.80
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
MCTB_88_1
5-3.
20.85
269399.78
68188.40
38.93
12245.43
216.66
1484.30
17.08
39.95
429.87
42.03
193.13
9.26
1.59
514.47
529.37
21.47
46.62
6.39
30.85
8.12
MCTB_88_1
5-4.
1.01
269399.78
60072.55
32.84
12296.43
228.49
1414.97
15.10
4.60
646.79
30.07
155.57
9.67
1.15
421.43
451.64
17.76
43.02
5.89
26.21
6.45
MCTL_206_1
1-1.
11.72
339612.94
11433.08
17.05
1802.03
7.30
483.32
3.54
62.10
128.07
59.84
664.78
19.41
3.19
672.74
718.71
31.58
47.58
7.27
32.30
8.04
MCTL_206_1
1-2.
12.81
344287.58
11754.52
17.85
2135.09
6.98
516.14
4.19
68.85
138.62
65.23
766.37
20.95
3.33
734.34
763.35
36.45
53.79
8.35
36.99
9.40
MCTL_206_1
1-3.
16.15
339145.47
9848.80
15.00
1698.22
4.78
544.77
2.20
68.17
115.45
62.92
570.18
17.82
3.45
787.63
807.35
34.73
53.04
8.24
35.60
8.42
1.42
421.07
441.96
15.35
40.58
5.32
23.27
5.33
1.78
5.73
5.11
2.88
2.78
7.86
1.95
0.90
247
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
2.49
8.28
8.24
4.90
4.51
9.64
2.56
0.75
2.12
6.48
5.70
3.56
2.99
4.84
2.10
0.84
0.94
9.09
9.53
7.43
6.71
11.19
10.61
1.97
1.10
10.53
10.25
7.38
7.18
10.37
12.47
2.03
1.18
9.84
10.33
7.14
7.77
12.27
11.22
2.02
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTL_206_1
1-4.
14.28
339145.47
10553.80
16.00
2271.77
8.00
595.98
3.00
69.73
127.41
54.16
552.12
19.31
3.49
721.55
774.94
35.52
52.82
8.89
36.56
9.27
1.42
9.19
9.56
6.99
6.29
14.48
14.68
1.97
MCTL_206_1
2-1.
29.52
344848.54
7503.93
9.64
1407.59
0.32
647.82
0.60
93.77
72.93
45.49
384.09
19.05
4.85
816.96
772.69
29.62
66.67
7.61
30.82
6.56
0.92
7.52
7.90
5.52
5.27
15.96
8.97
3.33
MCTL_206_1
2-2.
17.07
344848.54
8581.39
14.70
1518.28
2.37
533.11
1.82
79.35
97.36
65.27
608.54
18.47
3.77
771.23
839.82
36.04
58.34
7.92
36.77
8.39
0.99
9.83
10.61
7.41
7.51
13.97
12.05
2.30
MCTL_206_1
2-3.
15.59
342230.74
12677.48
17.55
2353.44
9.90
473.87
3.46
71.03
134.09
56.46
564.11
18.29
3.55
729.33
755.42
33.45
53.16
8.25
37.41
9.21
1.18
8.94
9.48
7.04
6.76
12.29
12.06
2.01
MCTL_206_1
2-4.
13.93
342230.74
11170.91
15.48
1570.86
3.16
477.54
2.35
74.75
103.22
65.12
616.70
18.71
3.68
755.12
782.86
35.65
57.57
8.46
36.26
8.77
0.93
9.90
10.35
7.45
7.33
11.88
11.95
2.13
248
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTL_206_1
3-1.
16.78
335919.97
10115.48
15.38
1788.13
4.38
508.08
2.98
71.86
123.93
54.09
534.68
17.48
3.43
766.23
737.73
34.00
55.01
8.52
35.35
8.57
1.20
8.57
9.53
6.34
6.30
10.96
11.21
2.10
MCTL_206_1
3-2.
18.36
335919.97
8683.02
10.88
1722.34
2.30
542.60
2.66
78.45
90.50
43.17
410.62
19.62
4.30
803.97
776.60
30.05
64.20
7.75
34.09
7.13
1.02
7.04
7.63
5.15
5.26
13.63
9.99
2.64
MCTL_206_1
3-3.
11.88
335919.97
11634.89
17.51
2058.88
4.96
502.20
3.01
68.62
144.94
64.12
745.66
20.05
3.22
738.74
764.70
35.65
53.79
7.96
35.05
8.87
1.11
10.07
10.57
7.24
7.55
11.17
12.75
2.08
MCTL_206_1
4-4.
10.50
335919.97
10876.44
17.38
2081.14
5.56
457.53
2.45
60.04
137.52
77.02
744.49
20.25
2.84
632.63
666.82
53.04
49.62
13.35
62.01
14.33
2.06
14.21
13.29
8.41
8.64
10.73
23.39
2.04
MCTL_206_1
4-2.
17.34
340127.15
12263.14
17.65
2069.60
10.00
485.82
3.42
67.48
142.31
61.78
638.35
17.01
3.31
697.52
739.73
34.48
45.04
8.27
36.69
9.04
1.25
8.89
10.84
6.57
7.57
10.93
11.83
1.67
249
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
MCTL_206_1
4-3.
17.74
340127.15
11363.38
16.14
1772.34
5.23
585.98
2.19
72.48
136.00
69.18
659.97
18.44
3.62
838.79
840.49
37.43
59.11
8.58
39.02
9.30
1.23
10.36
11.31
8.19
8.64
12.23
11.93
2.22
MCTL_206_1
4-4.
19.16
340127.15
9602.90
14.09
1763.36
5.66
536.69
2.20
75.34
117.67
52.87
519.62
18.04
3.83
774.45
734.59
32.00
55.98
8.03
33.38
7.87
1.13
8.61
8.66
6.48
6.35
11.86
10.52
2.15
MCTL_206_1
5-1.
15.18
345269.26
9730.18
15.11
1634.24
4.83
515.26
3.82
74.04
106.74
71.50
670.41
19.12
3.58
772.53
818.10
41.20
57.65
9.37
40.35
9.95
1.16
11.00
11.20
8.38
7.62
12.79
15.74
2.34
MCTL_206_1
5-2.
13.91
345269.26
10155.04
15.60
1636.45
4.62
481.37
1.79
75.29
111.52
60.34
584.30
17.35
3.67
751.31
731.71
34.90
52.10
8.46
35.25
9.41
1.02
8.91
10.33
7.07
7.96
11.07
11.44
2.00
Table 1 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for glass.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
MCTL_206_1
5-4.
21.34
343820.12
11563.93
16.73
1903.23
MCTL_206_1
5-3.
22.26
343820.12
9249.55
12.18
1605.49
2.89
565.24
0.92
85.59
99.72
54.39
497.19
17.68
4.23
894.79
835.23
33.79
63.70
7.91
34.95
8.57
1.03
8.51
8.83
6.21
6.72
13.05
10.75
2.47
250
V
Mn
Ni
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Cs
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Pb
Th
U
2.48
690.40
6.16
79.97
136.02
83.14
744.60
19.46
4.27
980.09
1011.99
45.46
69.98
10.49
47.76
10.62
1.53
14.32
13.99
11.69
9.78
13.31
15.21
2.76
251
Table 2: Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
LBTP-185-1
1
6.77
109.95
300357.17
37735.85
2.97
171.28
17.41
2316.34
No_Data
5.37
0.48
742.51
0.35
743.42
746.17
6.92
8.49
0.88
2.86
0.39
3.06
0.17
2.77
LBTP-185-1
2
7.50
100.79
320083.85
39022.30
3.50
190.01
18.27
2202.15
No_Data
5.25
0.46
854.52
0.19
842.65
837.56
6.21
7.99
0.83
3.26
0.26
4.39
0.18
2.58
LBTP-185-1
3
7.04
91.12
286360.37
36735.28
2.41
167.43
14.43
2035.48
No_Data
3.58
0.49
760.15
0.23
837.22
840.23
6.39
7.67
0.71
2.52
0.24
3.99
0.05
2.99
LBTP-185-1
4
7.39
135.83
344880.48
39808.46
3.61
215.19
16.63
2752.64
No_Data
5.41
0.54
814.48
0.27
1050.84
1040.23
8.19
10.03
0.93
3.01
0.29
3.50
0.24
3.05
LBTP-185-1
5
10.43
102.32
341992.81
37807.32
1.60
148.16
16.19
2362.29
No_Data
6.05
0.55
771.32
0.26
1183.22
1190.53
8.54
10.62
1.01
3.09
0.36
4.18
0.21
3.25
LBTP-185-1
6
7.00
115.13
310112.48
37807.32
2.94
182.51
16.44
2466.93
No_Data
4.24
0.55
784.86
0.36
882.17
893.25
7.06
8.87
0.87
2.76
0.32
2.90
0.16
2.78
LBTP-185-1
7
7.73
123.11
321523.16
37807.32
2.21
200.41
16.74
2527.46
No_Data
6.52
0.67
814.59
0.24
940.93
966.93
7.83
9.63
0.88
3.08
0.18
3.39
0.27
2.58
LBTP-185-1
8
9.44
107.35
288432.51
42595.77
2.57
175.57
19.06
2070.66
No_Data
4.69
0.33
885.37
0.28
620.45
627.19
6.97
7.84
0.72
2.63
0.15
3.94
0.10
2.42
LBTT-156-1
4
LBTT-156-1
5
LBTT-156-1
6
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
LBTP-185-1
9
LBTP-185-1
10
LBTT-156-1
1
LBTT-156-1
2
LBTT-156-1
3
252
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
7.07
119.66
322032.14
39165.24
1.58
183.39
17.66
2593.93
No_Data
5.37
0.50
792.48
0.24
761.10
773.32
6.91
9.76
0.84
3.02
0.27
3.08
0.13
2.72
4.95
126.23
280329.19
52672.96
1.86
233.78
26.71
2363.45
No_Data
5.37
0.33
1267.73
0.40
547.02
540.72
5.28
7.21
0.76
2.91
0.31
3.23
0.15
2.26
1.88
166.81
322325.29
58247.57
5.04
231.95
36.28
2850.02
No_Data
5.84
0.19
1105.80
0.33
324.72
306.52
4.30
6.16
0.63
2.21
0.28
2.37
0.11
1.77
1.76
145.92
243139.25
55102.92
2.31
199.43
35.73
2548.99
No_Data
5.11
0.09
1003.27
0.24
157.60
152.21
2.64
3.86
0.42
1.75
0.25
1.17
0.14
1.07
2.96
94.51
367811.89
39594.05
4.04
137.38
20.07
2272.55
No_Data
5.10
0.67
933.58
0.31
650.83
628.56
7.37
9.39
0.90
2.93
0.28
2.66
0.16
2.94
1.90
94.73
335226.80
36377.93
4.03
140.95
14.40
2224.67
No_Data
4.19
0.50
722.77
0.22
1076.24
1060.68
9.09
10.55
0.92
3.15
0.34
3.45
0.20
3.36
1.97
108.33
345969.82
32232.70
4.12
140.26
14.26
2340.02
No_Data
5.06
0.51
698.65
0.25
925.71
909.45
6.98
8.79
0.79
2.70
0.24
3.15
0.18
3.12
1.62
108.99
308538.94
36949.69
3.85
176.39
17.96
2305.71
No_Data
4.19
0.31
688.09
0.31
668.55
659.30
5.79
7.86
0.75
2.58
0.30
2.53
0.15
2.42
LBTT-185-1
2
6.61
123.24
281457.80
LBTT-185-1
3
7.22
107.55
336843.29
LBTT-185-1
4
7.00
119.40
330480.20
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
LBTT-156-1
7
2.26
86.29
279199.70
LBTT-156-1
8
2.19
179.69
381737.41
LBTT-156-1
9
1.99
191.03
320056.52
LBTT-156-1
10
2.56
91.26
310474.40
LBTT-185-1
1
6.88
112.07
322828.60
253
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
37307.03
4.68
168.73
17.43
1652.31
No_Data
3.64
0.26
998.95
0.16
391.52
389.94
4.25
5.63
0.52
2.07
0.19
2.60
0.13
1.49
63464.84
3.57
314.69
39.19
3520.75
No_Data
8.07
0.27
1384.45
0.39
418.82
407.94
4.47
5.84
0.64
2.24
0.30
2.10
0.19
1.45
67038.31
4.55
248.27
41.72
3655.90
1.39
6.48
0.27
1332.64
0.31
285.12
279.53
3.81
5.71
0.60
2.16
0.29
1.70
0.12
1.31
33519.15
4.10
154.68
16.04
2203.57
No_Data
4.39
0.51
681.48
0.28
855.14
863.02
7.21
9.03
0.87
2.71
0.23
3.11
0.12
3.00
38093.20
4.59
155.89
17.99
2292.00
No_Data
4.89
0.45
753.21
0.20
854.81
814.27
6.89
7.83
0.75
2.57
0.28
3.13
0.23
2.68
43024.59
3.66
243.92
21.74
2469.60
No_Data
5.54
0.25
831.93
0.24
544.50
501.34
4.37
6.12
0.56
2.15
0.21
3.09
0.12
1.80
34233.85
3.66
157.85
15.12
2309.03
No_Data
5.13
0.53
683.66
0.19
934.51
907.12
7.02
9.08
0.79
2.63
0.31
3.17
0.21
3.29
39165.24
4.27
179.68
18.98
2361.66
No_Data
5.22
0.48
736.99
0.23
805.81
782.47
7.04
8.97
0.85
3.04
0.27
2.93
0.22
2.46
LBTT-185-1
10
6.13
92.27
310072.19
33733.56
2.23
138.54
LBTT-185-2
1
7.58
108.33
332276.56
35234.42
4.62
152.11
LBTT-185-2
3
7.32
82.33
323079.50
31160.66
3.94
166.20
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
LBTT-185-1
5
7.46
100.44
335162.43
36806.75
4.23
150.59
LBTT-185-1
6
9.31
136.10
456928.71
40237.28
6.05
223.93
LBTT-185-1
7
6.43
109.87
358207.61
33161.81
2.88
153.02
LBTT-185-1
8
7.27
113.86
317149.49
42381.36
3.68
235.59
LBTT-185-1
9
10.73
121.06
353871.87
36878.22
5.29
183.14
254
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
16.50
2130.95
No_Data
4.09
0.57
718.43
0.24
884.79
839.57
6.00
8.11
0.78
2.93
0.32
3.35
0.26
3.04
18.47
3197.70
No_Data
6.78
0.83
882.92
0.22
999.20
967.56
8.10
9.21
0.82
3.06
0.22
3.36
0.22
3.65
15.36
2485.49
No_Data
5.58
0.64
697.61
0.21
932.60
898.00
6.64
8.31
0.74
2.54
0.24
3.25
0.17
2.76
21.84
2468.60
No_Data
5.41
0.45
944.74
0.17
711.38
676.41
4.21
5.69
0.56
2.15
0.29
3.40
0.13
1.62
17.97
2600.91
1.26
5.65
0.53
735.22
0.30
945.95
914.42
6.66
8.32
0.75
2.43
0.25
3.24
0.28
2.95
14.37
2056.63
No_Data
4.16
0.42
698.03
0.22
931.18
896.05
6.58
8.11
0.77
2.66
0.24
3.24
0.13
2.79
16.76
2429.74
No_Data
5.54
0.46
774.10
0.24
840.51
840.03
7.17
8.80
0.79
2.54
0.28
3.09
0.19
2.92
13.78
2050.08
No_Data
5.97
0.68
631.66
0.20
929.77
941.58
6.82
8.62
0.81
2.48
0.20
3.13
0.12
3.24
LBTT-185-2
9
6.46
152.99
275278.71
70397.37
3.37
300.65
39.63
2327.44
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
10
7.83
122.12
360213.44
40809.03
4.38
175.20
18.40
2457.76
1.06
MCTA-209-1
1
4.56
65.79
369127.38
39379.65
2.88
79.89
20.47
1839.98
No_Data
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
LBTT-185-2
4
6.94
87.70
409572.74
32661.52
4.13
174.66
12.96
2509.08
0.99
LBTT-185-2
5
11.38
249.22
473054.74
63750.71
5.27
328.18
33.68
3757.60
0.94
LBTT-185-2
6
6.66
101.78
271407.41
36663.81
2.69
163.62
17.43
1961.71
1.04
LBTT-185-2
7
7.14
72.98
315494.93
29445.40
4.60
150.13
13.17
2187.33
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
8
8.10
131.37
375038.58
36806.75
5.93
181.44
16.97
2369.13
0.57
255
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
4.98
0.83
609.21
0.30
1247.77
1221.83
7.33
9.64
0.81
2.74
0.29
3.85
0.13
3.65
9.09
0.81
1228.82
0.54
961.68
932.50
9.39
13.47
1.24
4.46
0.48
3.85
0.16
4.39
4.55
0.21
719.17
0.21
588.56
583.63
5.67
8.16
0.71
2.60
0.15
2.80
0.14
2.83
4.91
0.55
590.80
0.16
957.36
952.82
6.42
8.47
0.72
2.62
0.27
2.97
0.16
3.16
5.94
0.58
771.56
0.33
1102.12
1105.15
8.08
10.55
1.00
3.18
0.31
3.70
0.21
3.62
4.23
0.39
1264.91
0.17
214.57
209.83
2.88
4.49
0.46
1.82
0.19
1.10
0.12
1.18
4.64
0.38
832.89
0.25
1005.03
1005.76
7.55
10.11
0.90
3.30
0.22
3.75
0.11
3.08
8.03
0.84
907.81
0.18
1261.89
1295.28
9.15
9.61
0.87
2.74
0.16
5.44
0.19
3.90
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
MCTA-209-1
2
1.75
60.52
327169.17
39379.65
4.96
78.34
18.62
1700.91
No_Data
7.03
0.69
737.15
MCTA-209-1
3
2.37
58.71
345089.74
37378.50
0.64
84.33
16.70
1659.62
No_Data
5.75
0.83
700.14
MCTA-209-1
4
2.26
67.79
334160.24
39808.46
3.79
81.94
19.29
1721.42
No_Data
7.44
0.50
764.01
MCTA-209-1
5
2.72
57.94
273337.33
36234.99
1.73
77.76
16.31
1463.79
0.72
5.00
0.64
718.66
MCTA-209-1
6
3.24
59.51
322382.24
38593.48
2.72
76.46
18.96
1584.28
No_Data
6.77
0.61
762.64
MCTA-209-1
7
3.27
58.77
330207.51
37235.56
2.78
75.26
17.23
1616.30
0.35
5.01
0.76
749.15
MCTA-209-1
8
3.44
58.67
322307.11
36163.52
0.63
76.87
17.88
1523.81
No_Data
5.55
0.79
700.26
MCTA-209-2
1
7.32
279.17
305692.94
69039.45
0.83
202.30
40.94
2801.73
2.80
6.66
0.20
1312.33
256
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
0.33
747.24
738.75
7.55
9.03
0.77
2.25
0.24
4.41
0.12
3.69
0.26
781.86
778.10
7.25
8.57
0.73
2.78
0.35
4.52
0.11
3.41
0.19
779.33
747.70
7.72
8.90
0.80
2.66
0.46
4.52
0.16
3.45
0.25
640.39
646.68
6.17
8.01
0.69
2.27
0.31
4.07
0.23
2.91
0.23
918.00
901.28
7.73
8.90
0.81
3.08
0.27
4.14
0.16
3.61
0.30
763.86
768.11
7.37
8.89
0.72
2.53
0.36
4.53
0.15
3.30
0.22
886.80
882.04
6.92
8.38
0.75
2.43
0.23
4.19
0.16
3.63
0.47
191.11
198.49
3.39
4.85
0.54
1.91
0.28
2.28
0.21
1.07
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
MCTA-209-2
2
3.15
53.89
318736.30
36092.05
2.21
79.12
16.12
1532.14
No_Data
5.01
0.79
714.18
0.26
789.60
810.82
MCTA-209-2
3
21.63
352.43
298941.02
70540.31
2.68
278.19
38.98
3279.51
No_Data
5.54
0.29
1391.62
0.30
223.46
219.85
MCTA-209-2
4
3.25
56.80
300768.61
38379.07
2.13
86.71
18.24
1537.13
No_Data
7.00
0.71
771.82
0.29
665.88
674.20
MCTA-209-2
5
3.64
59.80
333407.77
38450.54
2.20
78.34
18.72
1792.72
No_Data
8.10
0.83
744.38
0.20
866.18
857.31
MCTA-209-2
6
47.00
281.44
290513.43
69611.21
2.67
208.70
41.90
2894.24
No_Data
7.01
0.21
1331.98
0.32
199.66
198.74
MCTA-209-2
7
5.10
272.51
296473.67
67824.47
1.78
207.16
41.02
2808.66
No_Data
5.13
0.31
1332.77
0.28
201.88
208.42
MCTA-209-2
8
39.77
306.13
290336.76
69253.86
1.70
244.90
38.15
2887.29
No_Data
6.90
0.08
1304.32
0.28
200.01
193.15
MCTA-209-2
9
42.32
262.82
260555.68
66680.96
3.72
213.90
33.87
2655.59
No_Data
5.81
0.12
1288.82
0.25
188.00
195.68
257
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
6.88
8.01
0.73
2.40
0.21
4.36
0.05
3.40
3.21
4.80
0.51
2.02
0.19
2.05
0.20
1.01
6.22
7.38
0.71
2.63
0.20
4.85
0.15
2.87
7.10
8.75
0.79
2.55
0.28
4.41
No_Data
3.63
3.55
5.00
0.51
2.03
0.36
2.32
0.24
1.24
3.77
5.13
0.51
1.97
0.20
2.26
0.22
1.28
3.36
4.59
0.49
2.10
0.28
2.21
0.27
0.96
3.46
4.78
0.52
1.89
0.30
2.26
0.32
0.90
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
MCTA-209-2
10
54.47
319.66
296331.19
69253.86
3.06
244.27
39.25
3314.81
No_Data
6.68
0.22
1349.19
0.30
231.70
223.18
3.31
4.82
0.46
MCTB-209-1
2
8.42
101.52
334016.02
47741.57
3.35
139.40
24.77
1845.63
No_Data
6.46
0.31
1150.05
0.20
414.75
405.38
5.05
6.09
0.63
MCTB-209-1
4
2.67
839.84
283721.31
125714.69
2.50
152.91
34.83
3925.28
No_Data
2.04
No_Data
921.53
0.12
29.47
30.59
0.56
0.98
0.10
MCTB-209-1
5
7.23
62.35
336507.55
37878.79
3.16
76.79
16.89
1622.93
35.15
6.81
0.82
750.11
0.21
784.13
784.39
7.28
9.19
0.89
MCTB-209-1
6
0.55
678.43
255875.73
124070.90
3.10
139.12
33.65
3399.79
No_Data
1.21
No_Data
843.36
0.13
28.54
27.00
0.50
0.85
0.11
MCTB-209-1
7
1.67
767.41
260353.73
123499.14
2.52
145.83
36.48
3901.76
No_Data
1.31
No_Data
934.74
0.14
30.25
30.27
0.58
1.06
0.12
MCTB-209-1
8
0.69
685.47
243991.24
124213.84
1.48
124.61
32.31
3243.04
0.57
1.25
No_Data
895.65
0.11
25.00
24.49
0.51
0.93
0.13
MCTB-209-1
9
1.34
756.05
271610.13
124642.65
1.64
131.49
31.62
3413.00
1.75
1.56
No_Data
922.75
0.11
30.21
30.43
0.57
1.00
0.12
258
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
1.88
0.27
1.91
0.35
1.08
2.41
0.17
4.24
0.31
1.95
0.51
0.15
0.29
No_Data
0.17
2.20
0.26
4.26
0.12
3.97
0.55
0.04
0.24
0.11
0.21
0.61
0.12
0.30
No_Data
0.26
0.50
0.08
0.25
0.03
0.38
0.56
0.10
0.26
0.03
0.12
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
MCTB-209-2
1
0.65
723.94
254123.75
122284.16
1.87
127.60
34.17
3691.53
1.22
2.08
No_Data
1004.93
0.13
31.78
31.06
0.54
0.97
0.14
0.60
0.06
0.28
MCTB-209-2
2
16.53
499.80
652900.32
121926.82
2.72
422.39
64.43
5297.94
No_Data
15.12
0.55
2939.16
0.72
775.33
806.65
8.50
11.30
1.14
4.24
0.48
6.38
MCTB-209-2
3
2.17
763.01
256872.36
126572.33
2.34
128.62
36.27
3549.94
No_Data
1.06
No_Data
870.34
0.17
28.61
28.29
0.56
0.87
0.11
0.55
0.09
0.25
MCTB-209-2
4
2.69
696.62
245435.51
123427.67
No_Data
139.13
36.64
3665.83
No_Data
1.38
No_Data
922.50
0.19
28.29
28.83
0.61
0.95
0.15
0.61
0.08
0.27
MCTB-209-2
6
2.65
780.58
260720.30
127572.90
1.59
142.75
38.02
3630.65
1.47
1.68
No_Data
946.14
0.09
32.66
29.20
0.55
1.00
0.09
0.63
0.11
0.24
MCTB-209-2
7
7.62
215.48
312741.15
63250.43
1.56
217.28
33.41
2254.61
0.51
6.32
0.15
1340.06
0.30
243.55
245.76
3.62
5.23
0.56
2.16
0.22
3.32
MCTB-209-2
8
0.77
751.64
235875.31
126929.67
1.26
135.32
31.50
3397.25
No_Data
1.74
No_Data
935.33
0.07
29.35
30.16
0.62
1.05
0.14
0.54
0.13
0.27
MCTB-209-2
9
6.39
206.94
304417.16
60677.53
3.59
221.67
32.71
2379.19
1.25
5.47
0.33
1398.80
0.22
232.69
231.77
3.55
4.76
0.52
1.79
0.25
2.89
259
Gd
Pb
No_Data
0.16
0.20
2.50
No_Data
0.12
0.04
0.15
No_Data
0.17
0.35
1.16
0.09
0.22
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
MCTB-209-2
10
5.37
217.78
285711.12
63536.31
3.24
218.94
31.96
2076.85
No_Data
5.19
0.22
1387.71
0.27
228.96
230.46
3.91
5.03
0.53
2.12
0.27
3.14
0.09
1.00
MCTL-206-1
1
8.22
61.99
343918.42
39379.65
3.16
82.56
18.49
1717.57
No_Data
5.50
0.48
796.88
0.27
790.77
790.31
8.03
9.13
0.84
2.69
0.21
4.52
No_Data
3.64
MCTL-206-1
2
6.16
57.97
307615.44
37449.97
2.55
74.89
15.78
1417.76
0.14
6.62
0.86
707.11
0.24
691.11
699.63
6.96
8.18
0.75
2.42
0.25
4.29
0.21
3.31
MCTL-206-1
3
7.52
58.18
315730.62
36806.75
2.82
75.51
17.16
1510.12
1.75
5.44
0.64
741.02
0.26
725.43
733.70
6.94
8.46
0.76
2.49
0.24
4.20
0.09
3.53
MCTL-206-1
4
7.57
58.15
292151.01
37092.62
2.35
70.88
16.13
1351.19
No_Data
5.96
0.69
687.82
0.23
682.03
696.47
6.74
8.21
0.72
2.53
0.21
4.24
0.17
3.02
MCTL-206-1
5
7.57
56.39
289395.32
38021.73
1.62
74.79
17.11
1530.47
No_Data
5.84
0.81
708.91
0.22
675.25
670.27
6.80
8.49
0.76
2.59
0.11
4.12
0.23
3.24
MCTL-206-1
6
7.92
62.49
300104.46
38093.20
3.46
82.30
17.71
1439.63
0.83
5.89
0.59
732.26
0.32
786.20
780.02
7.46
8.58
0.80
2.79
0.18
4.44
0.17
3.45
0.16
1.16
260
Table 2 (Continued): Ca normalized LA-ICP-MS results for plagioclase.
Sample
Run #
Li
Mg
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Pb
MCTL-206-1
8
7.52
55.26
306480.01
39165.24
1.76
70.75
18.17
1548.95
No_Data
6.09
0.72
761.89
0.07
729.91
717.35
7.75
8.97
0.94
2.96
0.39
4.55
0.18
3.35
MCTL-206-1
9
6.51
57.59
288656.26
37807.32
1.60
79.82
15.48
1374.73
No_Data
5.88
0.63
704.27
0.19
701.05
705.58
7.06
8.29
0.80
2.55
0.30
4.11
0.06
3.22
MCTL-206-1
10
6.70
82.85
280281.11
47241.28
2.39
108.65
23.85
1440.38
0.91
6.77
0.36
1120.94
0.24
405.83
402.16
5.07
6.14
0.61
2.14
0.18
5.06
0.15
1.60
Table 3: Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
261
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
LBTP-185-1
1
6.10
247054.97
150674.33
227.22
1963.01
149.72
0.75
149.99
0.09
19.60
117.83
63.17
0.09
0.33
0.51
8.04
36.09
7.69
49.25
17.14
2.45
21.74
23.70
13.29
11.63
2.22
LBTP-185-1
2
6.71
249018.32
155950.30
316.98
1997.52
90.34
0.71
176.79
0.03
24.94
143.66
63.24
0.06
0.47
0.52
8.55
38.75
8.65
54.99
20.39
2.96
24.57
28.83
17.79
14.53
2.89
LBTP-185-1
3
7.12
248410.62
154800.41
325.66
1977.75
95.13
No_Data
177.65
No_Data
27.55
145.75
76.60
0.06
0.06
0.12
9.07
41.66
9.31
57.54
22.00
3.45
27.58
29.82
18.32
14.09
3.22
LBTP-185-1
4
6.48
247615.93
158199.35
324.22
1957.12
94.80
0.54
178.38
No_Data
27.81
146.44
75.91
0.04
0.02
0.25
9.44
42.70
9.81
60.26
21.72
3.45
27.25
30.17
18.02
14.42
3.44
LBTP-185-1
5
6.32
247522.44
150056.66
399.40
1376.12
63.89
0.44
214.46
0.06
19.25
178.51
67.42
0.07
0.05
0.32
12.43
54.81
11.62
70.33
25.80
3.18
31.11
36.49
22.63
18.94
2.53
LBTP-185-1
6
7.29
250654.45
152908.15
399.54
1441.89
68.54
0.18
209.08
No_Data
20.50
181.43
70.31
0.05
No_Data
0.17
10.98
50.60
11.18
70.52
25.84
3.40
33.59
37.53
22.54
19.33
2.81
LBTP-185-1
7
6.19
246120.04
156166.13
334.06
1527.53
74.20
0.30
180.66
No_Data
24.10
149.41
57.05
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
13.00
51.05
10.34
63.35
21.69
3.20
27.64
30.86
18.58
14.91
2.29
LBTP-185-1
14
LBTP-185-1
15
LBTP-185-1
8
7.04
246867.99
151457.37
269.24
1841.79
91.15
No_Data
187.37
No_Data
24.33
135.19
58.12
0.05
0.08
0.16
7.96
36.27
8.05
51.42
18.70
2.84
23.16
26.33
16.32
13.32
2.33
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
LBTP-185-1
9
LBTP-185-1
10
LBTP-185-1
11
LBTP-185-1
12
LBTP-185-1
13
LBTP-185-1
16
262
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
7.00
250093.49
158130.35
367.60
1594.40
69.04
0.87
177.12
0.40
25.44
159.70
71.85
0.13
2.87
3.21
10.00
44.11
10.29
65.50
24.69
3.55
29.40
33.76
20.01
16.81
2.87
7.43
247522.44
158609.81
340.62
1567.39
71.98
No_Data
185.15
0.03
22.35
137.47
57.30
0.05
No_Data
No_Data
7.91
35.93
8.23
52.90
19.13
3.07
23.82
27.42
17.35
13.85
2.19
5.26
247709.42
9035.52
78.51
944.06
15.13
0.23
646.87
No_Data
0.05
21.24
3.29
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.26
0.10
0.74
0.59
0.09
1.18
3.21
3.36
4.98
0.15
5.38
249719.52
9556.91
71.89
1001.62
16.34
0.25
620.04
No_Data
0.17
20.26
3.54
0.02
0.15
0.15
0.05
0.30
0.09
0.79
0.43
0.10
1.31
2.66
3.21
4.25
0.14
5.68
245839.57
10456.79
90.36
1635.57
42.02
0.73
547.90
No_Data
0.21
20.01
6.58
No_Data
0.02
No_Data
0.04
0.33
0.08
0.80
0.56
0.15
1.03
2.66
2.82
4.15
0.38
4.71
246120.04
6971.73
34.64
1050.45
24.50
0.28
511.00
0.09
0.10
11.30
2.89
0.01
No_Data
No_Data
0.02
0.11
0.03
0.36
0.33
0.06
0.60
1.42
1.96
2.78
0.04
6.12
242333.58
9094.75
75.77
945.60
15.18
No_Data
648.94
No_Data
0.08
20.50
3.76
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.03
0.26
0.10
0.62
0.65
0.10
1.01
2.99
3.19
4.57
0.13
5.23
249205.31
9255.47
82.45
1454.25
36.10
0.36
477.93
No_Data
0.13
15.99
4.60
0.02
No_Data
No_Data
0.02
0.23
0.08
0.62
0.48
0.12
1.22
2.22
2.58
3.24
0.16
LBTT-156-1
3
4.87
247709.42
LBTT-156-1
4
4.31
249859.76
LBTT-156-1
6
6.01
244717.65
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
LBTP-185-1
17
6.16
244483.92
LBTP-185-1
18
5.50
243034.78
LBTP-185-1
19
5.92
242894.54
LBTP-185-1
20
5.75
245418.85
LBTT-156-1
1
4.90
249906.51
263
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
9527.43
72.76
1546.95
48.40
0.06
576.68
No_Data
0.18
19.79
5.65
0.02
0.12
0.03
0.10
0.38
0.10
0.75
0.50
0.17
1.30
2.83
3.05
3.82
0.31
8479.59
76.83
1017.31
20.32
No_Data
579.81
No_Data
0.10
21.13
4.24
No_Data
0.16
0.16
0.05
0.29
0.08
0.82
0.46
0.13
1.33
2.98
3.31
4.48
0.17
8390.96
67.97
807.04
14.23
0.78
597.65
No_Data
0.14
19.06
3.09
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.05
0.27
0.08
0.81
0.52
0.10
1.00
2.56
2.85
3.75
0.13
8040.47
68.01
1532.30
51.25
1.15
489.23
0.02
0.75
22.37
4.12
0.01
No_Data
0.04
1.45
4.55
0.64
3.54
1.20
0.19
1.91
3.75
3.43
4.34
0.20
10748.66
77.37
937.29
13.40
No_Data
604.28
No_Data
0.12
18.57
3.61
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.27
0.07
0.58
0.47
0.09
1.15
2.67
2.98
4.12
0.18
10486.96
83.65
929.37
13.20
0.22
600.50
No_Data
0.07
21.62
3.43
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.31
0.09
0.68
0.61
0.10
1.32
2.92
3.77
4.48
0.18
9190.52
83.38
983.53
11.14
0.92
586.31
No_Data
0.13
22.30
3.60
0.02
0.03
No_Data
0.02
0.25
0.10
0.76
0.56
0.10
1.48
3.25
3.44
5.05
0.08
10013.40
78.13
1495.86
17.54
0.42
586.40
0.03
0.13
21.41
5.54
No_Data
No_Data
0.02
0.04
0.30
0.09
0.85
0.46
0.13
1.72
3.23
3.66
4.95
0.26
LBTT-156-1
12
6.05
253459.24
159378.19
327.81
LBTT-156-1
13
5.76
249298.80
165024.13
351.99
LBTT-156-1
14
5.18
233732.24
146420.92
343.69
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
LBTT-156-1
7
4.83
246213.54
9202.60
66.79
LBTT-156-1
8
5.53
248176.89
10651.29
71.82
LBTT-156-1
9
4.91
246213.54
9065.07
79.30
LBTT-156-1
10
5.43
244670.91
8436.60
80.07
LBTT-156-1
11
7.02
249906.51
163610.71
345.58
264
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
1553.34
37.17
No_Data
423.48
No_Data
0.10
16.03
4.94
0.01
No_Data
0.15
0.03
0.27
0.06
0.57
0.39
0.10
0.90
2.26
2.28
3.61
0.23
916.36
14.28
No_Data
591.79
0.10
0.13
19.28
3.56
0.04
No_Data
0.02
0.04
0.25
0.08
0.80
0.54
0.09
1.45
2.62
2.91
4.42
0.16
1045.34
18.35
No_Data
585.09
No_Data
0.09
22.12
4.30
0.01
0.19
0.06
0.04
0.29
0.09
0.81
0.62
0.10
1.48
3.13
3.42
4.63
0.20
983.69
17.01
No_Data
606.54
No_Data
0.07
24.68
4.31
0.02
0.21
0.21
0.08
0.30
0.11
0.81
0.60
0.10
1.51
3.17
3.93
5.36
0.10
2162.29
84.45
No_Data
174.67
No_Data
27.53
154.54
65.88
0.06
0.39
0.47
8.84
39.48
8.70
59.18
20.91
3.49
28.13
31.05
17.95
15.06
2.73
2141.00
106.83
No_Data
197.53
0.04
24.65
154.36
63.25
0.08
0.68
0.72
8.98
38.57
8.73
56.92
21.73
2.97
28.45
31.05
18.86
15.65
2.37
2216.76
86.48
0.51
171.93
No_Data
26.95
147.80
72.13
0.15
2.36
2.29
8.66
38.96
8.69
56.38
21.12
3.50
25.96
30.17
18.24
14.32
2.83
1542.77
66.90
0.41
175.99
No_Data
22.33
140.12
61.15
0.03
No_Data
0.13
8.30
36.49
8.54
52.92
20.00
2.86
25.14
28.23
17.65
14.01
2.44
LBTT-185-1
1
6.28
247756.17
9763.45
91.74
1003.72
14.73
LBTT-185-1
2
5.63
249719.52
9557.83
63.97
919.99
13.39
LBTT-185-1
3
4.93
245839.57
9745.47
75.21
1923.58
57.84
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
LBTT-156-1
15
6.02
250186.99
159924.92
379.10
1600.08
66.22
LBTT-156-1
16
6.49
248410.62
167754.29
309.48
2458.42
135.81
LBTT-156-1
17
7.20
251495.89
160475.38
367.88
1662.18
66.03
LBTT-156-1
18
8.11
249906.51
162925.02
271.68
2419.40
93.55
LBTT-156-1
19
5.43
249439.04
160089.32
343.53
1720.33
77.26
265
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
No_Data
186.60
No_Data
21.72
162.15
65.09
0.03
0.00
0.17
9.01
41.23
9.71
61.31
23.41
3.09
30.31
33.58
20.49
15.89
2.83
No_Data
187.61
No_Data
22.87
169.12
70.32
0.07
0.08
0.29
11.28
49.53
10.99
68.80
25.93
3.57
32.43
35.11
22.05
17.24
3.07
0.40
185.94
No_Data
21.88
166.07
63.35
0.03
No_Data
0.11
9.47
43.42
10.22
62.76
23.39
3.16
28.50
32.51
19.13
16.96
2.50
0.44
163.53
No_Data
32.72
117.76
65.93
0.07
0.03
0.15
6.70
34.33
7.49
49.33
18.38
3.91
22.37
25.99
13.68
10.64
2.73
No_Data
169.87
No_Data
23.49
145.82
62.11
0.05
0.05
0.13
8.51
40.02
8.49
57.87
19.89
3.07
26.90
30.08
17.26
14.32
2.50
1.45
649.79
No_Data
0.02
26.38
3.56
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.06
0.37
0.11
0.92
0.72
0.14
1.62
3.83
4.23
5.60
0.16
No_Data
601.79
No_Data
0.12
18.29
3.08
0.02
0.04
No_Data
0.04
0.24
0.07
0.64
0.44
0.10
1.07
2.53
2.97
3.85
0.14
LBTT-185-1
9
5.59
242894.54
10354.11
81.89
1406.70
30.46
No_Data
550.23
LBTT-185-1
10
4.84
245418.85
10160.34
73.01
2054.60
65.17
No_Data
397.49
1.47
447.48
0.08
0.16
17.36
6.54
0.01
0.24
0.49
0.09
0.54
0.10
1.05
0.50
0.11
0.89
2.22
2.33
3.21
0.33
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
LBTT-185-1
4
4.97
246120.04
9351.19
59.76
1455.43
40.38
No_Data
468.85
LBTT-185-1
5
6.58
242240.09
11700.98
97.49
1740.29
28.37
0.76
544.59
LBTT-185-1
6
7.34
249252.06
10121.44
75.17
1721.22
46.68
1.19
458.36
LBTT-185-1
7
5.33
244530.67
10431.35
65.42
1328.11
28.83
No_Data
520.62
LBTT-185-1
8
5.34
243081.53
9820.62
64.93
1540.34
37.72
0.43
431.64
LBTT-185-1
11
4.69
245418.85
9756.59
70.92
883.16
14.22
No_Data
606.35
266
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
No_Data
0.12
16.40
4.65
0.04
0.50
0.58
0.06
0.29
0.07
0.67
0.39
0.08
1.01
2.55
2.55
3.43
0.16
No_Data
0.16
26.29
6.74
0.01
0.64
0.61
0.10
0.51
0.11
1.39
0.81
0.14
1.70
3.71
4.20
5.66
0.28
No_Data
0.08
16.61
5.65
0.01
No_Data
0.05
0.06
0.35
0.12
0.76
0.55
0.12
1.17
2.07
2.44
3.50
0.19
0.07
0.32
17.85
4.75
0.02
2.31
2.53
0.12
0.53
0.11
0.76
0.49
0.10
1.04
2.36
3.00
3.87
0.16
0.10
0.07
13.94
4.38
0.01
No_Data
0.04
0.03
0.22
0.07
0.50
0.42
0.10
0.89
1.77
2.03
3.33
0.18
No_Data
0.17
18.43
4.19
0.01
0.04
No_Data
0.04
0.23
0.09
0.67
0.50
0.14
1.30
2.43
2.91
3.73
0.24
No_Data
0.19
12.83
6.27
0.02
No_Data
No_Data
0.03
0.20
0.06
0.52
0.39
0.09
0.68
1.91
2.02
2.87
0.26
No_Data
0.07
20.99
3.51
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.21
0.95
0.21
1.57
0.98
0.11
1.16
2.92
3.02
4.10
0.16
LBTT-185-1
17
5.53
248550.86
10165.57
74.79
1093.68
16.70
0.87
597.41
No_Data
0.11
LBTT-185-1
18
7.09
248223.64
163676.14
396.64
2098.57
94.64
1.33
190.70
No_Data
22.50
LBTT-185-1
19
7.14
251168.66
172790.99
331.40
1946.56
105.56
No_Data
180.72
No_Data
25.83
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
LBTT-185-1
12
6.36
250888.18
11461.53
89.37
1199.34
15.58
0.30
637.71
No_Data
0.06
LBTT-185-1
13
6.76
250888.18
12178.63
93.30
1840.25
44.00
No_Data
486.98
No_Data
0.22
LBTT-185-1
14
6.47
250888.18
10649.75
68.21
1413.89
33.82
0.60
505.21
No_Data
0.12
LBTT-185-1
15
5.69
250888.18
10184.96
54.68
1354.04
37.38
No_Data
485.28
No_Data
0.10
LBTT-185-1
16
5.63
249111.82
10241.70
85.20
1359.58
26.24
No_Data
616.83
No_Data
0.24
267
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
25.40
5.08
No_Data
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.36
0.10
1.05
0.66
0.12
1.57
3.44
4.15
5.70
0.21
19.73
5.90
0.02
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.27
0.10
0.69
0.54
0.18
1.15
3.04
3.14
4.32
0.33
17.23
3.86
No_Data
1.18
1.30
0.10
0.32
0.06
0.54
0.43
0.11
1.15
2.25
2.50
4.26
0.19
13.72
2.69
No_Data
No_Data
0.02
0.02
0.16
0.03
0.31
0.21
0.07
0.65
1.56
2.26
3.25
0.09
26.02
4.63
No_Data
0.02
0.49
0.08
0.47
0.11
1.00
0.76
0.16
1.67
3.80
4.03
5.23
0.11
22.07
3.49
0.02
No_Data
No_Data
0.03
0.26
0.08
0.88
0.50
0.11
1.14
3.03
3.84
4.80
0.13
177.61
72.23
0.01
No_Data
0.19
10.53
46.55
10.79
70.03
25.42
3.64
32.97
35.93
21.34
17.61
2.79
151.36
69.01
0.06
No_Data
0.23
9.51
44.40
10.14
60.21
23.04
3.20
29.09
32.44
19.44
16.01
2.86
LBTT-185-1
25
6.05
250888.18
9537.63
85.84
1293.13
20.05
No_Data
592.37
No_Data
0.04
21.37
4.15
LBTT-185-1
26
6.79
249485.79
164785.46
362.43
1845.17
82.05
No_Data
177.11
No_Data
25.72
150.47
66.78
LBTT-185-1
27
6.93
249813.01
157591.39
375.23
1626.77
68.63
No_Data
189.95
No_Data
19.64
174.00
63.62
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
LBTT-185-1
20
6.33
249205.31
166770.77
390.68
1801.72
77.29
No_Data
198.77
No_Data
23.23
173.39
69.88
LBTT-185-1
21
8.25
249298.80
159704.58
307.72
3724.95
134.90
No_Data
183.50
No_Data
37.06
132.16
72.11
LBTT-185-1
22
7.50
249111.82
154399.23
383.81
1566.26
72.21
No_Data
191.54
No_Data
19.97
188.67
71.51
LBTT-185-1
23
9.51
252010.10
171822.74
398.06
1964.55
81.30
0.34
198.10
No_Data
27.20
176.22
73.61
LBTT-185-1
24
7.95
248504.11
160208.13
408.66
1650.30
69.39
No_Data
209.16
No_Data
19.66
195.15
78.55
268
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
0.07
0.15
0.19
10.14
48.13
10.19
65.04
24.41
3.34
32.30
34.75
20.85
18.23
2.73
0.08
0.30
0.52
8.25
36.52
8.05
50.67
19.56
5.07
25.19
25.72
15.88
12.60
3.05
0.04
0.03
0.22
11.22
54.26
11.80
75.24
25.56
3.55
35.50
38.82
24.55
20.18
3.05
0.06
No_Data
0.19
10.50
50.74
11.29
68.39
26.18
3.59
32.85
35.53
21.67
17.44
3.41
0.03
No_Data
0.21
11.13
52.39
11.58
72.12
27.64
3.39
34.32
38.77
24.24
20.11
3.02
0.01
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.32
0.09
0.73
0.44
0.08
1.39
2.94
3.42
4.60
0.23
0.04
No_Data
0.17
9.02
41.67
9.39
59.12
22.88
3.51
27.92
30.37
18.57
15.36
2.79
LBTT-185-2
7
3.62
248504.11
9944.57
76.08
1282.52
29.41
No_Data
528.85
No_Data
0.09
20.63
4.83
0.02
0.05
LBTT-185-2
8
5.19
248176.89
9465.27
78.12
1266.94
22.36
No_Data
553.80
No_Data
0.08
20.74
3.70
0.03
0.19
0.04
0.05
0.18
9.57
44.72
10.28
64.27
23.89
3.39
33.89
37.49
21.69
18.22
2.66
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
LBTT-185-2
1
5.27
245372.10
164654.85
378.02
1787.59
71.09
0.56
178.79
No_Data
26.58
157.47
66.34
0.03
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
2
2.20
243829.47
173150.37
179.62
5931.72
281.96
1.37
60.09
No_Data
50.80
36.53
30.17
0.04
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
4
4.68
245418.85
11453.41
89.03
1466.46
21.88
0.76
520.19
No_Data
0.23
22.50
5.65
0.01
0.05
LBTT-185-2
5
4.15
250000.00
10900.48
72.43
1098.06
16.08
No_Data
563.08
No_Data
0.22
18.87
3.38
0.01
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
6
2.71
254487.66
9042.42
60.59
1656.32
47.62
0.47
269.42
No_Data
0.17
8.00
3.17
0.02
No_Data
LBTT-185-2
9
5.17
248737.85
10338.11
68.62
827.86
12.34
0.90
580.57
No_Data
0.03
17.58
3.04
0.02
No_Data
269
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
0.14
8.95
38.88
9.16
58.90
20.56
3.28
27.91
31.51
19.66
15.32
2.70
0.05
1.95
8.84
2.10
15.28
5.54
1.95
8.12
8.28
4.24
2.68
1.42
0.05
0.05
0.39
0.10
0.87
0.76
0.16
1.66
2.96
3.33
4.85
0.27
No_Data
0.04
0.23
0.07
0.53
0.57
0.07
1.37
2.65
2.73
4.21
0.11
No_Data
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.27
0.27
0.06
0.60
1.23
1.58
1.60
0.15
0.07
0.06
0.29
0.08
0.75
0.41
0.11
1.22
2.84
2.99
4.32
0.20
0.17
0.05
0.27
0.07
0.77
0.57
0.11
1.51
2.89
2.84
4.55
0.16
No_Data
0.01
0.24
0.07
0.61
0.53
0.08
0.96
2.30
2.71
3.54
0.10
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
LBTT-185-2
10
2.24
250981.68
9088.00
57.39
1993.18
68.46
No_Data
298.35
0.05
0.13
8.29
4.29
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.03
MCTA-209-1
1
2.21
243922.96
10266.39
78.35
1910.46
25.19
0.88
329.28
No_Data
0.20
9.83
4.65
0.01
No_Data
0.02
0.03
MCTA-209-1
2
2.81
248363.87
155620.69
248.84
4168.87
74.40
0.45
119.90
No_Data
42.03
78.94
54.76
0.10
No_Data
0.08
4.20
MCTA-209-2
1
2.10
250514.21
10678.73
78.71
1895.00
23.07
No_Data
311.65
0.09
0.18
11.89
5.04
0.02
No_Data
No_Data
0.01
MCTA-209-2
3
3.07
253599.48
155305.40
190.01
4860.64
118.24
0.64
84.12
0.06
43.38
46.80
37.60
0.04
0.19
0.15
2.50
MCTA-209-2
4
2.23
246026.55
10513.16
68.94
1384.15
17.92
0.75
310.94
0.28
0.30
9.91
4.33
0.04
0.14
0.17
0.02
MCTB-209-1
1
5.76
246961.48
164234.20
164.98
6406.89
198.86
2.06
62.84
No_Data
40.50
34.33
27.38
0.03
No_Data
0.07
1.44
MCTB-209-1
2
1.23
248176.89
179824.03
163.51
4345.19
296.09
1.85
31.19
No_Data
49.62
17.06
17.77
0.01
No_Data
0.01
0.87
270
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
0.15
0.04
0.32
0.28
0.07
0.67
1.16
1.33
1.88
0.16
0.11
0.04
0.33
0.26
0.11
0.68
1.41
1.53
1.93
0.22
18.48
4.18
28.32
10.46
3.24
15.65
15.50
9.18
7.42
3.11
0.13
0.04
0.38
0.32
0.10
0.85
1.63
1.67
2.28
0.27
11.96
2.63
18.76
7.44
2.39
9.77
10.30
5.53
4.42
1.89
0.12
0.03
0.24
0.36
0.09
0.71
1.34
1.56
1.92
0.20
6.85
1.71
12.52
5.56
1.68
7.24
7.51
3.78
2.68
1.37
3.75
0.92
5.86
2.54
0.92
3.49
3.38
1.90
1.33
0.85
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
MCTB-209-1
3
3.14
248130.14
10756.46
44.20
1288.10
15.89
No_Data
277.38
No_Data
0.20
5.76
1.81
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
0.02
0.07
0.02
MCTB-209-1
4
2.13
246867.99
166434.15
143.58
3461.53
261.45
1.90
32.33
No_Data
48.87
12.81
11.85
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.62
2.96
0.76
MCTB-209-1
5
2.30
237331.71
162575.40
137.94
4680.90
255.59
2.04
41.89
No_Data
35.85
18.19
14.16
No_Data
No_Data
0.04
0.96
3.89
0.97
MCTB-209-1
6
1.79
242941.29
168787.86
168.17
5548.22
293.29
1.89
42.74
No_Data
42.78
22.78
20.09
0.06
No_Data
0.10
1.16
5.22
1.29
MCTB-209-1
7
7.68
255001.87
10665.60
64.33
1889.27
35.41
0.82
218.21
0.04
0.24
6.39
2.72
No_Data
0.39
0.16
0.02
0.15
0.03
MCTB-209-1
8
2.29
242473.82
161950.55
177.35
5095.42
209.45
1.33
66.04
No_Data
43.37
34.25
26.54
0.04
0.08
0.18
1.56
7.04
1.68
MCTB-209-1
9
1.87
241819.37
156018.23
191.86
4183.23
67.18
0.89
71.16
No_Data
40.86
50.91
40.72
0.03
0.77
1.09
2.78
10.52
2.79
MCTB-209-2
9
0.74
247101.72
176317.08
164.73
5511.88
296.91
0.94
42.88
No_Data
46.01
20.83
19.04
No_Data
No_Data
No_Data
1.08
4.86
1.15
271
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
0.20
0.16
0.05
0.33
0.89
0.72
1.10
0.14
4.88
2.05
0.74
2.62
2.46
1.50
1.11
0.55
6.65
2.73
0.98
4.05
4.06
1.95
1.56
0.72
9.01
3.23
1.31
5.09
4.71
2.59
1.84
1.00
0.16
0.19
0.06
0.40
0.82
0.90
1.02
0.03
11.46
5.22
1.61
7.09
7.51
4.18
3.35
1.32
18.91
7.34
2.32
10.57
11.11
6.59
4.80
1.12
7.80
2.66
1.12
4.55
4.56
2.18
1.73
0.69
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
MCTB-209-2
10
2.24
242660.81
152260.56
190.23
4762.63
84.39
1.28
76.35
No_Data
38.79
48.91
38.65
0.07
No_Data
0.02
2.17
10.23
2.38
17.11
7.04
MCTB-209-2
11
3.37
236163.05
144109.31
163.20
4060.35
84.00
1.51
85.85
0.19
39.85
47.35
36.83
0.05
0.63
0.36
2.14
10.14
2.55
16.97
7.14
MCTB-209-2
12
0.69
246120.04
150762.18
130.58
4233.89
283.06
3.08
41.50
0.12
40.60
15.67
14.31
0.06
1.47
1.16
0.77
3.90
0.92
6.01
2.44
MCTB-209-2
13
4.72
243221.77
143536.45
174.41
3816.15
103.81
No_Data
81.31
0.15
39.91
50.62
39.41
0.05
0.09
0.08
2.73
13.54
3.25
19.54
7.72
MCTB-209-2
14
1.87
242520.57
146245.06
137.86
4429.82
288.64
2.85
42.90
No_Data
47.77
18.31
17.69
0.11
3.47
2.94
0.99
4.78
1.21
6.52
2.84
MCTB-209-2
15
2.08
240977.94
161637.41
150.94
5142.31
292.86
1.15
42.23
No_Data
40.75
20.14
17.73
0.02
No_Data
0.43
0.96
4.92
1.09
7.90
3.26
MCTB-209-2
16
3.06
244156.69
146909.14
197.64
3752.22
71.58
0.68
108.42
No_Data
34.12
57.86
44.64
0.03
No_Data
0.08
2.59
12.69
3.03
19.55
8.24
MCTB-209-2
17
3.55
241538.89
129221.64
245.31
2273.70
10.88
No_Data
121.52
No_Data
27.81
72.11
44.33
0.03
0.99
1.32
2.55
12.47
3.15
22.08
9.89
272
Eu
Gd
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
1.97
9.98
10.38
5.81
4.35
2.02
2.12
9.83
10.30
5.50
4.16
1.78
1.20
3.33
3.34
1.89
1.46
0.67
2.45
10.66
10.98
5.67
4.62
1.74
Table 3 (Continued): Si normalized LA-ICP-MS results for pyroxenes.
Sample
Run #
Li
Si
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
MCTL-206-1
1
1.36
245465.59
161036.62
137.50
4102.47
291.25
2.91
42.64
No_Data
76.45
18.86
28.51
0.03
No_Data
No_Data
2.11
10.53
2.29
14.51
4.62
1.70
5.01
1.02
3.35
3.37
2.17
1.43
0.82
1.19
4.42
4.44
2.26
1.81
0.80
2.13
10.87
11.47
7.00
5.43
1.90
2.02
12.89
15.58
9.40
7.61
2.01
273
Dy
Er
Yb
Hf
4.36
2.17
1.44
1.18
274