Discriminant diagrams for iron oxide trace element fingerprinting of mineral deposit types

TLDR: In this paper, electron microprobe analyses of minor and trace elements in magnetite and hematite from a range of mineral deposit types (IOCG), Kiruna apatite, magnetite, chromite, and spinel series, and ulvospinel as a result of divalent, trivalent, and tetravalent cation substitutions) are used to construct discriminant diagrams that separate different styles of mineralization.

Abstract: Magnetite and hematite are common minerals in a range of mineral deposit types. These minerals form partial to complete solid solutions with magnetite, chromite, and spinel series, and ulvospinel as a result of divalent, trivalent, and tetravalent cation substitutions. Electron microprobe analyses of minor and trace elements in magnetite and hematite from a range of mineral deposit types (iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG), Kiruna apatite–magnetite, banded iron formation (BIF), porphyry Cu, Fe-Cu skarn, Fe-Ti, V, Cr, Ni-Cu-PGE, Cu-Zn-Pb volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) and Archean Au-Cu porphyry and Opemiska Cu veins) show compositional differences that can be related to deposit types, and are used to construct discriminant diagrams that separate different styles of mineralization. The Ni + Cr vs. Si + Mg diagram can be used to isolate Ni-Cu-PGE, and Cr deposits from other deposit types. Similarly, the Al/(Zn + Ca) vs. Cu/(Si + Ca) diagram can be used to separate Cu-Zn-Pb VMS deposits from other deposit types. Samples plotting outside the Ni-Cu-PGE and Cu-Zn-Pb VMS fields are discriminated using the Ni/(Cr + Mn) vs. Ti + V or Ca + Al + Mn vs. Ti + V diagrams that discriminate for IOCG, Kiruna, porphyry Cu, BIF, skarn, Fe-Ti, and V deposits.