Next Article in Journal
C–O Stable Isotope Geochemistry of Carbonate Minerals in the Nonsulfide Zinc Deposits of the Middle East: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Advances and Opportunities in Ore Mineralogy
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Cemented Super-Fine Unclassified Tailings Backfill for Control of Subsidence
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mineral Quantification with Simultaneous Refinement of Ca-Mg Carbonates Non-Stoichiometry by X-ray Diffraction, Rietveld Method
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Subsolidus Evolution of the Magnetite-Spinel-UlvöSpinel Solid Solutions in the Kovdor Phoscorite-Carbonatite Complex, NW Russia

by
Gregory Yu. Ivanyuk
1,2,
Andrey O. Kalashnikov
2,*,
Yakov A. Pakhomovsky
1,2,
Ayya V. Bazai
1,2,
Pavel M. Goryainov
2,
Julia A. Mikhailova
1,2,
Victor N. Yakovenchuk
1,2 and
Nataly G. Konopleva
1
1
Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, 14 Fersman Street, Apatity 184209, Russia
2
Geological Institute of Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, 14 Fersman Street, Apatity 184209, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2017, 7(11), 215; https://doi.org/10.3390/min7110215
Submission received: 19 September 2017 / Revised: 31 October 2017 / Accepted: 3 November 2017 / Published: 9 November 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fundamentals and Frontiers in Mineralogy)

Abstract

:
The Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite ore-pipe rocks form a natural series, where apatite and magnetite first gradually increase due to the presence of earlier crystallizing forsterite in the pipe marginal zone and then decrease as a result of carbonate development in the axial zone. In all lithologies, magnetite grains contain (oxy)exsolution inclusions of comparatively earlier ilmenite group minerals and/or later spinel, and their relationship reflects the concentric zonation of the pipe. The temperature and oxygen fugacity of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution decreases in the natural rock sequence from about 500 °C to about 300 °C and from NNO + 1 to NNO − 3 (NNO is Ni-NiO oxygen fugacity buffer), with a secondary positive maximum for vein calcite carbonatite. Exsolution spinel forms spherical grains, octahedral crystals, six-beam and eight-beam skeletal crystals co-oriented with host magnetite. The ilmenite group minerals occur as lamellae oriented along {111} and {100} planes of oxy-exsolved magnetite. The kinetics of inclusion growth depends mainly on the diffusivity of cations in magnetite: their comparatively low diffusivities in phoscorite and carbonatites of the ore-pipe internal part cause size-independent growth of exsolution inclusions; while higher diffusivities of cations in surrounding rocks, marginal forsterite-rich phoscorite and vein calcite carbonatite result in size-dependent growth of inclusions.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Solid solutions of magnetite Fe2+Fe3+2O4 (Mag) with magnesioferrite MgFe3+2O4 (Mfr), hercynite Fe2+Al2O4 (Hc), spinel MgAl2O4 (Spl), jacobsite MnFe3+2O4 (Jcb), galaxite MnAl2O4 (Glx), ulvöspinel Fe2+2TiO4 (Usp), qandilite Mg2TiO4 (Qnd) and other members of the spinel group are of great interest because of their importance to petrology [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], geomagnetism [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], metallurgy and material sciences (ferrimagnets, electrodes, catalysts, refractories, welding materials, toners, etc.). All these minerals have a similar spinel crystal structure composed of almost cubic close-packed oxygen sublattice with cations occupying tetrahedral and octahedral interstitial sites. Normal spinellids (spinel, hercynite, galaxite, etc.) contain divalent ions in tetrahedral sites and trivalent cations in octahedral sites (Table 1). Inverse spinellids have half trivalent cations in tetrahedral positions and the balance of di- and tri-valent cations in octahedral positions (magnetite, magnesioferrite), or divalent cations in tetrahedral positions and the balance of di- and tetra-valent cations in octahedral positions (ulvöspinel and qandilite). Besides, there are spinellids with a partially inversed crystal structure, which is especially typical for intermediate compounds, such as titanomagnetite (minerals of the magnetite–ulvöspinel series).
At high temperatures, complete miscibility exists between all these compounds, but at low temperatures, there are miscibility gaps between Fe3+, Al and Ti-dominant members of the spinel group. Consequently, rock cooling causes exsolution of Al and/or Ti-rich magnetite into unmixed phases whose compositions are close to their end-members, magnetite–magnesioferrite, spinel–hercynite and ulvöspinel–qandilite:
4(Fe2+0.75Mg0.25)(Fe3+1.50Al0.50)O4 → 3Fe3O4 + MgAl2O4
Mg-Al-rich magnetite       Magnetite Spinel
2(Fe3+0.5Fe2+0.5)(Fe2+Fe3+0.5Ti0.5)O4 → Fe3O4 + Fe2TiO4, etc.
  Titanomagnetite       Magnetite Ulvöspinel
Under oxidizing conditions, titanomagnetite commonly undergoes oxy-exsolution that produces ilmenite–geikielite–pyrophanite lamellae instead of ulvöspinel–qandilite [8,38]:
20Fe2.7Ti0.3O4 + O2 → 16Fe3O4 + 6FeTiO3
Ti-rich magnetite    Magnetite Ilmenite
20Fe2.4Mg0.3Ti0.3O4 + O2 → 16Fe3O4 + 6MgTiO3
Mg-Ti-rich magnetite   Magnetite   Geikielite
Besides, exsolution ulvöspinel becomes unstable with decreasing temperature and can be oxy-exsolved at a later stage into ilmenite and magnetite [38,39]:
6Fe2TiO4 + O2 → 6Fe3O4 + 2FeTiO3
The Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite complex forms a concentrically-zoned pipe-like body with gradual transition from (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite of the marginal zone to carbonate-free magnetite-rich phoscorite of the intermediate zone and carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatites of the axial zone [16]. Magnetite is an accessory mineral in foidolite, diopsidite, phlogopite glimmerite and dolomite carbonatite, an accessory or minor rock-forming mineral in forsteritite, apatite-forsterite phoscorite and vein calcite carbonatite and a major mineral in all other types of phoscorite and carbonatites. Its morphology, anatomy, grain size and chemical composition vary corresponding to the concentric zonation of the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe [16,40]. In addition, magnetite always contains exsolution inclusions of spinel and/or ilmenite–geikielite [40,41,42], providing a means to estimate the thermodynamic conditions of exsolution using the Fe-Al and Fe-Ti oxide geothermobarometers.
The results of experimental and theoretical studies [4,5,38,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] allowed us to estimate the equilibration temperature and oxygen fugacity of coexisting magnetite and its exsolution products based on their chemical composition. Unfortunately, we can perform only a very approximate estimation of PT-conditions of Al-rich magnetite exsolutions based on the models of magnetite-spinel miscibility [5,45]; however, Fe-Ti oxide geothermobarometers are much more informative. Most realistic results can be obtained using the model [49] calibrated with the cation-ordering data [51,52], and experimental data on Fe2+Ti ↔ 2Fe3+ exchange between minerals of the ilmenite and spinel groups [26,53]. The model [44] can also be used for comparison.
The main objectives of the paper include studies of: (i) exsolution conditions (temperature, oxygen fugacity, cation diffusivities, etc.) of magnetite–spinel–ulvöspinel solid solution; and (ii) their dependence on rock type and spatial position within the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe. These objectives were achieved by development and analysis of 3D-models of compositions, grain size and thermodynamic parameters of exsolution products formation.

2. Geological Setting

The Kovdor alkali-ultrabasic massif is situated in the SW part of the Murmansk Region, Russia (Figure 1a). It is a central-type multiphase volcano-plutonic complex of peridotite, rimmed by foidolite, melilitolite and related metasomatic rocks (diopsidite, phlogopitite, skarn-like rock and fenite) that intruded into Archean granite-gneiss 380 Ma ago. At the western contact of the diopsidized/phlogopitized peridotite core with a foidolite-melilitolite rim, a concentrically zoned phoscorite-carbonatite ore-pipe (0.8 × 1.3 × > 6 km) intrudes into the massif, forming several explosive funnels (up to 100 m in diameter) on the present-day surface (Figure 1b). Due to a steep dip of the ore-pipe wall towards its axis located in the center, the pipe diameter reduced by 40% at 600 m depth [16,54,55].
The rocks of the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite ore-pipe form a natural series [16,40,56], where content of apatite and magnetite first gradually increase at the expense of earliest forsterite and then decrease as a result of carbonate development in the axial zone (Figure 2). Within this series, the rocks with carbonate content over 50 modal% are called “forsterite-related carbonatite”, and the remainder of the magnetite-forsterite-apatite-carbonate rocks are called “phoscorite”. Phoscorite varieties were designated according to the main minerals [16]: C, carbonate (mainly calcite); M, magnetite; A, apatite; and F, forsterite (the respective abbreviator of a rock-forming mineral is included in denomination of a rock if the content of this mineral exceeds 10 modal %), e.g. AF (apatite-forsterite phoscorite) etc.
As a result, the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe has concentric gradual zonation (Table 2), with marginal (earlier) forsterite-rich phoscorite (A, F, AF), intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite (M, MF, MA, MAF) and axial calcite-rich phoscorite and phoscorite-related carbonatite (C, CM, CA, CF, CMA, CMF, CMAF). Except for phoscorite-related carbonatite, there are later veins of calcite carbonatite (up to 3 m thick) that irregularly intersect the entire volume of the pipe and surrounding silicate rocks. Later magnetite-dolomite-(phlogopite)-serpentine rock (a metasomatite after forsterite-rich phoscorite and peridotite) constitutes the separated Eastern Satellite and several enclaves within the main ore-pipe, and a linear vertical zone of dolomite carbonatite extends from the central part of the main ore-pipe to the Eastern Satellite. Funnel-like bodies of porous breccias consisting of fragments of hydrothermally-altered phoscorite and carbonatite cemented by colloform carbonate-rich fluorapatite (staffelite) complete the formation of the phoscorite-carbonatite complex [16,40,54,57].
In the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe, magnetite grains contain almost always (oxy)exsolution inclusions of earlier minerals of the ilmenite group and/or later spinel [40,41,54,55]. In host foidolites, diopsidite and phlogopitite, magnetite grains are usually impregnated with oxy-exsolution inclusions of ilmenite-geikielite (Figure 2 and Figure 3a). Within the phoscorite-carbonatite ore-pipe, forsterite-rich phoscorite of the marginal zone and carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatites of the axial zone also contain magnetite with inclusions of ilmenite-geikielite (Figure 2 and Figure 3b), while low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite of intermediate zone predominantly include magnetite with inclusions of spinel. In all phoscorite varieties and carbonatites, especially in magnetite-rich phoscorite of the intermediate zone, there occur grains of magnetite with a spinel-impregnated core initially rimmed by ilmenite-geikielite-impregnated magnetite and then by inclusion-free magnetite (Figure 2 and Figure 3c). In vein calcite and dolomite carbonatites, as well as magnetite-dolomite-phlogopite-serpentine rock, magnetite contains mainly oxy-exsolution lamellae of ilmenite (predominantly) or geikielite.
As was shown in [16,40], magnesium is the main subordinate component in magnetite of the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite complex. There is a minor increase in MgO in magnetite from earlier (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite (4 ± 2 wt %) to intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite (5 ± 2 wt %), and then MgO in magnetite decreases in late carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite (4 ± 2 wt %). Magnetite with a higher Al2O3 content occurs in the intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite (0.7 ± 0.5 wt %), while earlier (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite and late carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite contain magnetite with lower content of Al2O3 (0.5 ± 0.5 and 0.6 ± 0.9 wt % correspondingly). The TiO2 content decreases from earlier (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite (2 ± 1 wt %) to intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite (1.0 ± 0.6 wt %), and then slightly increases in late carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite (1.1 ± 0.9 wt %). MnO content in magnetite is constant through all the pipe volume (0.5 ± 0.2 wt %).
It is obvious that magnetite composition determines both the modal and chemical composition of (oxy)exsolution inclusions. This fact enables us to complement the schemas of spatial distribution of the ilmenite-group minerals and spinel (see Figure 2) with similar schemas of their chemical composition and temperature of magnetite (oxy)exsolution. In addition, the shape and grain size of the inclusions will be estimated and correlated with temporal/spatial distribution of (oxy)exsolution temperature and oxygen fugacity.

3. Materials and Methods

For this study, we used 540 polished thin sections of phoscorite (mainly), carbonatites and host rocks from 108 exploration holes drilled within the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite ore-pipe [16]. The polished thin sections were analyzed using the scanning electron microscope LEO-1450 (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Oberkochen, Germany) with an energy-dispersive X-ray analytical attachment (EDS) Röntek to obtain back-scattered electron (BSE) images of important regions and pre-analyze all minerals found in the samples under analysis. The Image Tool 3.04 (The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA) was used to generate digital images from the BSE-images, and determine inclusions/magnetite area ratios and inclusions size (equivalent circular diameter of spinel grains, and thickness of ilmenite-geikielite lamellae).
The chemical composition of magnetite–magnesioferrite crystals and (oxy)exsolution inclusions (>10 µm thick/diameter) was determined using the electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) Cameca MS-46 (Cameca, Gennevilliers, France) operating in wavelength-dispersive mode at 20 kV and 20–30 nA. Grains were analyzed using the beam size of 5 µm and the counting time of about 20 and 10 s on peaks and background respectively. The standards used, and limits of accuracy are given in Table 3. Cation and end-member contents were calculated using the MINAL program of Dmitry D. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky [58]. Equilibrium temperatures and oxygen fugacities of magnetite exsolution were estimated using Fe-Ti two-oxide geothermometers and oxygen-barometers of Andersen and Lindsley [44] and Ghiorso and Evans [49], with corresponding interactive programs ILMAT [59] and MELTS [60]. Statistical analyses were carried out using the STATIATICA 8.0 (StatSoft) and TableCurve 2.0 (The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA) programs. For the statistics, resulting values of the analyses below the limit of accuracy (see Table 3) were considered to be ten times lower than the limit. Geostatistical studies and 3D modeling were conducted with the MICROMINE 16 program. Interpolation was performed with ordinary kriging. The automatic 3D geological mapping (see Figure 2b) was performed by means of chemistry-to-mineral conversion [61].

4. Results

4.1. Spinel

According to the earlier evidence of Rimskaya-Korsakova [41], exsolution spinel forms spherical grains (up to 20 µm in diameter), well-shaped octahedral crystals (up to 200 µm in diameter) as well as six-beam (on [100]) and eight-beam (on [111]) skeletal crystals (up to 300 µm in diameter) structurally co-oriented with host magnetite crystals. In different sections of host magnetite crystals (Figure 4), these inclusions appear as circles (any sections of magnetite crystals); squares and crosses (on (100) planes); triangles, hexagons and three-beam stars (on (111) planes); rhombs, hexagons, crosses and lamellae (on (110) planes). The content of spinel inclusions in magnetite reaches 27 modal %, and their median content in spinel-containing grains is 9 modal %. Spinel inclusions are mainly concentrated in the cores of magnetite crystals, where their size increases significantly (see Figure 3). Comparatively large crystals of spinel (>20 µm in diameter) are usually rimmed by an inclusion-free magnetite aureole of twice the diameter (see Figure 4).
Spinel crystals commonly contain prismatic inclusions of baddeleyite as a co-product of magnetite exsolution, and sometimes most of the spinel crystals carry such inclusions. During the last stages of magnetite exsolution in the carbonate-rich rocks, quintinite-2H formed after, or instead of, spinel [62]:
8(Mg0.5Fe2+0.5)(Fe3+1.75Al0.25)O4 + 10H2O+ CO2 → 6Fe3O4 + [Mg4Al2(OH)12](CO3)(H2O)4 + ½O2
Mg-Al-rich magnetite        Magnetite     Quintinite
4MgAl2O4 + 10H2O + CO2 → [Mg4Al2(OH)12](CO3)(H2O)4 + 3Al2O3
Spinel              Quintinite
The distribution of the grain size of spinel inclusions in magnetite can be of two types (Figure 5): (1) negative-exponential distributions (about 30% of investigated specimens), when cumulative frequencies are concave down in log-log space and linear in semilog space; and (2) power-law distributions (about 70% of investigated specimens), when cumulative frequencies are linear in log-log space and concave up in semilog space. Within different magnetite grains in the same specimen, the size of inclusions is distributed according to the same law. The simplified explanation of the difference between these types of distributions of spinel grain size is that the negative-exponential distribution reflects size-independent crystal growth, and the power-law distribution results from a positive-feedback process in which the time-averaged crystal growth rate is proportional to the crystal size [63,64,65]. Size-independent growth of spinel occurs in about 30% of low-carbonate magnetite-rich phosphorite of the intermediate zone, and carbonate-rich phoscorite and phoscorite-related carbonatite of the ore-pipe axial zone; however, the size-dependent growth of spinel grains is dominant everywhere (Figure 6).
The typical size of spinel inclusions Dchar (average equivalent circular diameter of a grain fraction with the largest summary area [40,66]) usually lies within the interval of 1–4 µm; however, in size-dependent sets, an additional maximum appears at 12–50 µm (Figure 7). For this reason, Dchar has a bimodal distribution with maxima at these intervals.
Typical chemical compositions of magnetite-spinel pairs, selected on the basis of median contents of Mg in spinel, is presented in Table 4. Spinel contains insignificant amounts of chemical impurities, and, on average, its composition corresponds to the formula (Mg0.88Fe2+0.10 Zn0.02)Σ1.00(Al1.86Fe3+0.13 Ti0.01)Σ2.00O4 [40]. The main compositional impurity is iron that replaces both Mg and Al during exsolution of Mg-Al-rich magnetite (Figure 8a). This process is also accompanied by the differentiation of Mn that remains in the magnetite structure (Figure 8b), and Zn that goes from magnetite into spinel. As a result, in the forsterite-rich phoscorite of marginal zone of the ore-pipe, the exsolved spinel is comparatively enriched both in Fe2+ and Fe3+, and contains higher amounts of Fe3+ in the carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite of the axial zone (compare Figure 9 and Figure 2).
The diagram in Figure 8a shows compositions of spinel-magnetite pairs in relation to miscibility gaps and equilibrium tie lines in the system of spinels—(Fe2+, Mg)Cl2 aqueous solution at 800 °C and 4 kbars [45]. Solid tie lines, connecting compositions of coexisting magnetite and spinel, are nearly parallel to dotted tie lines calculated with the Lehmann-Roux model [45]. The orientation of the tie lines in this model is almost independent of temperature; but pairs of low-temperature origin have much lower mutual solubility. This means that exsolution of Mg-Al-rich magnetite mostly took place at temperatures much lower than 800 °C, and only a few specimens of magnetite-bearing carbonatite showed temperatures of magnetite exsolution between 800 °C and 1000 °C.

4.2. Ilmenite Group Minerals

Ilmenite, geikielite and pyrophanite (generic term ilmenite) usually occur as thin (up to 50 µm thick) lamellae oriented along the {100} and {111} planes of host magnetite [40,42,54,67], and form characteristic trellises on all other planes (see Figure 3b,c). Lamellae oriented along the {111} planes of magnetite are predominant and originate from reaction (2), while their orientation along the {100} planes of magnetite occurs much rarer as a probable result of consecutive reactions (1) and (3) [39,68]. The cores of magnetite crystals contain comparatively thick ilmenite lamellae, while outer zones are often free of inclusions or include the thinnest lamellae of “ilmenite”. The content of “ilmenite” inclusions in magnetite reaches 26 vol %, and their median content in “ilmenite”-containing grains of magnetite is 10 vol %. Sometimes, ilmenite lamellae contain co-oriented inclusions of baddeleyite, and coexist with quintinite in magnetite crystals with spinel-impregnated cores and ilmenite-quintinite bearing marginal zones of titanomagnetite grains.
The distribution of ilmenite lamellae thickness is similar to the distribution of spinel grain diameter (Figure 10): power-law distributions are predominant and negative-exponential distributions occur much more rarely (correspondingly, about 80% and 20% of investigated samples). Just as with spinel, size-independent growth of ilmenite lamellae prevails, and size-dependent growth occurs in magnetite-rich phoscorite and phoscorite-related carbonatite of the ore-pipe intermediate and axial zones, as well as in the latest magnetite–dolomite–(phlogopite)–serpentine rock and vein dolomite carbonatite (see Figure 6). Comparatively large ilmenite lamellae are always rimmed by an aureole of inclusion-free magnetite (see Figure 10).
The representative compositions of ilmenite-magnetite pairs from different rocks of the Kovdor massif are shown in Table 5 in accordance with the median content of Ti in ilmenite. On the ternary diagram (Fe, Mg, Mn)O–(Fe, Al)2O3–TiO2 (Figure 11a), compositions of co-existing magnetite and oxy-exsolution ilmenite are located along the magnetite–ulvöspinel (titanomagnetite) and hematite–ilmenite (titanohematite) lines, correspondingly. As for divalent cation relations, the ilmenite compositions range widely from ilmenite-poor to geikielite- and pyrophanite-poor, and correspond to average formula of Mg-rich ilmenite: (Fe2+0.50Mg0.36Mn0.13)Σ0.99(Ti0.96Fe3+0.05Nb0.01)Σ1.02O3 [40]. Fractionation of Mg and Mn between coexisting titanomagnetite and ilmenite (Figure 11b) has resulted in significant losses of Mg in host magnetite in comparison with fresh volcanic rocks [47] due to spinel exsolution following ilmenite oxy-exsolution [39,40].
As a result, the spatial distribution of ilmenite composition reflects the total zonation of the Kovdor phoscorite–carbonatite pipe (compare Figure 12 and Figure 2). In particular, higher content of Fe2+ characterizes oxy-exsolution ilmenite from low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite of the ore-pipe intermediate zone, and from neighboring silicate rocks. Conversely, oxy-exsolution ilmenite with higher content of Mg (up to pure geikielite) is spread over the forsterite-rich marginal zone and carbonate-rich axial zone of the ore-pipe. Manganese-rich oxy-exsolution ilmenite (up to pyrophanite) occurs in marginal forsterite-rich phoscorite, and ilmenite with higher content of Fe3+ (up to Ti-rich hematite) is spread over (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite of the ore-pipe marginal zone, carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite of the axial zone, and neighboring diopsidite.
Temperatures of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution, T1, and oxygen fugacities, log f O 2 , for 371 ilmenite-magnetite pairs (177 samples) were determined first using the Fe2+Ti–Fe3+2 exchange geothermometer/oxometer of Andersen and Lindsley [44], and the model of Stormer [69] for calculation based on molecular fractions. Obtained values of log f O 2 and T1 increase from −55 at 246 °C to −9 at 1043 °C in accordance with the Ni–NiO oxygen fugacity buffer (Figure 13a). However, as was shown [49], this model often gives a temperature and oxygen fugacity that is too high, especially when the oxidation state is estimated under relatively oxidized conditions.
For this reason, more accurate estimation of equilibration temperature, T2, and oxygen fugacity deviation from the Ni-NiO oxygen fugacity buffer at 200 MPa, ΔNNO, was performed on 94 samples using the Fe2+Ti–Fe3+2 exchange geothermometer/oxometer of Ghiorso and Evans [49]. This produced estimated values in the range from 230 °C to 756 °C, and from NNO − 6.4 to NNO + 3 (Figure 13b), with difference between T1 and T2 up to 200 °C. Unfortunately, almost half of ilmenite-magnetite pairs cannot be estimated with the last model due to unsuitable chemical composition (higher content of Mn, Nb, Sc, etc.), which markedly constrains perspectives of 3D modeling. Nevertheless, there are good regressions between temperatures and oxygen fugacities obtained with both geothermometers/oxometers (Figure 14) that enables to estimate equilibration temperatures and oxygen fugacity values for the rest of the 83 samples using the corresponding equations:
T2’ ≈ 198.46 + 3.58 exp(T1/153.61);
ΔNNO2’ ≈ –1.24 + 0.80 ΔNNO1
Values of T2’ and ΔNNO’ obtained this way were added to T2 and ΔNNO values, and then the results were used for statistics and 3D modeling. In the natural sequence of the Kovdor’s rock formation, the oxygen fugacity and temperature of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution sharply decreased (Figure 15) from host foidolite (on average, NNO + 0.7 at 517 °C) to diopsidite and phlogopitite (NNO − 0.8 at 388 °C), (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite (NNO − 1.4 at 347 °C) and low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite (NNO − 1.8 at 337 °C); then again the values increased in carbonate-rich phoscorite, phoscorite-related carbonatite (NNO − 0.6 at 343 °C) and vein calcite carbonatite (NNO − 0.9 at 361 °C); and decreased to a minimum (NNO − 1.9 at 316 °C) in magnetite-dolomite-(phlogopite)-serpentine rock and vein dolomite carbonatite. It is necessary to note that application of geothermometers–geooxometers to magnetite-ilmenite pairs in intrusive rocks does not correspond the parameters of the rocks formation, but rather reflects the closure of exchange of components between coexisting phases.
It was not a surprise when 3D-modeling showed a sharp decrease of both temperature and oxygen fugacity from host silicate rocks and (Ap)-Fo phoscorite of the ore-pipe marginal zone towards magnetite-rich phoscorite of the intermediate zone, with a secondary maximum in carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite of the ore-pipe axial zone (compare Figure 16 and Figure 2).

5. Discussion

As was shown in [16,40,72], the properties and composition of all economic minerals, including magnetite, vary within the phoscorite-carbonatite complex following regular petrographic zonation of the ore-pipe. In particular, Mn-Ti-rich magnetite (with oxy-exsolution inclusions of ilmenite–pyrophanite) of the marginal (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite were replaced by Mg-Al-rich magnetite (with exsolution inclusions of spinel) of the intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite, and then by Ti-V-rich magnetite (with oxy-exsolution inclusions of geikielite and Mg-rich ilmenite) of carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite of the ore-pipe axial zone. New results allowed us to associate this zonation with thermodynamic conditions of the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite complex formation.
Since magnetite (oxy)exsolution is a subsolidus process, estimated temperatures of the magnetite-ilmenite equilibration can differ significantly from the temperatures of phoscorite-carbonatite melt crystallization. However, the estimated temperature sequence is well complemented by our results from calcite-dolomite geothermometry (using the formulation proposed by Anovitz and Essene [71]) that form an almost linear trend of temperature decrease from foidolite to dolomite carbonatite (see Figure 15). The figure shows that titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution occurs at a temperature that is lower than the temperature for the exsolution of carbonates by 250 °C.
It is generally recognized that intercrystalline diffusion, nucleation and growth of (oxy)exsolution inclusions are temperature-dependent processes. Therefore, the probability of critical nucleus formation is proportional to exp(−ΔG*/kT), where ΔG* is a nucleation barrier corresponding to the critical radius of a nucleus, and k is the Boltzmann constant. The probability increases with temperature decrease because the latter causes an increase in the degree of supersaturation. However, when a stable nucleus is formed, its further growth is significantly constrained by the diffusivities of components [73,74].
The diffusion of cations through the magnetite structure depends on both temperature and oxygen fugacity [75,76,77]:
D * = D [ V ] 0 exp ( H V R T ) f O 2 2 / 3 + D [ I ] 0 exp ( H I R T ) f O 2 2 / 3
where D0 is the temperature independent diffusion coefficient, H the activation enthalpy for vacancy [V] and interstitial [I] regimes, f O 2 the oxygen fugacity in bars, R the gas constant and T the temperature in Kelvin. As it follows from this equation, a vacancy mechanism of diffusion prevails under oxidizing conditions (ΔNNO > 0), and decreases with temperature increase; while interstitial diffusion occurs under reducing conditions (ΔNNO < 0) and increases with temperature growth. Besides, the increase of vacancy concentration due to the substitution 2Fe2+ ↔ V + Ti4+ decreases the concentration of interstitial cations, and inhibits diffusion of divalent cations by the more “rapid” interstitial mechanism [78].
Estimation of the diffusion coefficients D* of Al and Ti in magnetite for the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite complex using this equation, with D0 and H values given in [77], has shown (Figure 17) that lower cation diffusivities occur in the rocks where size-independent growth of (oxy)exsolution inclusions was found (see Figure 6). Size-independent (constant) crystal growth occurs when equivalent faces on similar crystals grow at the same rate, i.e., increment of the crystal diameter dD is a constant k for all crystals, regardless of their size, in each time interval dt: dD/dt = k and Dj+1 = Dj + kj [79]. We believe that the constant growth of (oxy)exsolution inclusions in magnetite is caused by slower diffusion rates of cations, which is considered to be the main factor constraining the growth.
Size-dependent (proportional) crystal growth can be mathematically described by the equation Dj+1 = Dj + εjDj, where εj is a small random number within a narrow range, which differs for each crystal and for each growth cycle [79]. In this case, the increment of each crystal diameter dD in a certain time interval dt is proportional to the crystal initial diameter D: dD/dt = kD. There are four main explanations of the size-dependent crystal growth [79,80,81,82]. Firstly, due to the Gibbs-Thomson effect, equilibrium solubility of fine grains (<1 µm) decreases with their size growth, consequently, smaller grains will have lower supersaturation, and grow slower. Secondly, concerning the crystals coarser than 1 µm, the probability of dislocation occurrence increases with their surface growth, which in turn causes faster growth of such crystals. Thirdly, this can result from surface-controlled growth, and the volume of reactants during each cycle is actually unlimited. Fourthly, it occurs when crystals of the same size grow at different rates.
Although all these mechanisms can cause size-independent growth of (oxy)exsolution inclusions in magnetite, the first of them seems more important. It is necessary to note also that the removal of titanium from the magnetite matrix to a growing ilmenite inclusion causes interstitial diffusion increase, and thus accelerates inclusion growth. Besides, a growing inclusion increases stress in the magnetite matrix, which results in additional dislocations, and activates cation redistribution.

6. Conclusions

Complex (oxy)exsolution of Mn-Mn-Al-Ti-rich magnetite in the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe has formed concentric alternating zones of spinel- and ilmenite-impregnated magnetite within the pipe: (apatite)-forsterite phoscorite of the marginal zone and carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite of the axial zone predominantly contain magnetite with exsolution lamellae of ilmenite-geikielite, while low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite of the intermediate zone predominantly includes exsolved magnetite with spinel impregnation. Each of these zones (rock types) has certain features in terms of exsolution processes and products:
(1)
Exsolution spinel forms spherical grains, octahedral crystals, six-beam (along [100]) and eight-beam (along [111]) skeletal crystals co-oriented with host magnetite and having maximal morphological diversity in magnetite-rich phoscorites of the ore-pipe inner part. The ilmenite group minerals occur usually as thin lamellae on the (111) and (100) planes of host magnetite (respectively, due to direct oxy-exsolution of titanomagnetite and with intermediate ulvöspinel). In accordance with the lower diffusivity of Al than Ti in studied magnetites, spinel crystallizes after the ilmenite-group minerals, which is emphasized by the formation of zoned magnetite crystals with spinel-impregnated core, ilmenite-impregnated intermediate zone and inclusion-free marginal zone;
(2)
The kinetics of inclusion nucleation and growth depends mainly on the diffusivity of cations in magnetite: comparatively low diffusivities of Al3+ and Ti4+ cations in magnetite- and/or carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite cause size-independent growth of both spinel and ilmenite-group minerals, while higher diffusivities of these cations in surrounding rocks, marginal forsterite-rich phoscorite and vein calcite carbonatite lead to size-dependent growth of corresponding inclusions;
(3)
Three-dimensional mineralogical mapping of the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe has shown its concentric (nested) zonation in regard to granulometry, shape, modal and chemical compositions of (oxy)exsolution inclusions in magnetite. In general, this zonation reflects concentric spatial change of host magnetite composition, corresponding in turn to the rock crystallization sequence: surrounding silicate rocks—earlier forsterite-rich phoscorite—intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite—late carbonate-rich phoscorite and carbonatite;
(4)
Temperature and oxygen fugacity of titanomagnetite exsolution decreases in this sequence from about 500 °C to about 300 °C and from NNO + 1 to NNO − 3, with local positive maximums in calcite carbonatite. The temperature of magnetite oxy-exsolution in phoscorite and carbonatites is about 250 °C below the temperature of equilibration of coexisting carbonates;
(5)
The intermediate low-carbonate magnetite-rich phoscorite was crystallized under oxidizing conditions resulting in the presence of Fe3+ instead of Fe2+ in melt/fluid. Therefore, oxy-exsolution of titanomagnetite finished here at lower temperature, oxygen fugacity and titanium diffusivity than in marginal and axial zones of the ore-pipe.

Acknowledgments

The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation, Grant 16-17-10173. We are grateful to D.V. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, M.S. Ghiorso, M.E. Evans and D. Lepage for excellent free software used for mineralogical and thermodynamic calculations. Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and corrections.

Author Contributions

G.Y.I. designed the experiments, performed statistical investigations and crystal size distribution analyses, and wrote the manuscript. A.O.K. performed geostatistical investigation, drew maps, took samples and reviewed the manuscript. Y.A.P. and A.V.B. took BSE images and performed electron microscope investigations. P.M.G. drew maps. J.A.M. carried out petrographical investigations and reviewed the manuscript. V.N.Y. and N.G.K. conceived of the work, took and prepared samples. All authors discussed the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; nor in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Vincent, E.A.; Phillips, R. Iron-titanium oxide minerals in layered gabbros of the Skaergaard intrusion, East Greenland. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1954, 6, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Deer, W.A.; Howie, R.A.; Zussman, J. Rock-Forming Minerals Volume 5 Non-Silicates; Longmans: London, UK, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  3. Turnock, A.C.; Eugster, H.P. Fe-Al Oxides: Phase Relationships below 1000 C. J. Petrol. 1962, 3, 533–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Price, G.D. Subsolidus phase relations in the titanomagnetite solid solution series. Am. Mineral. 1981, 66, 751–758. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sack, R.O. Spinels as petrogenetic indicators: Activity-composition relations at low pressures. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1982, 79, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Frost, B.; Lindsley, D.; Andersen, D. Fe-Ti oxide-silicate equilibria: Assemblages with fayalitic olivine. Am. Mineral. 1988, 73, 727–740. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ghiorso, M.S. Thermodynamic properties of hematite- ilmenite-geikielite solid solutions. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1990, 104, 645–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Haggerty, S.E. Oxide textures; a mini-atlas. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 1991, 25, 129–219. [Google Scholar]
  9. Frost, B.R.; Lindsley, D.H. Occurrence of iron-titanium oxides in igneous rocks. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 1991, 25, 433–468. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhou, W.; Van der Voo, R.; Peacor, D.R.; Zhang, Y. Variable Ti-content and grain size of titanomagnetite as a function of cooling rate in very young MORB. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2000, 179, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hammer, J.E. Influence of fO2 and cooling rate on the kinetics and energetics of Fe-rich basalt crystallization. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 248, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ryabchikov, I.D.; Kogarko, L.N. Magnetite compositions and oxygen fugacities of the Khibina magmatic system. Lithos 2006, 91, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ivanyuk, G.; Yakovenchuk, V.; Pakhomovsky, Y.; Kalashnikov, A.; Mikhailova, J.; Goryainov, P. Self-Organization of the Khibiny Alkaline Massif (Kola Peninsula, Russia). In Earth Sciences; Dar, I.A., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 131–156. ISBN 978-953-307-861-8. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ondrejka, M.; Broska, I.; Uher, P. The late magmatic to subsolidus T-fO2 evolution of the Lower Triassic A-type rhyolites (Silicic Superunit, Western Carpathians, Slovakia): Fe–Ti oxythermo- metry and petrological implications. Acta Geol. Slovaca 2015, 7, 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  15. Liao, M.; Tao, Y.; Song, X.; Li, Y.; Xiong, F. Study of oxygen fugacity during magma evolution and ore genesis in the Hongge mafic–ultramafic intrusion, the Panxi region, SW China. Acta Geochim. 2016, 35, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mikhailova, J.A.; Kalashnikov, A.O.; Sokharev, V.A.; Pakhomovsky, Y.A.; Konopleva, N.G.; Yakovenchuk, V.N.; Bazai, A.V.; Goryainov, P.M.; Ivanyuk, G.Y. 3D mineralogical mapping of the Kovdor phoscorite–carbonatite complex (Russia). Miner. Depos. 2016, 51, 131–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kawai, N. Exsolution of titanomagnetites and its effect on rock-magnetism III. Proc. Jpn. Acad. 1956, 32, 464–468. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nagata, T. Rock Magnetism, 2nd ed.; Maruzen: Tokyo, Japan, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  19. Akimoto, S. Magnetic properties of FeO-Fe2O3-TiO2 system as a basis of rock magnetism. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 1962, 17, 706–710. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marshall, M.; Cox, A. Magnetism of Pillow Basalts and Their Petrology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1971, 82, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Evans, M.E.; Wayman, M.L. An Investigation of the Role of Ultra-fine Titanomagnetite Intergrowths in Palaeomagnetism. Geophys. J. Int. 1974, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gee, J.; Kent, D.V. Magnetization of axial lavas from the southern East Pacific Rise (14°–23°S): Geochemical controls on magnetic properties. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1997, 102, 24873–24886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ivanyuk, G.I.; Tyuremnov, V.A.; Balabonin, N.L. On the origin of magnetic heterogeneity of magnetites from ferroginous quartzites. Izv. Phys. Solid Earth 1994, 30, 266–272. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dunlop, D.; Özdemir, Ö. Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harrison, R.J.; Putnis, A. Magnetic properties of the magnetite-spinel solid solution: Saturation magnetization and cation distributions. Am. Mineral. 1995, 80, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Evans, M.E.; Krása, D.; Williams, W.; Winklhofer, M. Magnetostatic interactions in a natural magnetite-ulvöspinel system. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2006, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. McEnroe, S.A.; Robinson, P.; Langenhorst, F.; Frandsen, C.; Terry, M.P.; Boffa Ballaran, T. Magnetization of exsolution intergrowths of hematite and ilmenite: Mineral chemistry, phase relations, and magnetic properties of hemo-ilmenite ores with micron- to nanometer-scale lamellae from Allard Lake, Quebec. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, B10103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Uchida, H. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction of spinels from the San Carlos Volcanic Field, Arizona: Spinel as a geothermometer. Am. Mineral. 2005, 90, 1900–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lavina, B.; Cesare, B.; Alvarez-Valero, A.M.; Uchida, H.; Downs, R.T.; Koneva, A.; Dera, P. Closure temperatures of intracrystalline ordering in anatectic and metamorphic hercynite, Fe2+Al2O4. Am. Mineral. 2009, 94, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Essene, E.; Peacor, D. Crystal chemistry and petrology of coexisting galaxite and jacobsite and other spinel solutions and solvi. Am. Mineral. 1983, 68, 449–455. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bosi, F.; Skogby, H.; Fregola, R.A.; Hålenius, U. Crystal chemistry of spinels in the system MgAl2O4-MgV2O4-Mg2VO4. Am. Mineral. 2016, 101, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Radtke, A.S. Coulsonite, FeV2O4, a spinel-type mineral from Lovelock, Nevada. Am. Mineral. 1962, 47, 1284–1291. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bosi, F.; Halenius, U.; Skogby, H. Crystal chemistry of the magnetite-ulvospinel series. Am. Mineral. 2009, 94, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Neil, H.S.C.; Annersten, H.; Virgo, D. The temperature dependence of the cation distribution in magnesioferrite (MgFe2O4) from powder XRD structural refinements and Moessbauer spectroscopy. Am. Mineral. 1992, 77, 725–740. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bosi, F.; Halenius, U.; Skogby, H. Crystal chemistry of the ulvospinel-qandilite series. Am. Mineral. 2014, 99, 847–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nestola, F.; Ballaran, T.B.; Balic-Zunic, T.; Princivalle, F.; Secco, L.; Dal Negro, A. Comparative compressibility and structural behavior of spinel MgAl2O4 at high pressures: The independency on the degree of cation order. Am. Mineral. 2007, 92, 1838–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lucchesi, S.; Russo, U.; Della Giusta, A. Crystal chemistry and cation distribution in some Mn-rich natural and synthetic spinels. Eur. J. Mineral. 1996, 9, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Buddington, A.F.; Lindsley, D.H. Iron-Titanium Oxide Minerals and Synthetic Equivalents. J. Petrol. 1964, 5, 310–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tan, W.; Liu, P.; He, H.; Wang, C.Y.; Liang, X. Mineralogy and Origin of Exsolution In Ti-Rich Magnetite From Different Magmatic Fe-Ti Oxide-Bearing Intrusions. Can. Mineral. 2016, 54, 539–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ivanyuk, G.Y.; Kalashnikov, A.O.; Pakhomovsky, Y.A.; Mikhailova, J.A.; Yakovenchuk, V.N.; Konopleva, N.G.; Sokharev, V.A.; Bazai, A.V.; Goryainov, P.M. Economic minerals of the Kovdor baddeleyite-apatite-magnetite deposit, Russia: Mineralogy, spatial distribution and ore processing optimization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 77, 279–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rimskaya-Korsakova, O.M. A question about regular intergrowths of spinel with magnetite. Zap. Vsesoyuznogo Mineral. Obs. 1950, 89, 178–190. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Krasnova, N.I.; Krezer, Y.L. New data on the nature of fine and ultrafine lamellae in titanomagnetite. Eur. J. Mineral. 1995, 7, 1361–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Spenser, K.J.; Lindsley, D.H. A solution model for coexisting iron-titanium oxides. Am. Mineral. 1981, 66, 1189–1201. [Google Scholar]
  44. Andersen, D.J.; Lindsley, D.H. New (and final!) models for the Ti-magnetite/ilmenite geothermometer and oxygen barometer. In Spring Meeting Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 1985; p. 416. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lehmann, J.; Roux, J. Experimental and theoretical study of (Fe2+, Mg)(Al, Fe3+)2O4 spinels: Activity-composition relationships, miscibility gaps, vacancy contents. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1986, 50, 1765–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mattioli, G.S.; Wood, B.J. Magnetite activities across the MgAl2O4-Fe3O4 spinel join, with application to thermobarometric estimates of upper mantle oxygen fugacity. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1988, 98, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bacon, C.R.; Hirschmann, M.M. Mg/Mn partitioning as a test for equilibrium between coexisting Fe-Ti oxides. Am. Mineral. 1988, 73, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sack, R.O.; Ghiorso, M.S. An internally consistent model for the thermodynamic properties of Fe-Mg-titanomagnetite-aluminate spinels. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1991, 106, 474–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ghiorso, M.S.; Evans, B.W. Thermodynamics of rhombohedral oxide solid solutions and a revision of the Fe-Ti two-oxide geothermometer and oxygen-barometer. Am. J. Sci. 2008, 308, 957–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lilova, K.I.; Pearce, C.I.; Gorski, C.; Rosso, K.M.; Navrotsky, A. Thermodynamics of the magnetite-ulvospinel (Fe3O4-Fe2TiO4) solid solution. Am. Mineral. 2012, 97, 1330–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Harrison, R.J. Thermodynamics of the R-3 to R-3c phase transition in the ilmenite-hematite solid solution. Am. Mineral. 2000, 85, 1694–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harrison, R.J.; Redfern, S.A.T. Short- and long-range ordering in the ilmenite-hematite solid solution. Phys. Chem. Miner. 2001, 28, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lattard, D.; Sauerzapf, U.; Käsemann, M. New calibration data for the Fe–Ti oxide thermo-oxybarometers from experiments in the Fe–Ti–O system at 1 bar, 1000–1300 °C and a large range of oxygen fugacities. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2005, 149, 735–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ivanyuk, G.Y.; Yakovenchuk, V.N.; Pakhomovsky, Y.A. Kovdor; Laplandia Minerals: Apatity, Russia, 2002; ISBN 5900395413. [Google Scholar]
  55. Krasnova, N.I.; Petrov, T.G.; Balaganskaya, E.G.; García, D.; Moutte, J.; Zaitsev, A.N.; Wall, F. Introduction to phoscorites: Occurrence, composition, nomenclature and petrogenesis. In Phoscorites and Carbonatites from Mantle to Mine: The Key Example of the Kola Alkaline Province; Zaitsev, A.N., Wall, F., Eds.; Mineralogical Society: London, UK, 2004; pp. 43–72. ISBN 0-903056-22-4. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rimskaya-Korsakova, O.M. On Question about Genesis of the Kovdor Iron-Ore Deposit. In Problems of Magmatism and Metamorphism; Leningrad State University Publishing: Leningrad, Russia, 1963; pp. 125–142. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  57. Kukharenko, A.A.; Orlova, M.P.; Bulakh, A.G.; Bagdasarov, E.A.; Rimskaya-Korsakova, O.M.; Nefedov, E.I.; Ilyinsky, G.A.; Sergeev, A.S.; Abakumova, N.B. Caledonian Complex of Ultrabasic, Alkaline Rocks and Carbonatites of Kola Peninsula and Northern Karelia (Geology, Petrology, Mineralogy and Geochemistry); Nedra: Moscow, Russia, 1965. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  58. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, D.D. MINAL, Free Software. Available online: http://www.dimadd.ru (accessed on 8 July 2013).
  59. Lepage, L.D. ILMAT: An Excel worksheet for ilmenite–magnetite geothermometry and geobarometry. Comput. Geosci. 2003, 29, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. MELTS Fe-Ti Oxide Geothermometer. Available online: http://melts.ofm-research.org/CORBA_CTserver/OxideGeothrm/OxideGeothrm.php (accessed on 16 August 2016).
  61. Kalashnikov, A.O.; Ivanyuk, G.Y.; Mikhailova, J.A.; Sokharev, V.A. Approach of automatic 3D geological mapping: The case of the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite complex, NW Russia. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhitova, E.; Krivovichev, S.; Yakovenchuk, V.; Ivanyuk, G.; Pakhomovsky, Y.; Mikhailova, J. Crystal chemistry of natural layered double hydroxides. 4. Crystal structures and evolution of structural complexity of quintinite polytypes from the Kovdor alkaline massif, Kola peninsula, Russia. Mineral. Mag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Randolph, A.D.; Larson, M.A. Theory of Particulate Processes; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  64. Marsh, B.D. On the Interpretation of Crystal Size Distributions in Magmatic Systems. J. Petrol. 1998, 39, 553–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Clark, M.B.; Brantley, S.L.; Fisher, D.M. Power law vein thickness distribution and positive feedback in vein growth. Geology 1995, 23, 975–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mercus, H.G. Particle Size Measurements Fundamentals, Practice, Quality; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; ISBN 9781402090158. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gaydukova, V.S.; Sokolov, S.V.; Dubinchuk, V.T.; Sidorenko, G.A.; Il’yasov, A.M. About multistage decomposition of magnetite from iron ores of the Kovdor deposit. Mineral. Zhurnal 1984, 6, 64–70. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  68. Tan, W.; He, H.; Wang, C.Y.; Dong, H.; Liang, X.; Zhu, J. Magnetite exsolution in ilmenite from the Fe-Ti oxide gabbro in the Xinjie intrusion (SW China) and sources of unusually strong remnant magnetization. Am. Mineral. 2016, 101, 2759–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stormer, J., Jr. The effects of recalculation on estimates of temperature and oxygen fugacity from analyses of multi-component iron-titanium oxides. Am. Mineral. 1983, 68, 586–594. [Google Scholar]
  70. Frost, B.R. Introduction to oxygen fugacity and its petrologic importance. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 1991, 25, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  71. Anovitz, L.M.; Essene, E.J. Phase Equilibria in the System CaCO3-MgCO3-FeCO3. J. Petrol. 1987, 28, 389–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kalashnikov, A.O.; Yakovenchuk, V.N.; Pakhomovsky, Y.A.; Bazai, A.V.; Sokharev, V.A.; Konopleva, N.G.; Mikhailova, J.A.; Goryainov, P.M.; Ivanyuk, G.Y. Scandium of the Kovdor baddeleyite–apatite–magnetite deposit (Murmansk Region, Russia): Mineralogy, spatial distribution, and potential resource. Ore Geol. Rev. 2016, 72, 532–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yund, R.A.; McCallister, R.H. Kinetics and mechanisms of exsolution. Chem. Geol. 1970, 6, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Putnis, A. An Introduction to Mineral Sciences; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  75. Dieckmann, R.; Mason, T.O.; Hodge, J.D.; Schmalzried, H. Defects and Cation Diffusion in Magnetite (III.) Tracerdiffusion of Foreign Tracer Cations as a Function of Temperature and Oxygen Potential. Ber. Bunsengesellschaft Phys. Chem. 1978, 82, 778–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dieckmann, R.; Schmalzried, H. Defects and Cation Diffusion in Magnetite (VI): Point Defect Relaxation and Correlation in Cation Tracer Diffusion. Ber. Bunsengesellschaft Phys. Chem. 1986, 90, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Van Orman, J.A.; Crispin, K.L. Diffusion in Oxides. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2010, 72, 757–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Aggarwal, S.; Dieckmann, R. Point defects and cation tracer diffusion in (TixFe1−x)3−δO4 1. Non-stoichiometry and point defects. Phys. Chem. Miner. 2002, 29, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Eberl, D.D.; Kile, D.E.; Drits, V.A. On geological interpretations of crystal size distributions: Constant vs. proportionate growth. Am. Mineral. 2002, 87, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Myerson, A. Handbook of Industrial Crystallization; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  81. Garside, J.; Mersmann, A.; Nyult, J. Measurement of Crystal Growth and Nucleation Rates, 2nd ed.; Institute of Chemical Engineers: Rugby, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kile, D.E.; Eberl, D.D. On the origin of size-dependent and size-independent crystal growth: Influence of advection and diffusion. Am. Mineral. 2003, 88, 1514–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Geological maps of the Kovdor alkaline ultramafic massif (a) and phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (b) generalized on the basis of [40].
Figure 1. Geological maps of the Kovdor alkaline ultramafic massif (a) and phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (b) generalized on the basis of [40].
Minerals 07 00215 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of magnetite (cyan), forsterite (magenta), apatite (yellow), and calcite (black spots) within the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (a), corresponding rock-types (b) and occurrence of magnetite with exsolution inclusions of spinel and minerals of the ilmenite group (c). Cartesian coordinates are in meters, with ordinate axis oriented northwards. Black contour is the boundary of the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe. Ap, apatite; Fo, forsterite; Mag, magnetite; Cb, carbonates (mostly calcite and dolomite).
Figure 2. Distribution of magnetite (cyan), forsterite (magenta), apatite (yellow), and calcite (black spots) within the Kovdor phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (a), corresponding rock-types (b) and occurrence of magnetite with exsolution inclusions of spinel and minerals of the ilmenite group (c). Cartesian coordinates are in meters, with ordinate axis oriented northwards. Black contour is the boundary of the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe. Ap, apatite; Fo, forsterite; Mag, magnetite; Cb, carbonates (mostly calcite and dolomite).
Minerals 07 00215 g002
Figure 3. BSE-images of magnetite grains with (oxy)exsolution inclusions of spinel (a) CMAF-phoscorite 985/115.2; ilmenite (b) FM-phoscorite 949/241.6 and both spinel and ilmenite (c) magnetite-dolomite-phlogopite-serpentine rock 961/109.0. Ap, apatite; Cal, calcite; Fo, forsterite; Ilm, ilmenite; Mag, magnetite; Phl, phlogopite; Spl, spinel; Srp, serpentine; Zrl, zirconolite.
Figure 3. BSE-images of magnetite grains with (oxy)exsolution inclusions of spinel (a) CMAF-phoscorite 985/115.2; ilmenite (b) FM-phoscorite 949/241.6 and both spinel and ilmenite (c) magnetite-dolomite-phlogopite-serpentine rock 961/109.0. Ap, apatite; Cal, calcite; Fo, forsterite; Ilm, ilmenite; Mag, magnetite; Phl, phlogopite; Spl, spinel; Srp, serpentine; Zrl, zirconolite.
Minerals 07 00215 g003
Figure 4. Morphology of exsolution inclusions of spinel in magnetite (BSE-images of polished thin sections of phoscorite and their interpretation after [41]). (a) MAF-phoscorite 971/481.8; (b) MAF-phoscorite 933/145.1; (c) CMAF-phoscorite 973-141.4; (d) phoscorite-related carbonatite 1006/169.0; (e) MAF-phoscorite 941/9.6; (f) CMF-phoscorite 957/118.0; (g) CMA-phoscorite 956/138.9; (h) CMA-phoscorite 912/178.6; (i) MAF-phoscorite 951/85.7; (k) CMAF-phoscorite 1010/85.4; (l) MF-phoscorite 917/318.5; (m) MAF-phoscorite 933/214.3. The scale bar is 20 µm.
Figure 4. Morphology of exsolution inclusions of spinel in magnetite (BSE-images of polished thin sections of phoscorite and their interpretation after [41]). (a) MAF-phoscorite 971/481.8; (b) MAF-phoscorite 933/145.1; (c) CMAF-phoscorite 973-141.4; (d) phoscorite-related carbonatite 1006/169.0; (e) MAF-phoscorite 941/9.6; (f) CMF-phoscorite 957/118.0; (g) CMA-phoscorite 956/138.9; (h) CMA-phoscorite 912/178.6; (i) MAF-phoscorite 951/85.7; (k) CMAF-phoscorite 1010/85.4; (l) MF-phoscorite 917/318.5; (m) MAF-phoscorite 933/214.3. The scale bar is 20 µm.
Minerals 07 00215 g004
Figure 5. BSE-images (a,e), typical histograms (b,f) and cumulative frequency diagrams (c,d,g,h) for equivalent circular diameter of spinel grains when their growth rate is independent of grain size ((ad) MAF-phoscorite 996/208.2) and proportional to grain size ((eh) CMAF-phoscorite 1010/85.4).
Figure 5. BSE-images (a,e), typical histograms (b,f) and cumulative frequency diagrams (c,d,g,h) for equivalent circular diameter of spinel grains when their growth rate is independent of grain size ((ad) MAF-phoscorite 996/208.2) and proportional to grain size ((eh) CMAF-phoscorite 1010/85.4).
Minerals 07 00215 g005
Figure 6. Occurrence of samples with negative-exponential distribution of grain size (size-independent growth) of spinel and ilmenite group minerals. The rest samples are characterized by power-law distribution of inclusion size (size-dependent growth).
Figure 6. Occurrence of samples with negative-exponential distribution of grain size (size-independent growth) of spinel and ilmenite group minerals. The rest samples are characterized by power-law distribution of inclusion size (size-dependent growth).
Minerals 07 00215 g006
Figure 7. Spinel inclusions of different size in a magnetite grain of magnetite-dolomite-serpentine rock 991/61.8 (a); distribution of their equivalent circular diameter (b) and distribution of a typical equivalent circular diameter Dchar (average equivalent circular diameter of a grain fraction with the largest summary area) in the analyzed samples of phoscorite and carbonatites (c).
Figure 7. Spinel inclusions of different size in a magnetite grain of magnetite-dolomite-serpentine rock 991/61.8 (a); distribution of their equivalent circular diameter (b) and distribution of a typical equivalent circular diameter Dchar (average equivalent circular diameter of a grain fraction with the largest summary area) in the analyzed samples of phoscorite and carbonatites (c).
Minerals 07 00215 g007
Figure 8. Compositions of coexisting spinel-magnetite pairs (joined by grey lines) represented by the combined plane of MgFe2O4-FeFe2O4 series and MgAl2O4-FeAl2O4 series (a) (mole %), and corresponding Mg-Mn relation (b). Calculated miscibility gap and tie lines at 800 °C and 1000 °C, 4 kbar (dotted line) are plotted using Lehmann-Roux’s model [45].
Figure 8. Compositions of coexisting spinel-magnetite pairs (joined by grey lines) represented by the combined plane of MgFe2O4-FeFe2O4 series and MgAl2O4-FeAl2O4 series (a) (mole %), and corresponding Mg-Mn relation (b). Calculated miscibility gap and tie lines at 800 °C and 1000 °C, 4 kbar (dotted line) are plotted using Lehmann-Roux’s model [45].
Minerals 07 00215 g008
Figure 9. Distribution of #Mg and #Al in exsolution spinel within a phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black contour). See Figure 2 for the comparison.
Figure 9. Distribution of #Mg and #Al in exsolution spinel within a phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black contour). See Figure 2 for the comparison.
Minerals 07 00215 g009
Figure 10. BSE-images (a,e), characteristic histograms (b,f) and cumulative frequency diagrams (c,d,g,h) for thickness of ilmenite lamellae for growth rate independent of lamella size ((ad) MAF-phoscorite 986/147.5) and proportional to lamella size ((eh) magnetite-dolomite-phlogopite-serpentine rock 976/191.7).
Figure 10. BSE-images (a,e), characteristic histograms (b,f) and cumulative frequency diagrams (c,d,g,h) for thickness of ilmenite lamellae for growth rate independent of lamella size ((ad) MAF-phoscorite 986/147.5) and proportional to lamella size ((eh) magnetite-dolomite-phlogopite-serpentine rock 976/191.7).
Minerals 07 00215 g010
Figure 11. Composition of magnetite-ilmenite pairs (joined by gray lines) plotted in TiO2–(Fe, Mg, Mn)O–0.5(Fe, Al)2O3 ternary diagram ((a), by atomic proportions), and Mn–Mg exchange test of Bacon and Hirschmann [47] (b). Dashed lines limit the field of pairs in Mn–Mg exchange equilibrium.
Figure 11. Composition of magnetite-ilmenite pairs (joined by gray lines) plotted in TiO2–(Fe, Mg, Mn)O–0.5(Fe, Al)2O3 ternary diagram ((a), by atomic proportions), and Mn–Mg exchange test of Bacon and Hirschmann [47] (b). Dashed lines limit the field of pairs in Mn–Mg exchange equilibrium.
Minerals 07 00215 g011
Figure 12. Distribution of composition of oxy-exsolution ilmenite within the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black/white contour). See Figure 2 for comparison.
Figure 12. Distribution of composition of oxy-exsolution ilmenite within the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black/white contour). See Figure 2 for comparison.
Minerals 07 00215 g012
Figure 13. Temperature and f O 2 of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution calculated using the models of Andersen and Lindsley [44] (a), and Ghiorso and Evans [49] (b). Fugacity buffers curves QIF (quartz–iron–fayalite), NNO (nickel–nickel oxide) and MH (magnetite–hematite) are calculated with the Frost’s model [70] at pressure of 200 MPa.
Figure 13. Temperature and f O 2 of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution calculated using the models of Andersen and Lindsley [44] (a), and Ghiorso and Evans [49] (b). Fugacity buffers curves QIF (quartz–iron–fayalite), NNO (nickel–nickel oxide) and MH (magnetite–hematite) are calculated with the Frost’s model [70] at pressure of 200 MPa.
Minerals 07 00215 g013
Figure 14. Relations between equilibration temperatures and the oxygen fugacity values calculated using magnetite-ilmenite geothermometers of Andersen and Lindsley [44] and Ghiorso and Evans [49]. Dashed lines limit 95% prediction intervals.
Figure 14. Relations between equilibration temperatures and the oxygen fugacity values calculated using magnetite-ilmenite geothermometers of Andersen and Lindsley [44] and Ghiorso and Evans [49]. Dashed lines limit 95% prediction intervals.
Minerals 07 00215 g014
Figure 15. Average equilibration temperature (a) and oxygen fugacity (b) of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution in rocks of the Kovdor massif (±95% confidence interval). Results of calcite-dolomite geothermometry with the formulation proposed by Anovitz and Essene [71] are given for comparison.
Figure 15. Average equilibration temperature (a) and oxygen fugacity (b) of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution in rocks of the Kovdor massif (±95% confidence interval). Results of calcite-dolomite geothermometry with the formulation proposed by Anovitz and Essene [71] are given for comparison.
Minerals 07 00215 g015
Figure 16. Distribution of temperature and oxygen fugacity of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution within the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black/white contour). See Figure 2 for comparison.
Figure 16. Distribution of temperature and oxygen fugacity of titanomagnetite oxy-exsolution within the phoscorite-carbonatite pipe (black/white contour). See Figure 2 for comparison.
Minerals 07 00215 g016
Figure 17. Diffusivities of Al and Ti in magnetite during its exsolution in rocks of the Kovdor massif (mean ± 95% confidence interval).
Figure 17. Diffusivities of Al and Ti in magnetite during its exsolution in rocks of the Kovdor massif (mean ± 95% confidence interval).
Minerals 07 00215 g017
Table 1. Cation distribution between the tetrahedral 8f and octahedral 16c sites of the spinel structure.
Table 1. Cation distribution between the tetrahedral 8f and octahedral 16c sites of the spinel structure.
MineralSum of OxidesSimplified FormulaCation PositionsReference
Tetrahedral (8f)Octahedral (16c)
Normal spinellids
SpinelMgO·Al2O3MgAl2O4Mg2+Al3+[28]
HercyniteFeO·Al2O3FeAl2O4Fe2+Al3+[29]
GalaxiteMnO·Al2O3MnAl2O4Mn2+Al3+[30]
MagnesiocoulsoniteMgO·V2O3MgV2O4Mg2+V3+[31]
CoulsoniteFeO·V2O3FeV2O4Fe2+V3+[32]
Inversed spinellids
MagnetiteFeO·Fe2O3Fe3O4, Fe2+Fe3+2O4Fe3+Fe2+, Fe3+[33]
MagnesioferriteMgO·Fe2O3MgFe2O4Fe3+Mg2+, Fe3+ [34]
Qandilite2MgO·TiO2Mg2TiO4Mg2+Mg2+, Ti4+[35]
Ulvöspinel2FeO·TiO2Fe2TiO4Fe2+Fe2+, Ti4+[33]
Partially inversed spinellids
SpinelMgO·Al2O3MgAl2O4Mg2+, Al3+Al3+, Mg2+[36]
MagnesioferriteMgO·Fe2O3MgFe2O4Fe3+, Mg2+Fe3+, Mg2+ [34]
Jacobsite MnO·Fe2O3MnFe2O4Fe3+, Mn2+ Fe3+, Mn2+[37]
Titanomagnetite1.2FeO·0.8Fe2O3·0.2TiO2Fe2+1.2Fe3+1.6Ti0.2O4Fe3+, Fe2+Fe2+, Fe3+, Ti4+[33]
Table 2. Petrography of phoscorite, carbonatites and host silicate rocks of the Kovdor complex.
Table 2. Petrography of phoscorite, carbonatites and host silicate rocks of the Kovdor complex.
RockDescriptionModal %Minor Rock-Forming MineralsCharacteristic AccessoriesMagnetite
FoidoliteDark grey, medium- to fine-grained rock with massive or banded structure formed by alternating leucocratic nepheline-rich and melanocratic clinopyroxene- (Di–Aeg) and/or melilite-rich layersNph 10–50
Cpx 50–90
Phl 1–8
Me 0–10
Cancrinite, magnetite, microcline, monticellite, natrolite, sodalite, titaniteAlbite, ancylite-(Ce), andradite, baddeleyite, banalcite, barite, bornite, calcite, chalcopyrite, fluorapatite, galena, gonnardite, ilmenite, nordstrandite, nyerereite, pentlandite, perovskite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, pyrochlore, shortite, sphalerite, spinel, strontianite, thorianiteIrregularly shaped grains and skeletal crystals (0.2 ± 0.3 mm)
Diopsidite and phlogopititeDark-green, medium- to coarse-grained massive rock composed mostly of short-prismatic diopside crystals, corroded by phlogopite lamellae. In phlogopitite, there are mica segregations (up to 1 cm in diameter) with diopside relics and newly-formed inclusions of hydroxylapatite and magnetiteDi 10–95
Phl 3–95
Fo 0–30
Nph 0–15
Calcite, cancrinite, clinochlore, dolomite, edenite, gonnardite, hydroxylapatite, magnesioarfvedsonite, magnesiohastingsite, magnetite, natrolite, pargasite, pyrrhotite, richterite, serpentine, sodalite, vermiculiteAegirine, albite, ancylite-(Ce), baddeleyite, barite, barytocalcite, calzirtite, cerussite, chalcopyrite, chamosite, chromite, cobaltpentlandite, freudenbergite, galena, grinalite, ilmenite, lueshite, mesolite, microcline, pentlandite, perovskite, pyrite, pyrochlore, pyrophanite, rutile, shortite, sphalerite, spinel, titanite, zircon, zirconoliteIrregularly shaped grains (1.0 ± 0.9 mm) in interstices of rock-forming silicates, and larger metacrysts (up to 5 mm) with poikilitic inclusions of surrounding minerals
(Ap)-Fo phoscoriteGreenish-gray fine-grained, massive, indistinctly banded or spotted rock consisting of rounded equant to short-prismatic grains of forsterite. Interstices between forsterite grains are filled with hydroxylapatite (±magnetite) that also forms monomineralic segregations and bands. Phlogopite replaces the forsterite.Fo 10–90
Ap 0–80
Mag 0–8
Cal 0–5
Phl 1–10
Calcite, diopside, dolomite, magnetiteBaddeleyite, brucite, chalcopyrite, cobaltpentlandite, geikielite, ilmenite, monazite-(Ce), pentlandite, pyrite, pyrochlore, pyrophanite, pyrrhotite, serpentine, sphalerite, spinel, strontianite, valleriite, zirconoliteAnhedral grains (0.2 ± 0.1 mm) in interstices of forsterite; rounded grains (0. 3 ± 0.1 mm) and larger metacrysts (up to 8 mm) in apatite-rich parts of the rock
Low-Cb Mag-rich phoscoriteLight greenish-grey to black, massive, spotted, spotty-banded rock consisting mainly of forsterite (altered grains, partially replaced by serpentine, clinochlore, phlogopite and valleriite) and hydroxylapatite (lens-like segregations of rounded or irregularly shaped grains) cemented by magnetiteFo 0–70
Ap 0–70
Mag 10–95
Cal 0–8
Calcite, chalcopyrite, dolomite, phlogopite, pyrrhotite, valleriiteAncylite-(Ce), baddeleyite, bakhchisaraitsevite, barite, betafite, bobierrite, cobaltpentlandite, galena, geikielite, ilmenite, lueshite, magnesite, perovskite, pentlandite, pyrite, pyrochlore, pyrophanite, quintinite, sphalerite, spinel, thorianite, zirconoliteIrregularly shaped grains (3 ± 2 mm) and larger metacrysts (up to 2 cm) with inclusions of surrounding apatite-forsterite aggregates and separate grains of these minerals
Cb-rich phoscorite and phoscorite-related carbonatiteSpotted black-and-white rocks composed of forsterite (replaced by serpentine, dolomite, phlogopite, clinohumite and clinochlore), hydroxylapatite (anhedral grains between forsterite crystals, inclusions in calcite and monomineral segregations), magnetite (irregularly shaped metacrysts in apatite-rich parts and well-shaped octahedral crystals in calcite-rich parts) and calcite (monomineralic veinlets and nests between grains of forsterite, hydroxylapatite and magnetite).Fo 0–70
Ap 0–60
Mag 8–80
Cal 10–82
Dol 1–10
Phl 0–15
Po 0–30
Cpp 0–10
Clinochlore, clinohumite, richterite, tetraferriphlogopite, valleriiteAncylite-(Ce), baddeleyite, bakhchisaraitsevite, barite, baritocalcite, bobierrite, bornite, burbankite, chalcocite, cobaltpentlandite, covellite, crandallite, cubanite, djerfisherite, galena, geikielite, ilmenite, juonniite, kovdorskite, mackinawite, magnesite, microlite, norsethite, northupite, nyerereite, perovskite, pyrite, pyrochlore, pyrophanite, quintinite, siderite, sphalerite, spinel, strontianite, thorianite, witherite, zircon, zirconoliteRounded grains (4 ± 2 mm), larger metacrysts (up to 5 cm) with poikilitic inclusions of forsterite and hydroxylapatite, as well as well-shaped crystals with octahedral {111}, rhombic dodecahedral {110} and tetragonal trioctahedral {311} faces
Vein Cal carbonatiteWhite, light brown or light grey medium- to coarse-grained, massive to banded rock consisting of equant crystals of calcite and dolomite with interstitial hydroxylapatite, magnetite and phlogopiteFo 0–5
Ap 0–15
Mag 0–10
Cal 70–95
Dol 5–15
Forsterite, magnetite, phlogopite, pyrrhotiteAlstonite, ancylite-(Ce), baddeleyite, barite, calzirtite, chalcopyrite, cobaltpentlandite, djerfisherite, eitelite, galena, geikielite, ilmenite, microlite, monazite-(Ce), northupite, nyerereite, perovskite, pyrite, serpentine, sphalerite, spinel, strontianite, thorianite, zirconoliteRounded grains (2 ± 1 mm) and well-shaped octahedral crystals (up to 3 cm in diameter) with minor rhombic dodecahedral faces
Vein Dol carbonatiteWhite, pale-pink or light-brown medium- to coarse-grained rock composed mainly of dolomite, with magnetite and pyrrhotite in selvagesFo 0
Ap 0–6
Mag 0–40
Dol 50–95
Cal 5–10
Po 0–10
Pyrite, richterite, phlogopite, serpentine, tetraferriphlogopiteAnatase, ancylite-(Ce), aragonite, baddeleyite, bakhchisaraitsevite, baricite, barite, barytocalcite, bobierrite, burbankite, catapleiite, chalcopyrite, collinsite, hydroxylapatite, ilmenite, juonniite, kovdorskite, labuntsovite-Mg, lueshite, magnesite, norsethite, rimkorolgite, serpentine, siderite, sphalerite, spinel, strontianite, zircon, zirconoliteRounded grains (3 ± 2 mm) and well-shaped octahedral crystals (up to 4 cm) with minor rhombic dodecahedral faces
Mag-Dol-Srp rockDark green to black, fine-grained rock with massive, mottled or brecciated structure. Consists mainly of small grains of dolomite, phlogopite, serpentine (with phlogopite and forsterite relics), and poikilitic magnetite metacrysts of different size and shapeFo 0–10
Ap 8–25
Mag 20–50
Dol 10–40
Srp 15–30
Phl 5–30
Calcite, pyrrhotite, tetraferriphlogopiteBaddeleyite, baritocalcite, chalcopyrite, cobaltpentlandite, pentlandite, sphalerite, galena, strontianite, zircon, zirconoliteIrregularly shaped porous metacrysts (2 ± 1 mm) with numerous inclusions of phlogopite, apatite, calcite, dolomite and fragments of surrounding rock
Mineral abbreviations: Ap, hydroxylapatite; Cal, calcite; Cb, carbonate; Ccp, chalcopyrite; Cpx, clinopyroxene; Di, diopside; Dol, dolomite; Fo, forsterite; Mag, magnetite; Me, melilite; Nph, nepheline; Phl, phlogopite; Po, pyrrhotite; Srp, serpentine.
Table 3. Parameters of EPMA analyses.
Table 3. Parameters of EPMA analyses.
ElementLimit of Accuracy, wt %Standards for Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (WDS) Analyses
Mg0.1Pyrope
Al0.05Pyrope
Si0.05Diopside
Ca0.03Diopside
Sc0.02Thortveitite
Ti0.02Lorenzenite
V0.1Metallic vanadium
Cr0.02Chromite
Mn0.01Synthetic MnCO3
Fe0.01Hematite
Co0.01Metallic cobalt
Ni0.01Metallic nickel
Zn0.01Synthetic ZnO
Nb0.05Metallic niobium
Ta0.05Metallic tantalum
Table 4. Chemical compositions of magnetite-spinel pairs with median content of Al in magnetite.
Table 4. Chemical compositions of magnetite-spinel pairs with median content of Al in magnetite.
Rock GroupFoidoliteDiopsidite and Phlogopitite(Ap)-Fo PhoscoriteLow-Cb Mag-rich PhoscoriteCb-rich Phoscorite and Phoscorite­Related Carbonatite Vein Cal CarbonatiteVein Dol Carbonatite and Mag-Dol-Srp Rock
Sample971/609.8900/592.3946/540.4917/32.81007/33.0989/92.2977/129.5
RockIjoliteDiopsiditeAF-phoscoriteMF-phoscoriteCal carbonatiteCal carbonatiteMag-Dol-Srp rock
MineralMagSplMagSplMagSplMagSplMagSplMagSplMagSpl
MgO5.7424.536.5724.934.2323.505.6525.156.4325.178.1425.557.1225.35
Al2O30.8066.860.6964.940.6764.720.7166.210.7464.490.8864.460.6967.02
CaO--------0.03-----
TiO20.75-1.04-1.20-0.77-0.91-0.690.090.59-
V2O30.04-0.07-0.17-0.08-0.06-0.05-0.03-
MnO0.530.100.520.090.500.130.550.250.560.100.530.170.390.08
FeO84.547.0585.077.7686.797.4085.686.9484.778.2385.477.5786.326.00
ZnO-1.56-0.96-1.55-1.31-1.26-1.13-1.07
Total92.40100.1093.9698.6893.5697.3093.4499.8693.5099.2595.7698.9795.1499.52
Cation Content on the Basis of 4 O and 3 Me a.p.f.u. (atoms per formula unit)
Fe2+0.690.070.660.060.780.080.700.050.660.050.580.040.630.05
Mg0.320.900.350.920.230.890.310.920.350.930.420.940.380.92
Mn0.02-0.02-0.02-0.020.010.02-0.02-0.01-
Zn-0.03-0.02-0.03-0.02-0.02-0.02-0.02
Fe3+1.920.071.910.101.910.071.920.091.920.121.920.121.930.07
Al0.031.930.031.900.031.930.031.910.031.880.041.880.031.94
Ti0.02-0.03-0.03-0.02-0.02-0.02-0.02-
Total3.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.003.00
End Members, Mole %
Mag64.780.2761.200.3172.090.3165.590.2461.640.3054.620.2259.820.19
Mfr29.753.2332.894.7821.403.3329.034.1932.585.8040.185.7435.983.21
Jcb1.640.201.570.201.530.281.660.521.690.221.540.351.150.17
Hc1.187.390.945.701.118.251.045.181.024.601.033.510.895.40
Spl0.5488.910.5189.010.3387.820.4689.870.5489.080.7690.000.5491.03
Usp1.40-1.81-2.54-1.45-1.60-1.040.010.98-
Qnd0.64-0.97-0.75-0.64-0.85-0.760.170.59-
Cul0.04-0.07-0.19-0.08-0.05-0.04-0.03-
Mcul0.02-0.04-0.06-0.04-0.03-0.03-0.02-
Total99.99100.00100.00100.00100.099.9999.99100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00
Dash means content below detection level. End members (see Table 1): Cul, coulsonite; Hc, hercynite; Jcb, jacobsite; Mag, magnetite; Mcul, magnesiocoulsonite; Mfr, magnesioferrite; Qnd, qandilite; Spl, spinel; Usp, ulvöspinel. Other mineral abbreviations: Ap, hydroxylapatite; Cal, calcite; Cb, carbonate; Dol, dolomite; Fo, forsterite; Mag, magnetite; Srp, serpentine.
Table 5. Chemical compositions of magnetite-ilmenite pairs with the median content of Ti in magnetite.
Table 5. Chemical compositions of magnetite-ilmenite pairs with the median content of Ti in magnetite.
Rock GroupFoidoliteDiopsidite and Phlogopitite(Ap)-Fo PhoscoriteLow-Cb Mag-Rich PhoscoriteCb-Rich Phoscorite and Phoscorite-Related CarbonatiteVein Cal CarbonatiteVein Dol Carbonatite and Mag-Dol-Srp Rock
Sample931/405.9963/92.2937/147.4976/96.9970/124.0967/66.5987/198.0
RockIjoliteDiopsiditeF-phoscoriteMA-phoscoriteCal carbonatiteCal carbonatiteMag-Dol-Srp rock
MineralMagIlmMagIlmMagIlmMagIlmMagIlmMagIlmMagIlm
MgO0.211.730.372.122.048.661.8610.870.8410.550.9310.771.6010.57
Al2O3--0.160.060.36---------
SiO20.200.180.200.20---0.13------
CaO0.320.070.390.07---0.220.080.040.03-0.060.05
TiO20.3250.250.8551.321.3354.610.9855.200.9855.990.8251.000.8955.25
V2O30.38-0.07-0.16-0.20-0.220.380.12-0.20-
Cr2O30.11-0.06-----------
MnO0.093.800.194.370.726.840.253.060.152.760.123.380.293.95
FeO92.5241.8292.2539.2689.2228.3790.2728.0192.6329.7593.4934.0490.0828.06
ZnO----------0.06---
Nb2O5-0.38-0.20---0.45---0.79-0.14
Total94.1598.2394.5497.6093.8398.4893.5697.9494.9099.4795.5799.9893.1298.02
Cation Content on the Basis of 4 O and 3 Me a.p.f.u., and 3 O and 2 Me a.p.f.u., Respectively for the Spinel-group and Ilmenite-group Minerals.
Fe2+0.990.820.990.820.900.540.910.550.970.560.970.470.920.54
Mn-0.080.010.090.020.140.010.06-0.05-0.070.010.08
Mg0.010.070.020.080.110.310.100.380.050.370.050.370.090.37
Ca0.01-0.02----0.01------
Al--0.01-0.02---------
Fe3+1.960.061.920.021.910.031.940.011.940.021.960.191.940.02
V3+0.01-----0.01-0.010.01--0.01-
Ti0.010.970.020.990.040.980.030.990.030.990.020.890.030.99
Si0.01-0.01-----------
Nb-----------0.01--
Total3.002.003.002.003.002.003.002.003.002.003.002.003.002.00
End Members, Mole %
Mag96.11 93.70 82.47 86.23 91.98 92.20 87.58
Mfr1.17 1.97 10.45 9.88 4.45 4.94 8.63
Jcb0.30 0.61 2.28 0.81 0.48 0.39 0.92
Hc- 0.34 0.71 - - - -
Spl- 0.01 0.09 - - - -
Usp0.90 2.38 3.33 2.49 2.63 2.17 2.32
Qnd0.01 0.05 0.42 0.28 0.13 0.12 0.23
Cul0.56 0.10 0.22 0.27 0.31 0.17 0.28
Mcul0.01 - 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03
Ilm 82.00 81.32 53.56 54.48 56.19 46.64 53.43
Ppn 8.13 9.38 13.88 6.13 5.47 6.62 7.94
Gkl 6.50 8.02 30.92 38.35 36.83 37.13 37.38
Hem 3.18 0.99 1.63 0.48 1.00 9.61 1.11
Total99.0699.8199.1699.71100.0099.9999.9999.44100.0099.49100.00100.0099.9999.86
Temperature (°C) and Oxygen Fugacity
T1504452504455455651470
T2287265289232240411250
ΔNNO1+0.15−4.09−2.73−4.47−4.18+2.55−3.29
ΔNNO2+0.66−2.80−3.85−5.15−4.66+0.96−4.13
Dash means a content below detection level. T1 and ΔNNO1 are calculated using the model of Andersen and Lindsley [44], T2 and ΔNNO2 of Ghiorso and Evans [49]. End members: Cul, coulsonite; Gkl, geikielite; Hc, hercynite; Hem, hematite; Ilm, ilmenite; Jcb, jacobsite; Mag, magnetite; Mcul, magnesiocoulsonite; Mfr, magnesioferrite; Ppn, pyrophanite; Qnd, qandilite; Spl, spinel; Usp, ulvöspinel. Other mineral abbreviations: Ap, hydroxylapatite; Cal, calcite; Cb, carbonate; Dol, dolomite; Fo, forsterite; Mag, magnetite; Srp, serpentine.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ivanyuk, G.Y.; Kalashnikov, A.O.; Pakhomovsky, Y.A.; Bazai, A.V.; Goryainov, P.M.; Mikhailova, J.A.; Yakovenchuk, V.N.; Konopleva, N.G. Subsolidus Evolution of the Magnetite-Spinel-UlvöSpinel Solid Solutions in the Kovdor Phoscorite-Carbonatite Complex, NW Russia. Minerals 2017, 7, 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/min7110215

AMA Style

Ivanyuk GY, Kalashnikov AO, Pakhomovsky YA, Bazai AV, Goryainov PM, Mikhailova JA, Yakovenchuk VN, Konopleva NG. Subsolidus Evolution of the Magnetite-Spinel-UlvöSpinel Solid Solutions in the Kovdor Phoscorite-Carbonatite Complex, NW Russia. Minerals. 2017; 7(11):215. https://doi.org/10.3390/min7110215

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ivanyuk, Gregory Yu., Andrey O. Kalashnikov, Yakov A. Pakhomovsky, Ayya V. Bazai, Pavel M. Goryainov, Julia A. Mikhailova, Victor N. Yakovenchuk, and Nataly G. Konopleva. 2017. "Subsolidus Evolution of the Magnetite-Spinel-UlvöSpinel Solid Solutions in the Kovdor Phoscorite-Carbonatite Complex, NW Russia" Minerals 7, no. 11: 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/min7110215

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop