Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Petrology and geochemistry of lunar granite 12032,366-19 and implications for lunar granite petrogenesis

Authors: S. M. Seddio; B. L. Jolliff; R. L. Korotev; R. A. Zeigler;

Petrology and geochemistry of lunar granite 12032,366-19 and implications for lunar granite petrogenesis

Abstract

Apollo 12 sample 12032,366-19 is a 21.3 mg granite fragment that is distinct from any other lunar granite or felsite. It is composed of barian K-feldspar, quartz, sodic plagioclase, hedenbergite, fayalite, and ilmenite, with trace amounts of zirconolite, baddeleyite, apatite, and merrillite. The texture of 12032,366-19 is largely a micrographic intergrowth predominantly of K-feldspar and quartz and, to a lesser extent, plagioclase and quartz. Hedenbergite, fayalite, and ilmenite are present in minor but significant quantities—6.0, 3.1, and 1.7 wt%, respectively—and are scattered throughout the feldspar-quartz intergrowths. Trace amounts of Zr-bearing phases are found including zirconolite (0.6 wt%) and baddeleyite (0.04 wt%). Incompatible trace-element concentrations are high in 12032,366-19, particularly the high-field-strength elements, e.g., Zr, Sm, and Th (1500, 25, and 61 μg/g, respectively). The chondrite-normalized, rare-earth-element concentrations form a “V-pattern” that is characteristic of other lunar granitic material. By modeling 12032,366-19 as a derivative from a KREEP-like parent melt, the composition and mineral assemblage can be obtained by extended fractional crystallization combined with separation of the low-density minerals plus trapped melt components prior to final solidification. However, this model cannot quantitatively account for the relatively sodic composition of the plagioclase (An 34–50 ) and requires that the starting melt has Na 2 O of 1.2–1.4 wt%, which is higher than most KREEP compositions. Formation of this assemblage by silicate-liquid immiscibility is neither required nor indicated by petrogenetic modeling.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    55
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
55
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!