Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T23:15:01.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The loss of Fe and Na from a basaltic melt during experiments using the wire-loop method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Gay Corrigan  and
Fergus G. F. Gibb
Gay Corrigan
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, Great Britain
Fergus G. F. Gibb
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, Great Britain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Losses of Fe and Na from a typical basaltic liquid during experiments using the wire-loop method have been determined for both Pt and Ag40Pd60 alloy wire by electron-microprobe analyses of the quenched glasses. The amount of Fe lost is dependent on the duration of the experiment and is particularly sensitive to the ratio of sample to metal in direct contact with it. Fe losses can be minimized by using the thinnest wire possible in conjunction with the largest amount of sample that will adhere to the wire and, if Ag-Pd wire is used, can be kept below the 1% level even in long experiments. Much more serious in terms of changes in the bulk composition are losses of Na, which appear to be in direct linear proportion to the length of the experiment and in inverse proportion to the mass of the sample. Even when samples in excess of 200 mg are used the Na losses are unlikely to be less than 5% except in experiments of less than a few days' duration or on samples with very low initial Na contents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 43 , Issue 325 , March 1979 , pp. 121 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biggar, (G. M.), 1970. Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc. 49, 286-8.Google Scholar
Biggar, (G. M.) 1977. Mineral. Mag. 41, 555-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggar, (G. M.) 1979. Prog. Exp. Petrol. (in press).Google Scholar
Bow, (C.), Biggar, (G. M.), and Krishnamurthy, (P.), 1976. Prog. Exp. Petrol. 3, 141 3.Google Scholar
Carmichael, (I. S. E.), Turner, (F. J.), and Verhoogen, (J.), 1974. Igneous Petrology, McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
Donaldson, (C. H.), 1979. Mineral. Mag. 43, 115 19.Google Scholar
Donaldson, (C. H.) Williams, (R. J.), and Lofgren, (G.), 1975. Am. Mineral. 60, 324-6.Google Scholar
Duke, (J. M.), 1976. J. Petrol. 17, 499-521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, (C.E.) 1978. Mineral. Mag. 42, 271-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudali, (R. F.), 1965. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 29, 1063-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, (I. G. F.), 1974. Mineral. Mag. 39, 641-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, (I. G. F.) and llenderson, (C. M. B.), 1971. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 30, 119-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muan, (A.), 1963. Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc. 42, 344-7.Google Scholar
O'Hara, (M. J.) and Humphries, (D. J.), 1977. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A.286, 313-30.Google Scholar
Presnall, (D. C.) and Brenner, (N. L.), 1974. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 38, 1785-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, (C. R.) and Wyllie, (P. J.), 1975. Am. Mineral. 60, 681-9.Google Scholar