Search

Iron isotope ratios in magnetite have been widely used to reveal critical geological and biological processes. Laser ablation multi‐collector inductively coupled plasma‐mass spectrometry (LA‐MC‐ICP‐MS) is ideally suited for measurement of Fe isotope ratios, however the lack of suitable reference materials poses a significant challenge for in situ Fe isotopic measurements in magnetites. In this study, five high‐quality natural magnetite crystals were characterised for Fe isotope ratios using solution nebulisation (SN)‐MC‐ICP‐MS and LA‐MC‐ICP‐MS. The effects of LA‐MC‐ICP‐MS analytical conditions were investigated to obtain precise and accurate Fe isotope ratios. The yielded intermediate measurement precisions for the δ56Fe values in the five investigated magnetites were ± 0.05–0.06‰ (2s) using SN‐MC‐ICP‐MS and ± 0.08–0.14‰ (2s) using LA‐MC‐ICP‐MS. Magnetites with homogeneous Fe isotopic compositions in hand‐specimen measurements and microanalysis can serve as potential reference materials for in situ Fe isotopic measurement. Furthermore, the Fe isotope ratios in the magnetites from the Jinchuan Ni‐Cu‐PGE sulfide deposit were measured using LA‐MC‐ICP‐MS with natural magnetite as the bracketing calibrator. The increase in the Fe isotopic composition with magmatic sulfide evolution was primarily dominated by oxygen fugacity (fO2) and hydrothermal fluids. This finding implies that the Fe isotopic composition of magnetite can serve as a potential geochemical indicator of magmatic Ni‐Cu sulfide mineralisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Iron, Cu and Zn stable isotope systems are applied in constraining a variety of geochemical and environmental processes. Secondary reference materials have been developed by the Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (CAGS), in collaboration with other participating laboratories, comprising three solutions (CAGS‐Fe, CAGS‐Cu and CAGS‐Zn) and one basalt (CAGS‐Basalt). These materials exhibit sufficient homogeneity and stability for application in Fe, Cu and Zn isotopic ratio determinations. Reference values were determined by inter‐laboratory analytical comparisons involving up to eight participating laboratories employing MC‐ICP‐MS techniques, based on the unweighted means of submitted results. Isotopic compositions are reported in per mil notation, based on reference materials IRMM‐014 for Fe, NIST SRM 976 for Cu and IRMM‐3702 for Zn. Respective reference values of CAGS‐Fe, CAGS‐Cu and CAGS‐Zn solutions are as follows: δ56Fe = 0.83 ± 0.07 and δ57Fe = 1.20 ± 0.13, δ65Cu = 0.57 ± 0.06, and δ66Zn = −0.79 ± 0.12 and δ68Zn = −1.65 ± 0.24, respectively. Those of CAGS‐Basalt are δ56Fe = 0.15 ± 0.07, δ57Fe = 0.22 ± 0.10, δ65Cu = 0.12 ± 0.08, δ66Zn = 0.17 ± 0.13, and δ68Zn = 0.34 ± 0.26 (2s). Key Points: Three reference solutions (CAGS‐Fe, CAGS‐Cu and CAGS‐Zn) and one basalt reference material (CAGSR) for calibrating Fe, Cu and Zn isotope ratio measurements have been developed.CAGS‐Fe, CAGS‐Cu, CAGS‐Zn and CAGSR show sufficient homogeneity and stability.Recommended reference values were determined by inter‐laboratory comparison of results from participating laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report high-precision iron isotopic data for twenty-two commercially available geological reference materials, including silicates, carbonatite, shale, carbonate and clay. Accuracy was checked by analyses of synthetic solutions with known Fe isotopic compositions but different matrices ranging from felsic to ultramafic igneous rocks, high Ca and low Fe limestone, to samples enriched in transition group elements (e.g., Cu, Co and Ni). Analyses over a 2-year period of these synthetic samples and pure Fe solutions that were processed through the whole chemistry procedure yielded an average δ56Fe value of −0.001 ± 0.025‰ (2 s, n = 74), identical to the expected true value of 0. This demonstrates a long-term reproducibility and accuracy of < 0.03‰ for determination of 56Fe/54Fe ratios. Reproducibility and accuracy were further confirmed by replicate measurements of the twenty-two RMs, which yielded results that perfectly match the mean values of published data within quoted uncertainties. New recommended values and associated uncertainties are presented for interlaboratory calibration in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]