Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2022

Presentation information

[E] Oral

S (Solid Earth Sciences ) » S-IT Science of the Earth's Interior & Techtonophysics

[S-IT19] Deep Earth Sciences

Sun. May 22, 2022 1:45 PM - 3:15 PM Exhibition Hall Special Setting (2) (Exhibition Hall 8, Makuhari Messe)

convener:Kenji Ohta(Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology), convener:Kenji Kawai(Department of Earth and Planetary Science, School of Science, University of Tokyo), Tsuyoshi Iizuka(University of Tokyo), convener:Jun Tsuchiya(Geodynamics Research Center, Ehime University), Chairperson:Kenji Ohta(Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology), Jun Tsuchiya(Geodynamics Research Center, Ehime University)

2:30 PM - 2:45 PM

[SIT19-04] Unraveling the primitive W isotope compositions of kimberlites

Otaro Kobayashi1, Shiki Machida2, Takayoshi Nagaya1, Ichiro Kaneoka1, *Tsuyoshi Iizuka1 (1.University of Tokyo, 2.Chiba Institute of Technology)

Keywords:kimberlite, tungsten isotope, core-mantle interaction

Kimberlites are considered to be geochemically important rocks due to their unique isotopic compositions. Recent studies have reported whole-rock 182W/184W data of kimberlites to constrain the characteristics of their source mantle (Tappe et al., 2020; Nakanishi et al., 2021). However, because kimberlites are susceptible to secondary alteration and crustal contamination, analyses using whole-rock samples are unlikely to provide their original isotopic signatures. In this study, we applied the acid leaching and magnetic separation techniques to kimberlites from China, South Africa, and Brazil to separate the primitive values from secondary modified ones. Among the samples analyzed in this study, the residue fraction of Chinese kimberlite showed μ182W value of -12.2 ± 4.3 (2SE) and this value is distinctly different from the value of its leachate fraction, which lacked anomalous 182W signatures. The former value is considered to represent primitive W isotopic compositions of kimberlite source, whereas the latter value is considered to reflect the contribution of secondary alteration and crustal contamination. This result could reconcile the discrepancy between the results reported by Tappe et al. (2020) and Nakanishi et al. (2021). The negative μ182W anomaly in the kimberlite source mantle can be attributed to either 1) contribution of early-differentiated silicate reservoir, 2) an excess of late-accreted materials, or 3) core-mantle interaction. All of these processes support the possibility that kimberlites originated from a lower mantle region.