Abstract

The characteristics of Au partitioning in a multiphase, multicomponent hydrothermal system at 450 °C and 1 kbar pressure were obtained using experimental and computational physicochemical modelling and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) analysis. Sphalerite and magnetite contained 0.1–0.16 ± 0.02 µg/g Au and coexisted with galena and bornite which contained up to 73 ± 5 and 42 ± 10 µg/g Au, respectively. Bornite and chalcopyrite were the most effective Au scavengers with cocrystallization coefficients Au/Fe and Au/Cu in mineral-fluid system n–n × 10−2. Sphalerite and magnetite were the weakest Au absorbers, although Fe impurity in sphalerite facilitated Au uptake. Using the phase composition correlation principle, Au solubility in minerals was estimated (µg/g Au): low-Fe sphalerite = 0.7, high-Fe sphalerite = 5, magnetite = 1, pyrite = 3, pyrite-Mn = 7, pyrite-Cu = 10, pyrrhotite = 21, chalcopyrite = 110, bornite = 140 and galena = 240. The sequence reflected increasing metallicity of chemical bonds. Gold segregation occurred at crystal defects, and on surfaces, and influenced Au distribution due to its segregation at crystal interblock boundaries enriched in Cu-containing submicron phases. The LA-ICP-MS analysis of bulk and surficial gold admixtures revealed elevated Au content in surficial crystal layers, especially for bornite and galena, indicating the presence of a superficial nonautonomous phase (NAP) and dualism in the distribution of gold. Thermodynamic calculations showed that changes in experimental conditions, primarily in sulfur regime, increased the content of the main gold species (AuCl2− and AuHS0) and decreased the content of FeCl20, the prevailing form of iron in the fluid phase. The elevation of S2 and H2S fugacity affected Au partitioning and cocrystallization coefficients. Using Au content in pyrite, chalcopyrite, magnetite and bornite from volcanic-sedimentary, skarn-hosted and magmatic-hydrothermal sulfide deposits, the ranges of metal ratios in fluids were estimated: Au/Fe = n × 10−4−n × 10−7 and Au/Cu = n × 10−4−n × 10−6. Pyrite and magnetite were crystallized from solutions enriched in Au compared to chalcopyrite and bornite. The presence of NAP, and associated dualism in distribution coefficients, strongly influenced Au partitioning, but this effect does not fully explain the high gold fractionation into mineral precipitates in low-temperature geothermal systems.

Highlights

  • Gold distribution among coexisting ore minerals, as well as between minerals and hydrothermal fluids, presents a fascinating geochemical problem.Minerals 2020, 10, 890; doi:10.3390/min10100890 www.mdpi.com/journal/mineralsFor example, Yang et al [1] suggested the following trend in ability of ore minerals to hostAu in decreasing order: bornite (1.5) > chalcopyrite (1.0) > pyrrhotite (0.87–0.99) > pyrite (0.5)

  • Thereafter, a special chemical medium was created to determine the elements by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS)

  • Measurements were made to a precision of ±12%, with a minimum detection limit (MDL) of 0.3 μg/L (0.3 ppb)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Gold distribution among coexisting ore minerals, as well as between minerals (precipitates or solid phase) and hydrothermal fluids (aqueous phase), presents a fascinating geochemical problem.Minerals 2020, 10, 890; doi:10.3390/min10100890 www.mdpi.com/journal/mineralsFor example, Yang et al [1] suggested the following trend (series) in ability of ore minerals to hostAu in decreasing order (figures in parentheses are metal-to-sulfur ratios in the formulas of sulfides): bornite (1.5) > chalcopyrite (1.0) > pyrrhotite (0.87–0.99) > pyrite (0.5). Gold distribution among coexisting ore minerals, as well as between minerals (precipitates or solid phase) and hydrothermal fluids (aqueous phase), presents a fascinating geochemical problem. Yang et al [1] suggested the following trend (series) in ability of ore minerals to host. Au in decreasing order (figures in parentheses are metal-to-sulfur ratios in the formulas of sulfides): bornite (1.5) > chalcopyrite (1.0) > pyrrhotite (0.87–0.99) > pyrite (0.5). Many authors demonstrated that pyrite (especially its arsenian variety) is the best gold concentrator in ore deposits, comparable only to arsenopyrite [2,3,4]. The data for natural objects are difficult to interpret because of the complicated history and poor understanding of processes, transformations and solid-state and heterogeneous reactions in ancient mineral systems. The results of bulk analytical methods are usually inconsistent

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call