Four well-established techniques were applied to determine the mineral textures of a muscovite-bearing quartzite: (1) directional measurements on an optical U-stage; (2) X-ray; (3) neutron; and (4) electron diffraction (EBSD). Techniques (1) and (4) are of the ‘single grain’ type and techniques (2) and (3) of the ‘statistical’ or ‘volume’ type. Experimental pole density diagrams were compared by means of the construction of pole figure differences (‘difference pole figures’), which led to the observation that EBSD- and U-stage derived pole figures agree well, even in detail. In contrast, pole figures derived from X-ray and neutron diffraction are clearly different from pole figures derived from the single grain techniques, visible as pronounced preferred orientation in the difference pole figures. Specific properties of the applied techniques may be responsible for the observed differences, such as (1) missing proportionality to the grain volume in the single grain methods, (2) the accessible sample volume, (3) erroneous data correction, or (4) statistical errors. Also the method of data treatment, which is basically different for the single grain and statistical methods, should be considered when pole figures are evaluated. Apart from purely economical constraints and availibility of equipment, the decision on the most suitable method for a texture determination should be based on the scientific goals and specific properties of particular techniques. Texture measurements of the statistical type are well suited for determination of bulk textures of rocks (e.g. as required for the calculation of anisotropic physical properties of rocks), whereas single grain measurements are advantageous for the investigation of local textures and texture forming mechanisms.
Read full abstract