Tourmaline trace element composition in volcanogenic massive sulfide Cu-Zn-Pb and clastic-dominated Zn-Pb deposits with applications to mineral exploration

Tourmaline from thirteen volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits, three clastic-dominated (CD) Zn Pb deposits, and four barren sediment-hosted tourmalinites were analyzed for major, minor, and trace elements to identify chemical criteria that distinguish tourmaline in VMS and CD deposits from other barren and mineralized environments. Tourmaline from VMS is mainly dravitic, with some deposits showing schorlitic and uvitic compositions, whereas CD Zn Pb and barren tourmalinite tourmaline spans the schorl-dravite transition and dravitic compositions, with few exceptions showing uvitic and foititic compositions. Tourmaline major element composition from VMS and CD is governed by heterovalent coupled substitutions, reflecting local processes specific to each deposit. In barren tourmalinites, the compositions are mainly controlled by the chemical composition of the host metasedimentary units. The VMS tourmaline shows higher Al, Mg, and V, whereas CD has higher Ca, Co, K, Mn, Li, La, Ce, Eu, Zn, and Pb; tourmalinites show higher Fe, Na, Ti, Sr, Cr, Sc, Sn, Ga, and Cu. A partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) model is used to classify VMS deposits, CD Zn Pb deposits, and barren tourmalinites. The results show that VMS tourmaline correlates with Mg, Sn, Ga, and V; CD Zn Pb tourmaline correlates with Pb, Zn, K, Mn, and Eu; and tourmaline from barren tourmalinites correlates with Fe, Ti, and Sr. These elements were used to build bivariate classification plots using element ratios that enhance the geochemical distinction of VMS and CD Zn Pb tourmaline from tourmaline in granite-related Sn W, orogenic gold, porphyry Cu-Mo-Au, iron oxide‑copper‑gold, and barren geological environments. • Chemical data of tourmaline from VMS, CD Zn Pb, and tourmalinites are reported. • Tourmaline composition from VMS, CD Zn Pb, and tourmalinites is compared. • PLS-DA using tourmaline chemistry is used to classify the investigated deposits. • Element ratios are used to discriminate VMS and CD Zn Pb from other deposits types.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Geochemical Exploration
Published
2025-10-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2025.107913
Primary Topic
Geological and Geochemical Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Tourmaline trace element composition in volcanogenic massive sulfide Cu-Zn-Pb and clastic-dominated Zn-Pb deposits with applications to mineral exploration

Georges Beaudoin, Bertrand Rottier, John F. Slack, Eduardo Valentin dos Santos
Journal of Geochemical Exploration
Geological and Geochemical Analysis
article

Tourmaline trace element composition in volcanogenic massive sulfide Cu-Zn-Pb and clastic-dominated Zn-Pb deposits with applications to mineral exploration

Georges Beaudoin, Bertrand Rottier, John F. Slack, Eduardo Valentin dos Santos
article en

Abstract

Tourmaline from thirteen volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits, three clastic-dominated (CD) Zn Pb deposits, and four barren sediment-hosted tourmalinites were analyzed for major, minor, and trace elements to identify chemical criteria that distinguish tourmaline in VMS and CD deposits from other barren and mineralized environments. Tourmaline from VMS is mainly dravitic, with some deposits showing schorlitic and uvitic compositions, whereas CD Zn Pb and barren tourmalinite tourmaline spans the schorl-dravite transition and dravitic compositions, with few exceptions showing uvitic and foititic compositions. Tourmaline major element composition from VMS and CD is governed by heterovalent coupled substitutions, reflecting local processes specific to each deposit. In barren tourmalinites, the compositions are mainly controlled by the chemical composition of the host metasedimentary units. The VMS tourmaline shows higher Al, Mg, and V, whereas CD has higher Ca, Co, K, Mn, Li, La, Ce, Eu, Zn, and Pb; tourmalinites show higher Fe, Na, Ti, Sr, Cr, Sc, Sn, Ga, and Cu. A partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) model is used to classify VMS deposits, CD Zn Pb deposits, and barren tourmalinites. The results show that VMS tourmaline correlates with Mg, Sn, Ga, and V; CD Zn Pb tourmaline correlates with Pb, Zn, K, Mn, and Eu; and tourmaline from barren tourmalinites correlates with Fe, Ti, and Sr. These elements were used to build bivariate classification plots using element ratios that enhance the geochemical distinction of VMS and CD Zn Pb tourmaline from tourmaline in granite-related Sn W, orogenic gold, porphyry Cu-Mo-Au, iron oxide‑copper‑gold, and barren geological environments. • Chemical data of tourmaline from VMS, CD Zn Pb, and tourmalinites are reported. • Tourmaline composition from VMS, CD Zn Pb, and tourmalinites is compared. • PLS-DA using tourmaline chemistry is used to classify the investigated deposits. • Element ratios are used to discriminate VMS and CD Zn Pb from other deposits types.

Journal of Geochemical ExplorationVol. 280
United States Geological Survey (US), Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA), Université Laval (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Geological and Geochemical Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.