Comparison and Optimization of Sr Isotope Analysis in Carbonate Rocks by Multiple-step Leaching Method

PAN Xu; SUN Ziwei; GAO Jiwei; GONG Hongmei; WANG Xiaohong; DUAN Meng; XIAO Yuanyuan

doi:10.15898/j.ykcs.202302200023

2023 Vol. 42, No. 4

Article Contents

Article navigation > Rock and Mineral Analysis > 2023 > 42(4): 691-706

Next Article Previous Article

PAN Xu, SUN Ziwei, GAO Jiwei, GONG Hongmei, WANG Xiaohong, DUAN Meng, XIAO Yuanyuan. Comparison and Optimization of Sr Isotope Analysis in Carbonate Rocks by Multiple-step Leaching Method[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2023, 42(4): 691-706. doi: 10.15898/j.ykcs.202302200023

Citation:

PAN Xu, SUN Ziwei, GAO Jiwei, GONG Hongmei, WANG Xiaohong, DUAN Meng, XIAO Yuanyuan. Comparison and Optimization of Sr Isotope Analysis in Carbonate Rocks by Multiple-step Leaching Method[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2023, 42(4): 691-706. doi: 10.15898/j.ykcs.202302200023

Comparison and Optimization of Sr Isotope Analysis in Carbonate Rocks by Multiple-step Leaching Method

1.
College of Earth Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Marine Geology and Environment, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China
3.
Laoshan Laboratory, Qingdao 266237, China

More Information

Corresponding author: XIAO Yuanyuan, yuanyuan.xiao@qdio.ac.cn

Received Date: 20 February 2023

Revised Date: 04 April 2023

Accepted Date: 16 June 2023

Publish Date: 31 August 2023

Abstract

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Marine sedimentary carbonate rock is an important carrier for recording seawater information. The Sr isotope composition (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) of carbonate rocks can reflect the relative contribution of the continental crust and mantle to the Sr isotope composition of seawater. The long-term variation trend of Sr isotope composition in geological history can be used to interpret global tectonic events, weathering rate changes, biogeochemical cycles, and determine the age of marine sedimentary strata. However, the carbonate rocks likely contain non-carbonate fractions to varying degrees, which lead to the whole rock Sr isotope composition being unequal to that of the primary carbonate fraction. In order to obtain the primary carbonate fraction that reflects the primitive seawater, an effective leaching method is required.
OBJECTIVES
To identify experimental procedures and target leaching steps that can effectively extract representative primary carbonate fractions in carbonate rock samples of varying purity and variety.
METHODS
Reference materials of dolostone and limestone (GBW03105a and ECRM-782-1) were selected to represent carbonate rock samples with high purity, and natural samples of limestone (C-3, purity: 85%) and dolostone (E-3, purity: 65%) were selected to represent samples with low purity. The leaching solution of all steps was measured for Ca and Mg contents by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), for Sr, Mn and Al contents by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The Sr isotope was measured by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) after purification of the leaching solution. Through the utilization of various indicators, such as Sr/Ca and Mn/Sr, the targeted leaching steps were ascertained.
RESULTS
(1) Factors affecting the Sr isotope composition of the primary carbonate fraction. The detection of Sr isotope composition of primary carbonate fraction is affected by the soluble and exchangeable Sr, resulting in higher ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr values. Thus, the pre-leaching step is essential for the multiple-step leaching method. It is shown that an excess of 5% acetic acid can cause leaching of non-carbonate fraction of limestone and affect the Sr isotope composition of the primary carbonate fraction.　　(2) Comparison and selection of multiple-step extraction methods. (a) It is recommended to use the method proposed by Li, et al^[29]for limestone samples. It was found that the carbonate of GBW03105a and C-3 dissolved in the target steps (A10-A11) proposed by Liu, et al^[13] accounted for 46.51% and 39.49% of the total carbonate fraction. A large number of target carbonate was dissolved rapidly in these two steps without considerable differentiation. In the method proposed by Li, et al^[29], GBW03105a and C-3 target steps (B7-B9) dissolved carbonate accounted for 26.41% and 30.31% of the total carbonate fraction. The target steps are close to the step of non-carbonate fractions dissolved in strong acid. For natural samples with complex mineral compositions, the method proposed by Li, et al^[29] may have leached non-carbonate fractions, which resulted in a higher ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr value for testing. Therefore, the more conservative method proposed by Li, et al^[29] is recommended for leaching unknown limestone samples, and B7-B9 are the target steps for leaching representative primary carbonate fraction. (b) The method proposed by Liu, et al^[13] is recommended for dolostone samples. Liu, et al^[13] selected acetic acid with different concentration ranging from 0.25%-10% for leaching. The carbonate fraction is almost completely dissolved, and the lowest Sr isotope value measured is lower than the method proposed by Li, et al^[29]. Hence, to choose the concentration of acetic acid from low to high for leaching is helpful to separate the target fractions of dolostone samples. The same concentration of acetic acid is chosen by the method of Li, et al^[29], and the dissolution rate of samples with different purity began to slow down at A9, leaving about 30% of the carbonate fraction not leached. Thus, it is difficult to judge whether the target carbonate fraction using this method has been leached completely. For the multiple-step leaching of unknown dolostone samples, the method proposed by Liu, et al^[13] is recommended here, and A14-A15 are selected as the target steps for leaching representative primary carbonate fraction.　　(3) Optimization of a multiple step leaching method. The insoluble powder in the leaching solution will be digested by the subsequent addition of nitric acid, which can affect the Sr isotope value of the target fraction. This study has found that the Al/Ca ratio in the acetic acid leaching part is lower than that in Li, et al^[13] (Fig.3b), indicating that the filter can reduce pollution caused by the dissolution of non-target fractions. In addition, the pre-leaching steps can also be optimized. The experimental data showed that 5mL of 1mol/L ammonium acetate could be selected for pre-leaching to simplify the experimental procedure and shorten the processing time.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on prior research, a focused multiple-step leaching method for carbonate rocks is proposed. Limestone samples (purity≥85%) are suitable for 9-step leaching with 1% acetic acid, and the target steps are L7-L9; dolomite samples (purity≥65%) are suitable for the 14-step leaching method with 0.25%-10% acetic acid, and the target steps are D13-D14. The Sr isotope value of the primary carbonate fraction of the European Committee for Steel Standardization (ECISS) dolostone reference material ECRM-782-1 has been reported for the first time, which is 0.707868±0.000034 (n=12, 2SD). In the future, the experimental methods will be further improved to encompass samples from diverse sources and varying purity, thereby ensuring the reliability and universality of the experimental approach.
- carbonate rocks /
- Sr isotope /
- multiple-step leaching method /
- primary carbonate fraction /
- MC-ICP-MS

FullText(HTML)

References

[1]	Mcarthur J M, Howarth R J, Shields G A. Strontium isotope stratigraphy[J]. The Geologic Time Scale, 2012: 127-144. Google Scholar
[2]	Kuznetsov A B, Semikhatov M A, Gorokhov I M. The Sr isotope composition of the world ocean, marginal and inland seas: Implications for the Sr isotope stratigraphy[J]. Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, 2012, 20(6): 501−515. doi: 10.1134/S0869593812060044 CrossRef Google Scholar
[3]	Jones C E, Jenkyns H C. Seawater strontium isotopes, oceanic anoxic events, and seafloor hydrothermal activity in the Jurassic and Cretaceous[J]. American Journal of Science, 2001, 301(2): 112−149. doi: 10.2475/ajs.301.2.112 CrossRef Google Scholar
[4]	Palmer M R, Edmond J M. The strontium isotope budget of the modern ocean[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1989, 92(1): 11−26. doi: 10.1016/0012-821X(89)90017-4 CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Allègre C J, Louvat P, Gaillardet J, et al. The fundamental role of island arc weathering in the oceanic Sr isotope budget[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2010, 292(1-2): 51−56. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2010.01.019 CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Schildgen T F, Cosentino D, Frijia G, et al. Sea level and climate forcing of the Sr isotope composition of late Miocene Mediterranean marine basins[J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2014, 15(7): 2964−2983. Google Scholar
[7]	Peucker-Ehrenbrink B, Fiske G J. A continental perspective of the seawater ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr record: A review[J]. Chemical Geology, 2019, 510: 140−165. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.01.017 CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	Zaky A H, Brand U, Buhl D, et al. Strontium isotope geochemistry of modern and ancient archives: Tracer of secular change in ocean chemistry[J]. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2019, 56(3): 245−264. doi: 10.1139/cjes-2018-0085 CrossRef Google Scholar
[9]	Mcarthur J M, Howarth R J, Shields G A, et al. Strontium isotope stratigraphy[M]. Geologic Time Scale, 2020: 211-238. Google Scholar
[10]	Derry L A, Kaufman A J, Jacobsen S B. Sedimentary cycling and environmental change in the late Proterozoic: Evidence from stable and radiogenic isotopes[J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1992, 56(3): 1317−1329. doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(92)90064-P CrossRef Google Scholar
[11]	Shields G, Veizer J. Precambrian marine carbonate isotope database: Version 1.1[J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2002, 3(6): 1−12. Google Scholar
[12]	张志军, 尹观, 张其春, 等. 碳酸盐岩锶同位素比值测定中的残渣分析[J]. 岩矿测试, 2003, 22(2): 151−153. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-5357.2003.02.015 CrossRef Google Scholar Zhang Z J, Yin G, Zhang Q C, et al. The residue analysis in determination of Sr isotopes ratio of carbonate[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2003, 22(2): 151−153. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-5357.2003.02.015 CrossRef Google Scholar
[13]	Liu C, Wang Z R, Raub T D. Geochemical constraints on the origin of Marinoan cap dolostones from Nuccaleena Formation, South Australia[J]. Chemical Geology, 2013, 351: 95−104. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.05.012 CrossRef Google Scholar
[14]	Edwards C T, Saltzman M R, Leslie S A, et al. Strontium isotope (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) stratigraphy of Ordovician bulk carbonate: Implications for preservation of primary seawater values[J]. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 2015, 127(9): 1275−1289. Google Scholar
[15]	Fairchild I J, Spencer A M, Ali D O, et al. Tonian—Cryogenian boundary sections of Argyll, Scotland[J]. Precambrian Research, 2018, 319: 37−64. doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2017.09.020 CrossRef Google Scholar
[16]	Hood A, Wallace M W. Neoproterozoic marine carbonates and their paleoceanographic significance[J]. Global and Planetary Change, 2017, 160: 28−45. Google Scholar
[17]	Li D, Shields-Zhou G A, Ling H F, et al. Dissolution methods for strontium isotope stratigraphy: Guidelines for the use of bulk carbonate and phosphorite rocks[J]. Chemical Geology, 2011, 290(3-4): 133−144. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.09.004 CrossRef Google Scholar
[18]	Zhang K, Zhu X K, Yan B. A refined dissolution method for rare earth element studies of bulk carbonate rocks[J]. Chemical Geology, 2015, 412: 82−91. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.07.027 CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	Azmy K, Kaufman A J, Misi A, et al. Isotope stratigraphy of the Lapa Formation, São Francisco Basin, Brazil: Implications for late Neoproterozoic glacial events in South America[J]. Precambrian Research, 2006, 149(3-4): 231−248. doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2006.07.001 CrossRef Google Scholar
[20]	Nogueira A, Riccomini C, Sial A N, et al. Carbon and strontium isotope fluctuations and paleoceanographic changes in the late Neoproterozoic Araras carbonate platform, Southern Amazon Craton, Brazil[J]. Chemical Geology, 2007, 237(1-2): 168−190. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.06.016 CrossRef Google Scholar
[21]	Galindo C, Casquet C, Rapela C, et al. Sr, C and O isotope geochemistry and stratigraphy of Precambrian and lower Paleozoic carbonate sequences from the Western Sierras Pampeanas of Argentina: Tectonic implications[J]. Precambrian Research, 2004, 131(1): 55−71. Google Scholar
[22]	Miller N, Johnson P R, Stern R J. Marine versus non-marine environments for the Jibalah Group, NW Arabian shield: A sediment logic and geochemical survey and report of possible metazoa in the Dhaiqa Formation[J]. Arabin Journal for Science and Engineering, 2008, 33(1): 55−77. Google Scholar
[23]	Sawaki Y, Kawai T, Shibuya T, et al. ⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr chemostratigraphy of Neoproterozoic Dalradian carbonates below the Port Askaig Glaciogenic Formation, Scotland[J]. Precambrian Research, 2010, 179(1-4): 150−164. doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2010.02.021 CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	Zhang Y G, Yang T, Hohl S V, et al. Seawater carbon and strontium isotope variations through the late Ediacaran to late Cambrian in the Tarim Basin[J]. Precambrian Research, 2020, 345: 105769. doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2020.105769 CrossRef Google Scholar
[25]	Bailey T R, Mcarthur J M, Prince H, et al. Dissolution methods for strontium isotope stratigraphy: Whole rock analysis[J]. Chemical Geology, 2000, 167(3): 313−319. Google Scholar
[26]	Bellefroid E J, Planavsky N J, Miller N R, et al. Case studies on the utility of sequential carbonate leaching for radiogenic strontium isotope analysis[J]. Chemical Geology, 2018, 497: 88−99. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.08.025 CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Cui H, Kaufman A J, Xiao S, et al. Redox architecture of an Ediacaran ocean margin: Integrated chemostratigraphic (δ¹³C-δ³⁴S-⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr-Ce/Ce^*) correlation of the Doushantuo Formation, South China[J]. Chemical Geology, 2015, 405: 48−62. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.04.009 CrossRef Google Scholar
[28]	Kochnev B B, Pokrovsky B G, Kuznetsov A B, et al. C and Sr isotope chemostratigraphy of Vendian—lower Cambrian carbonate sequences in the Central Siberian Platform[J]. Russian Geology and Geophysics, 2018, 59(6): 585−605. doi: 10.1016/j.rgg.2018.05.001 CrossRef Google Scholar
[29]	Li Y L, Li C F, Guo J H. Re-evaluation and optimisation of dissolution methods for strontium isotope stratigraphy based on chemical leaching of carbonate certificated reference materials[J]. Microchemical Journal, 2020, 154: 104607. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.104607 CrossRef Google Scholar
[30]	Brand U, Jiang G, Azmy K, et al. Diagenetic evaluation of a Pennsylvanian carbonate succession (Bird Spring Formation, Arrow Canyon, Nevada, U. S. A. )—1: Brachiopod and whole rock comparison[J]. Chemical Geology, 2012, 308-309: 26−39. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2012.03.017 CrossRef Google Scholar
[31]	王意茹, 武晓郯, 何静, 等. 碳酸盐矿物中稀土元素分馏特征及其获取方法研究进展[J]. 岩矿测试, 2022, 41(6): 935−946. doi: 10.15898/j.cnki.11-2131/td.202204180081 CrossRef Google Scholar Wang Y R, Wu X T, He J, et al. A review of research progress on fractionation characteristics and acquisition methods of rare earth elements in carbonate minerals[J]. Rock and Mineral Analysis, 2022, 41(6): 935−946. doi: 10.15898/j.cnki.11-2131/td.202204180081 CrossRef Google Scholar
[32]	Liu C, Wang Z, Raub T D, et al. Neoproterozoic cap-dolostone deposition in stratified glacial meltwater plume[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2014, 404: 22−32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2014.06.039 CrossRef Google Scholar
[33]	Wen B, Evans D A D, Li Y X, et al. Newly discovered Neoproterozoic diamictite and cap carbonate (DCC) couplet in Tarim Craton, NW China: Stratigraphy, geochemistry, and paleoenvironment[J]. Precambrian Research, 2015, 271: 178−294. Google Scholar
[34]	Romero J A S, Lafon J M, Nogueira A C R, et al. Sr isotope geochemistry and Pb-Pb geochronology of the Neoproterozoic cap carbonates, Tangará da Serra, Brazil[J]. International Geology Review, 2013, 55(2): 1−19. Google Scholar
[35]	Kong J J, Niu Y L, Sun P, et al. The origin and geodynamic significance of the Mesozoic dykes in eastern continental China[J]. Lithos, 2019, 332-333: 328−339. doi: 10.1016/j.lithos.2019.02.024 CrossRef Google Scholar
[36]	Chen S, Wang X H, Niu Y L, et al. Simple and cost-effective methods for precise analysis of trace element abundances in geological materials with ICP-MS[J]. Science Bulletin, 2017, 62(4): 277−289. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.01.004 CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Sun P, Niu Y L, Guo P Y, et al. Multiple mantle metasomatism beneath the Leizhou Peninsula, South China: Evidence from elemental and Sr-Nd-Pb-Hf isotope geochemistry of the late Cenozoic volcanic rocks[J]. International Geology Review, 2019, 61(14): 1768−1785. doi: 10.1080/00206814.2018.1548307 CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Lv Y W, Liu S A, Wu H C, et al. Zn-Sr isotope records of the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation in South China: Diagenesis assessment and implications[J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2018, 239: 330−345. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.08.003 CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Frimmel H E. On the reliability of stable carbon isotopes for Neoproterozoic chemostratigraphic correlation[J]. Precambrian Research, 2010, 182(4): 239−253. doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2010.01.003 CrossRef Google Scholar
[40]	赵彦彦, 郑永飞. 碳酸盐沉积物的成岩作用[J]. 岩石学报, 2011, 27(2): 501−519. Google Scholar Zhao Y Y, Zheng Y F. Diagenesis of carbonate sediments[J]. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 2011, 27(2): 501−519. Google Scholar