Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth
Supporting Information for
Experimental constraints on the role of dynamic recrystallization on resetting the Ti-inquartz thermobarometer
Nachlas, W.O.1, Hirth, G.2
1 Department
2 Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Contents of this file
Figures S1 to S5
Table S1
Movie S1
Introduction
This document contains information that supplements major concepts in the article but is not vital
to the body of text and therefore is not necessary to be included as additional figures. This
includes further elaboration on analytical methods, additional observations on accessory phase
minerals, and processing/refining of analytical results.
A supplementary movie shows results of X-ray tomography used to penetrate the solid-salt
confining medium to image the deformed sample prior to dissection of the assembly.
1
Figure S1. Secondary electron images show results of analysis of Ti concentration (ppm Ti) from
the grain boundary of a single crystal of quartz from the undoped layer of a low strain experiment
(W1674), revealing the same concentrations as the population of measurements collected from thin
section analysis (see Table 2, Table S1). This observation supports the interpretation that secondary
fluorescence is not a major source of contamination for the majority of electron probe
measurements.
2
Figure S2. Full CL spectrum collected from doped quartz showing luminosity in the blue region,
suggesting that the CL signal is dominated by Ti substitution in quartz (e.g., Gotze et al. [2001];
Muller et al. [2003]).
3
Figure S3. Plane-polarized light micrographs of nodular rutile inclusions present in the doped layer
of experimental aggregates from hydrostatic (A-B) and high strain deformed samples (C).
4
Figure S4. Cathodoluminescence intensity halos surrounding rutile needles from hydrostatic (A),
low strain (B), intermediate strain (C), and high strain (D) samples. Rutile needles emit highintensity CL enrichment halos, which are interpreted to reflect Ti diffusion from rutile needles into
quartz. CL halos are observed to be smoother and wider in high-strain (longer-duration)
experiments.
5
Figure S5. Plots showing one representative transect (out of three) of EMP measurements
collected across the aggregate layering (points were set with equidistant spacing in all samples
except hydrostatic samples, where points were set manually to avoid porosity). Results reveal two
compositionally-distinct populations of Ti-in-quartz concentrations in the doped (blue symbols)
and undoped (red symbols) layers. Despite changes in the value of concentrations between
hydrostatic (A), low strain (B), intermediate strain (C), and high strain (D) samples, the relative
difference between quartz in the doped and undoped layer remains consistent: Ti-in-quartz
concentrations in the undoped layer are ~50% of the concentrations in the undoped layer, leading
us to infer aTiO2 ~ 0.5 for quartz growth in the undoped layer (see Figure 8 and Section 5.1 for
further discussion).
6
Sam ple nam e
USGS BIR-1
USGS BIR-1
USGS BIR-1
MEAN (atom ic)
MEAN (w t% oxide)
Recommended
values*
% error
Al
8.332
8.289
8.321
8.314
15.709
Ba
Ca
0.001 9.566
0.001 9.460
0.001 9.512
0.001 9.513
0.001 13.310
Fe
8.067
7.978
8.039
8.028
10.328
K
0.013
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.018
Mg
5.871
5.759
5.860
5.830
9.667
Mn
0.139
0.138
0.139
0.139
0.179
Na
1.388
1.381
1.400
1.390
1.873
P
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.009
0.022
Si
22.498
22.569
22.340
22.469
48.068
Sr
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.013
Ti
0.590
0.589
0.587
0.589
0.982
Zr
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
15.5
-1.3
---
13.3
-0.1
11.30
8.6
0.030
40.3
9.70
0.3
0.175
-2.2
1.820
-2.9
0.021
-3.1
47.96
-0.2
---
0.96
-2.3
---
USGS RGM-1
USGS RGM-1
USGS RGM-1
MEAN (atom ic)
MEAN (w t% oxide)
Recommended
values*
% error
7.203
7.198
7.212
7.204
13.612
0.082
0.082
0.083
0.082
0.092
0.860
0.885
0.896
0.880
1.232
1.286
1.295
1.291
1.291
1.661
3.631
3.656
3.686
3.658
4.406
0.180
0.205
0.182
0.189
0.313
0.028
0.029
0.029
0.029
0.037
3.038
3.036
3.086
3.053
4.116
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.042
34.080
34.161
33.712
33.984
72.703
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.011
0.013
0.158
0.158
0.159
0.159
0.264
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.028
13.7
0.6
---
1.15
-7.1
1.86
10.7
4.30
-2.5
0.28
-11.9
0.036
-3.5
4.07
-1.1
---
73.4
0.9
---
0.27
2.1
---
*as reported by w w w .crustal.usgs.gov
Table S1. ICP-OES analysis of USGS geochemical reference materials BIR-1 and RGM-1.
7
doped layer
all data
unfiltered
W1674
mean
total n=
st.dev
209
n=
st.err
W1678
mean
total n=
st.dev
150
n=
st.err
W1680
mean
total n=
st.dev
175
n=
st.err
W1696
mean
total n=
st.dev
209
n=
st.err
W1698
mean
total n=
st.dev
160
n=
st.err
W1699
mean
total n=
st.dev
152 n=
st.err
W1700
mean
total n=
st.dev
175 n=
st.err
W1701
mean
total n=
st.dev
150 n=
st.err
undoped layer
filtered
(less than
400 ppm)
outliers
removed
all data
unfiltered
filtered
(less than
300 ppm)
outliers
removed
523
1356
116
126
230
45
93
5
230
34
88
4
135
22
93
2
135
22
93
2
134
19
88
2
3987
20381
74
2369
127
54
64
7
117
29
61
4
349
2312
76
265
84
38
75
4
76
14
72
2
3807
21560
85
2338
224
61
64
8
211
42
59
6
171
314
90
33
132
32
87
3
130
29
86
3
1541
5316
84
580
138
65
67
8
123
41
62
5
116
223
125
20
85
34
120
3
79
19
114
2
5869
34973
91
3666
161
97
77
11
140
56
72
7
434
1768
69
213
67
24
64
3
63
14
61
2
4208
24546
81
2727
196
39
69
5
191
33
65
4
236
779
71
92
112
38
66
5
106
29
63
4
559
1576
84
172
160
61
69
7
146
36
64
4
145
420
91
44
68
36
87
4
60
23
81
3
766
3391
65
421
163
36
58
5
157
25
55
3
108
197
85
21
87
36
84
4
83
18
74
2
Table S1. Compiled EMP measurements from the doped and undoped layers of the aggregate
showing the data processing steps for removing contaminated measurements and outliers. Final
values for each sample listed in Table 2.
8
Movie S1. X-ray tomography (XRCT) was used to penetrate the solid-salt confining medium to
image the distance between the thermocouple and jacketed sample surface within a deformed
sample assembly following a high-strain deformation experiment (W1701). Radiographs from this
analysis are included in Figure 2.
9