THE NOMLAKI TUFF ERUPTION: CHEMICAL CORRELATION OF A WIDESPREAD
PLIOCENE STRATIGRAPHIC MARKER
Steven John Poletski
B.S., University of California Davis, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
GEOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
THE NOMLAKI TUFF ERUPTION: CHEMICAL CORRELATION OF A WIDESPREAD
PLIOCENE STRATIGRAPHIC MARKER
A Thesis
by
Steven John Poletski
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Brian Hausback
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Lisa Hammersley
__________________________________, Third Reader
Dr. Tim Horner
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Steven John Poletski
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Dr. Tim Horner
Date
Department of Geology
iii
Abstract
of
THE NOMLAKI TUFF ERUPTION: CHEMICAL CORRELATION OF A WIDESPREAD
PLIOCENE STRATIGRAPHIC MARKER
by
Steven John Poletski
The Nomlaki Tuff, a widespread Pliocene marker bed is exposed near the base of the Tuscan and
Tehama Formations. An eruption 3.27 Ma from the Yana Volcanic Center in Northern California
was responsible for distributing this ash layer. Distal air-fall tuff exposures are found in Utah,
New Mexico, and Death Valley California, while the maximum exposed welded and unwelded
ash-flow tuffs are found in the Northern Sacramento Valley. Analyses of pumice were done at the
University of California Davis Microprobe Laboratory on the Cameca SX 100. Stratigraphic
deposits display an inverted stratigraphy. The more evolved pumice, defined as chemo-type 1,
erupted first and was deposited stratigraphically lower than the second, more primitive eruptive
unit, chemo-type 2. The zoned magma chamber model is the most plausible scenario explaining
the geochemical patterns of the eruptive unit. Further evidence to support this model is the
Eruption Temperature. Chemo-type 1 deposits had an average temperature of 849ºC, while
chemo-type 2 deposits had an average temperature 957ºC. Geothermometric (Powell, and Powell,
1977) equilibrium temperatures were based on the calculated molecular fractions of ulvospinel
and ilmenite from Carmichael (1967), Anderson (1968), Lindsley and Spencer (1982), and
Stormer (1983). The zoned magma chamber model explains the similar Nomlaki-like glass
compositions from the distal outcrops in Death Valley California documented by Knott (2006) as
the different eruptive phases observed at the proximal locations.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Brian Hausback
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was partially funded by the Association of Engineering Geologists Sacramento
Section, via a graduate student scholarship awarded in the Fall of 2008. Additional funding
originated from the Department of Water Resources Central District provided by my advisor Dr.
Brian Hausback. This funding paid for all the electron microprobe analyses and fieldwork.
Without these funds, this study would have been limited.
My advisor, Dr. Brian Hausback, of California State University Sacramento, for his dedication,
influence, and continued guidance on this project and support during the past two years. Dr
Hausback’s enthusiasm for research and his drive for success was the inspiration that fueled my
studies while working with him. His door was always open to any of my questions, and this thesis
would not have been possible without Dr. Hausback’s guidance.
The United States Geological Survey Menlo Park Tephrochronology Laboratory scientists Dr.
Elmira Wan, and Dr. David Wahl. Their continued guidance in aiding my analyses of glass data
from the electron microprobe was extremely helpful and beneficial. Dr. Wan, and Dr. Wahl
allowed for numerous trips and tours of their facility, and graciously contributed their complete
database for the past thirty years of Tephra analyses. Their guidance and contributions to
understanding large microprobe datasets allowed for the bulk of this thesis study to take place.
Dr. Sarah Roeske, Brian Joy, and Greg Baxter with the University of California Davis Electron
Microprobe Laboratory provided guidance and technical support on the electron microprobe
during my analyses.
I would also like to extend great thanks to Dr. Rachel Teasdale and Roy Hull of California State
University Chico, and Dr. Jeffery Knott of California State University Fullerton for their
generous help and support in the field and in the lab.
I extend thanks and praise to my thesis committee: Dr. Brian Hausback, Dr. Lisa Hammersley,
and Dr. Tim Horner for their time and effort in reviewing this work.
Finally, my family, without their continued love and support I would not have been able to
achieve and accomplish this goal.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regional Setting of the Field Area ......................................................................... 3
1.3 Tuscan Formation ................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 Composition and Stratigraphy of the Tuscan Formation..……………...5
1.3.2 Source of the Tuscan Formation..………………………………………6
1.4 Tehama Formation .. ………………………………………………………………8
1.4.1 Composition and Stratigraphy of the Tehama Formation……………...8
1.4.2 Source of the Tehama Formation.... ……………………………………9
1.5 Nomlaki Tuff .......... ………………………………………………………………9
1.5.1 General Description ........ ………………………………………………9
1.5.2 Age .......................................................................................................... 9
1.5.3 Bedding Structures and Deposition of the Nomlaki Tuff ..................... 10
1.5.4 Source Area........................................................................................... 10
1.6 Additional Pliocene Tuffs Stratigraphically Associated with the Nomlaki Tuff . 11
2. METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Sample Locations ................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Laboratory Methods .............................................................................................. 18
2.2.1 Pumice Preparation ............................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Heavy Liquid Separation ...................................................................... 18
2.3 Analytical Methods ............................................................................................... 21
2.3.1 Electron Microprobe Analysis: Silicic Glass ........................................ 21
2.3.2 Electron Microprobe Analysis: Bulk Minerals ..................................... 24
vi
2.4 Cross Lab Comparison.......................................................................................... 24
2.5 X-Ray Fluorescence ……………………………………………………………..26
2.6 Geothermometry………………………………………………………………....26
2.7 Similarity Coefficient (SC) ……………………………………………………...27
3. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………...29
3.1 Grain Separation ................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Glass Shard Analysis ............................................................................................ 29
3.2.1 Pumice Chemo-Types ........................................................................... 33
3.2.2 Stratigraphic Relationships ................................................................... 35
3.3 Bulk Mineral Analysis .......................................................................................... 38
3.4 Similarity Coefficient Analysis ............................................................................ 46
3.5 Geothermometric Conditions ................................................................................ 49
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 51
4.1 Eruptive Scenarios ................................................................................................ 51
4.1.1 Zoned Magma Chamber ....................................................................... 51
4.1.2 Multiple Eruptions ................................................................................ 56
4.1.3 Complex Magma Chamber ................................................................... 57
4.2 Mineral Analyses .................................................................................................. 59
5.
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 60
Appendix A. Heavy Liquid Separation .................................................................................... 62
Appendix B. Cross-Lab Comparison Data Table ................................................................... 66
Appendix C. Raw Nomlaki Tuff Electron Microprobe Data ................................................... 67
Appendix D. Normalized Pumice X-Ray Fluorescence Data .................................................. 75
Appendix E. Statistical Glass Fragment Tables ....................................................................... 76
Appendix F. An Core to Rim Data .......................................................................................... 88
Appendix G. Geothermometric Calculations ........................................................................... 89
References ........................................................................................................................ ……93
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Nomlaki Locations: A Comprehensive List…………………………………...16
2.
Table 2 Grain Separates from The Nomlaki Tuff Pumice Samples ….………………...20
3.
Table 3 Established Chemical Calibration Values: GSC Standard……………………..21
4.
Table 4 Established Chemical Calibration Values: RLS Standard……………………..22
5.
Table 5 Elements and Standards Utilized on the Electron Microprobe………………...22
6.
Table 6 XRF Sample Names and Number of Analyses…………………………………......26
7.
Table 7 Nomlaki Tuff : Electron Microprobe Sample Oxide Averages………………..30
8.
Table 8 Un-Normalized Major Element XRF Data for The Normlaki Tuff……………30
9.
Table 9 Statistical Glass Shard Data for Nomlaki Tuff Sample BH07SB87_2A…..…...47
10.
Table 10 Similarity Coefficient Calculation for Bear Creek…………………………....48
11.
Table 11 Fe-Ti Oxide Geothermometer by: Powell & Powell (1977)..........……………49
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Ash Distribution of The Nomlaki Tuff................................................................2
2.
Figure 2 Regional Map of Northern California….....…………………………………….4
3.
Figure 3 Tuscan Formation Source and Extent….……………………………………….7
4.
Figure 4 The Stratigraphic Relationship of The Nomlaki Tuff……..…………………..12
5.
Figure 5 Nomlaki Pumice Distribution…..……………………………………………...14
6.
Figure 6 Nomlaki Tuff Sample Sites……………………………………………………15
7.
Figure 7 Back Scatter Image of BC1 Pumice Fragment………………………………...23
8.
Figure 8 BSE Close-Up View of Sampling Site.....……… ........……………………….23
9.
Figure 9A Binary Plot of CaO vs FeO for Lab Check……..…………………………....25
10.
Figure 9B Binary Plot of CaO vs FeO for Lab Check: Expanded View………………..25
11.
Figure 10 Total Alkali-Silica Plot……………….…………………………….………...31
12.
Figure 11 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Putah vs. Nomlaki Tuff……………...32
13.
Figure 12 Knott (2006) Binary Variation Diagram of CaO vs FeO………...….……….32
14.
Figure 13 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Clustered Chemo-types………....…...34
15.
Figure 14 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Tuscan Springs………….…………...36
16.
Figure 15 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Gas Point………………………..…...36
17.
Figure 16 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Mud Creek…………………………...37
18.
Figure 17 Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Bristol Lake Core………………..…..37
19.
Figure 18 Electron Back Scatter Image from Cottonwood Creek…………………....…39
20.
Figure 19 Full Extent View of Typical Mineral Sample ………………………………39
21.
Figure 20 Close-Up View of Fe-Ti Oxide……...……….....…………………………....40
22.
Figure 21A The Pyroxene Mineral Analysis.....……………....………………………...41
ix
23.
Figure 21B The Pyroxene Mineral Analysis: Close-Up View.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... 41
24.
Figure 22A The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis.... ….…………………………………...42
25.
Figure 22B The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis: Chemo-type 2 ……………...………...43
26.
Figure 22C The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis: Chemo-type 1….……………………...43
27.
Figure 22D BSE and An Core to Rim Analyses………………………………………..44
28.
Figure 23 The Amphibole Mineral Analysis…………………………………….……...45
29.
Figure 24 Chemical Variation Diagrams …………………………………………..…..53
30.
Figure 25 Zoned Magma Chamber Model……………………………………………...55
31.
Figure 26 Multiple Eruption Model..........................………………….………………..57
32.
Figure 27 Complex Magma Chamber Model........……………………………………..58
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Study
The most significant and widespread Neogene volcanic marker bed in the northern Sacramento
Valley is the Nomlaki Tuff. The tuff is found near the base of the Tuscan Formation along the
western part of the Sacramento Valley and near the base of the Tehama Formation along the
eastern part of the Valley. This study intends to correlate, differentiate, and characterize the
eruptive history of the Nomlaki Tuff in the northern Sacramento Valley region using glass
geochemistry conducted on an electron microprobe. In addition, mineral chemistries are analyzed
to aid in correlation between tuff samples. The findings of this research will allow more precise
mapping and provide a greater stratigraphic understanding of the northern Sacramento Valley.
A large plinian eruption column dispersed the Nomlaki Tuff throughout the western United States
during the Pliocene epoch (Figure 1). The deposits consist of widespread ash-fall and proximal
ash-flow units. Distal exposures are documented in northern Utah, Death Valley California, and
western New Mexico (Knott and Sarna-Wojcicki, 2001) as ash-fall tuffs. The thickest
accumulations are found in the Sacramento Valley and are characterized as ash-flow deposits.
The Nomlaki Tuff has been identified as one eruptive unit since 1933 (Anderson, 1933). Glass
analysis of Pliocene tephra units stratigraphically distinct from the Nomlaki Tuff in Death Valley,
California by Knott (2006) produced similar Nomlaki-like glass compositions to those established
for the Nomlaki Tuff by Sarna-Wojcicki, (1976). Knott’s discovery led to the possibility of either:
1) the existence of multiple Nomlaki-like tuffs existing and identified as part of the Nomlaki Tuff
sequence, or 2) identification of a previously undocumented Pliocene marker bed in Death
Valley. Analyses from this project characterize the eruptive and depositional history of the
2
Nomlaki Tuff in the northern Sacramento Valley. The Nomlaki Tuff is found just above the
stratigraphic base of the Tuscan Formation in the northeast Sacramento Valley, and the Tehama
Formation in the northwest Sacramento Valley.
Eruptive Center
Nomlaki Tuff Localities
Study Area
Figure 1: Ash Distribution of the Nomlaki Tuff . Ash distribution that occurred from a large
plinian event 3.27 Ma. The red star indicates the eruptive center, the blue squares document
Nomlaki Tuff outcrops, and the dashed rectangle outlines the field area for this project. The
image has been modified from Knott (2006).
3
1.2 Regional Setting of the Field Area
The Nomlaki Tuff of northern California is exposed in numerous geologic provinces (Figure 2):
the Coast Range, Sierra Nevada, Great Valley, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Range, and Modoc
Plateau. The field area for this study is located in the northern Sacramento Valley.
Geologic structure within the field area includes minor folding and fracturing. The dominant
structure in the region is the Chico monocline, which dips 2-5° to the southwest. The monocline
drapes the Tuscan Formation and underlying rocks over a steeply east dipping, high-angle reverse
fault, which offsets metamorphic basement rocks about 400 m up-to-the-east (Harwood and
others, 1987). The structure was formed between 1.0 and 2.5 Ma under the essentially east-west
compressive stress that steeply thrust up the Sierran block east of the Sacramento Valley along a
Mesozoic fault in the basement rocks (Harwood and Helley, 1987).
The Tuscan Formation near Redding dips at low angles toward the southwest. Anderson (1933)
described this as a homoclinal dip. Burnett and Jennings (1963) believed steeply-dipping
fractures are caused by regional adjustment of the Tuscan Formation during folding. Harwood
and Helley (1987) interpreted the homocline and fractures to be features of the Chico Monocline
and further noted the presence of the north-trending Corning Fault (Figure 2). This fault has no
surface expression in the Sacramento Valley, but seismic reflection indicates a moderately steep,
eastward-dipping, reverse offset on the Corning Fault.
4
Figure 2: Regional Map of Northern California. Figure modified from Harwood and others (1987)
highlighting the major geologic provinces and geologic structures in the field area.
5
1.3 Tuscan Formation
The tuff breccias of the Tuscan Formation were first described by J.D. Whitney in the late 1800’s
(Lydon, 1967). The terms Tuscan tuff and Tuscan Formation were used interchangeably to
describe the formation in the late 19th century (Lydon, 1979). Tuscan Springs, located east of Red
Bluff, was established as the type section of the Tuscan Formation (Lydon, 1979).
1.3.1 Composition and Stratigraphy of the Tuscan Formation
Anderson made the first detailed petrographic description of the Tuscan Formation in 1933
(Lydon 1979). Harwood and Helley (1985), divided the Tuscan Formation into four major Units
(A-D). Unit A is the most proximal to the volcanic source while Unit D is the most distal.
Unit A consists of interbedded lahars, volcanic conglomerates, volcanic sandstones, and volcanic
siltstones all with scattered fragments of metamorphic rocks (Harwood and Helley, 1985). Unit A
exposures are typically no greater than 65 meters thick. Unit B is defined along the Chico
Monocline where the maximum exposed thickness is roughly 15-40 meters. Unit B contains
fewer lahars than Unit A, as well as abundant volcanic conglomerates, volcanic sandstones, and
siltstones. Unit C contains yet fewer volcanic lahars with thinner interbedded volcanic
conglomerates and sandstones with maximum exposures ranging from 50-80 meters (Harwood
and Helley, 1985). Unit D consists of predominantly fragmental deposits characterized by large
monolithologic masses of gray hornblende andesite, augite-olivine basaltic andesite, black
pumice, and smaller fragments (Harwood and Helley, 1985). This unit ranges in thickness from
10-50 meters.
6
1.3.2 Source of the Tuscan Formation
The principal source areas for the Tuscan Formation are ancient volcanoes: Mount Maidu, Mount
Yana, and Butt Mountain (Lydon, 1968) as shown in Figure 3. This area is located near the
current Lassen Peak region (Figure 3). Latour Butte is also a potential source of the Tuscan
Formation (Williams, 1978). The units of the Tuscan Formation were deposited as widespread
volcanic sediments and lahars. Lithic lahars of the Tuscan Formation reportedly originated in part
by autobrecciation in dikes and volcanic conduits (Lydon, 1967). Evidence for the presence of
block-and-ash (pyroclastic) flows has not been found. Such evidence would include chilled
contacts or baking effects between flows (Lydon, 1979). Additionally, red-oxidized flowtops,
gas-escape structures, vapor phase mineralization, prismatic-jointing of clasts, and magneticallyaligned fragments are all absent from outcrops. The only pyroclastic-flow deposits identified are
welded and non welded ignimbrites of the Nomlaki Tuff.
7
Figure 3: Tuscan Formation Source and Extent. Tuscan Formation sources and extent in the
Sacramento Valley, image modified from Lydon (1967) highlighting the active Volcanic centers
(Yellow triangles) during the Pliocene epoch. Note that the present day Lassen Peak is shown as
a Red triangle and the extent of the Tuscan Formation is stippled (bounded by the dashed lines).
The Pliocene volcanic centers each represent a probable source for the Tuscan Formation and a
potential source for the Nomlaki Tuff.
8
1.4 Tehama Formation
The Tehama Formation rests with marked unconformity on Cretaceous rocks of the Great Valley
sequence along the west side of the Sacramento Valley, and on plutonic and metamorphic rocks
of the Klamath Mountains west of Redding where the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks are missing.
Harwood and Helley, (1985) added that gravels of the Red Bluff pediment unconformably overlie
the Tehama Formation.
The Tuscan and Tehama Formations stratigraphically interfinger at many locations. This
interfingering occurs north of Red Bluff from Interstate 5 east to the Sacramento River. The
contact with the Tuscan Formation is gradational and the Sacramento River was arbitrarily
chosen by Harwood and Helley (1985) as the position of the inter-formational contact.
1.4.1 Composition and Stratigraphy of the Tehama Formation
The Tehama Formation consists of fine silty sands, sands, and clays with interstratified beds and
lenses of medium to fine grained gravel (Anderson, 1933). Weathering turns the predominately
pale yellowish to greenish-gray exposures to pale buff or yellow-brown. The sediments in the
Tehama Formation are often poorly sorted. The most common and widespread sediments are
massive sandy silts grading into fine silty sands or gravels. The lenses of gravel in the Tehama
Formation consist of pebble conglomerates (Williams, 1978). The conglomerates contain
abundant clasts of granite, gneiss, quartzite, gabbro and chert (Williams, 1978). No sub units have
been identified or described for the Tehama Formation. The maximum exposed thicknesses are
approximately 600 meters (Anderson, 1939).
9
1.4.2 Source of the Tehama Formation
According to Anderson (1933) the sediments in the Tehama Formation are of a non-volcanic
origin. Harwood and Helley (1987) suggested the Tehama Formation is derived from the
coalescing alluvial fans along the eastern margin of the rising Coast Ranges and Klamath
Mountains. Russell and Vanderhoof (1931) suggested that the formation is essentially a fluvial
deposit laid down under flood-plain conditions.
1.5 Nomlaki Tuff
1.5.1 General Description
The Nomlaki Tuff is generally light colored, pumice-rich, and contains lithic fragments. Lydon
(1968) notes that about 20 percent by volume is colorless glass shards, 30 percent by volume is
white pumice, 40 percent by volume is devitrified glassy matrix, and the remaining 10 percent are
crystals. Plagioclase is the most abundant mineral phase, followed by hornblende, hypersthene,
and Fe-Ti oxides in decreasing abundances. Anderson (1933) described the Nomlaki tuff as
consisting of white pumice fragments in a pink, gray, or white matrix of glass shards and
crystals. The crystals consist of andesine, hypersthene, and green and brown hornblende.
1.5.2 Age
An approximate age of the Nomlaki Tuff was first based on ages obtained from units
stratigraphically above the tuff (Tuscan and Tehama Formations). Russell and VanderHoof
(1931) established the age of the Tehama and Tuscan Formation as Upper Middle to Upper
Pliocene based on the identification of vertebrate fossils located 10 meters above the Nomlaki
Tuff. Evernden and others (1964) obtained a potassium-argon age of 3.4 ± 0.4 Ma for the
Nomlaki Tuff, confirming the Pliocene age given by Russell and VanderHoof in 1931. Ar-Ar
10
dating by Knott (2006) provided a refined age of 3.27 ± 0.1 Ma for the Nomlaki Tuff from
exposures in Death Valley (Figure 1).
1.5.3 Bedding Structures and Deposition of the Nomlaki Tuff
The depositional structures of the Nomlaki Tuff consist of thinly bedded to cross-bedded units.
Creely (1965) noted that the thinly laminated beds are exposed along the eastern Sacramento
Valley and exhibit some small-scale cross-bedding. These exposures represent the distal deposits
of the ash-flows and are unwelded. The tuff consists exclusively of fresh subrounded to rounded
white pumice at these eastern locations, which grades into pumice fragments of granule (2-4mm)
and sand size (Creely, 1965). However, thick massive unwelded ignimbrite outcrops are common
near the central Sacramento Valley. The Nomlaki tuff at proximal locations consists of welded
units. The welded exposures display fiamme, and vitric pumice fragments, with aspect ratios of
10:1 or greater. The pumice fragments examined in the unwelded tuffs are 5-15 centimeters in
length.
1.5.4 Source Area
The exact source area for the Nomlaki Tuff has not been precisely identified; however two early
studies (Anderson and Russe1l, 1939 and Lydon, 1967) identified the Lassen Peak region as the
likely source for the unit. Russell and Vanderhoof (1931) proposed that the likely source area for
the tuff was Digger Creek near Lassen Peak. Lydon (1967) suggested that the source of the
Nomlaki Tuff was near the Tuscan Springs area, in close proximity to the present Lassen Peak
region (Figure 6). Williams (1978) determined that Latour Butte, Mount Maidu, and Mount Yana
are all potential sources of the Nomlaki Tuff (Figure 2).
11
1.6 Additional Pliocene Tuffs Stratigraphically Associated with the Nomlaki Tuff
Multiple volcanic tuffs were deposited in the Sacramento Valley during the Pliocene epoch.
These tuffs are key marker beds used to identify the age relationships within the region. It is
worthwhile noting some of the characteristics of these other tuffs in order that they not be
mistaken for the Nomlaki Tuff. The Ishi Tuff (2.5 ± 0.1 Ma) lies stratigraphically above the
Nomlaki Tuff in northern Sacramento Valley, (Figure 4) while the Putah Tuff (3.4 ± 0.1Ma) lies
stratigraphically below the Nomlaki Tuff (Sarna-Wojcicki and Davis, 1991). The Ishi Tuff
contains white to light gray, fine grained pumiceous air-fall tuff with variable amounts of
volcanic sandstone and silt, but is distinguished by the abundant amount of black to bronze
biotite grains 1mm in size (Harwood, and Helley 1985). The Putah Tuff is light-grey, moderately
consolidated, hypersthene-hornblende, vitric pumiceous tuff that is massive but uncemented
(Sarna-Wojcicki, 1976). Pliocene markerbeds are also abundant at distal Nomlaki Tuff locations.
Death Valley stratigraphy includes the Glass Mountain ash bed (1.8 ± 0.1 Ma) which lies
stratigraphically above the Nomlaki Tuff, and the Artists Drive tuff (3.35 ± 0.1 Ma) exposed
below the Nomlaki Tuff (Knott, and others 2005).
12
Figure 4: The Stratigraphic Relationship of The Nomlaki Tuff. The stratigraphy of the Nomlaki
Tuff in the Sacramento Valley is shown in the figure above. The Nomlaki Tuff is 3.27 Ma and is
found in both the base of the Tuscan and Tehama Formations. It is stratigraphically below the Ishi
Tuff and above the Putah Tuff. Figure modified from Sarna-Wojcicki, 1991.
13
Chapter 2
METHODS
2.1 Sample Locations
Nomlaki Tuff pumice samples were collected from various exposures throughout the northern
Sacramento Valley (Figure 6). A literature search provided general location names and pumice
descriptions for documented Nomlaki Tuff exposures in proximal and distal outcrops. Nine
locations (Figure 6) were selected for analysis and yielded eighteen samples. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) provided two additional core samples from Bristol Dry Lake (CAES).
The nine locations include Gas Point, Cottonwood Creek, Horsetown, Bear Creek, Bonnie
Craggs, Tuscan Springs, Red Bluff, Mud Creek, and Sutter Buttes. Multiple samples were
collected at Gas Point, Bonnie Craggs, Tuscan Springs, Mud Creek, and Horsetown.
In addition to the two core samples, the USGS provided access to their glass geochemistry
database that is utilized in the data analysis. Table 1 provides a comprehensive description of
each sample. At each location pumice lapilli were analyzed. The selected pumice samples were
non-weathered, larger than 5 centimeters in length, and yielded at least 9 grams of material.
14
Figure 5: Nomlaki Pumice Distribution. The pumice distribution from the eruption 3.27 Ma. The
red star indicates the general eruptive center. The distal air-fall pumice is found as far east as New
Mexico and Utah, while the unwelded ash-flow tuff pumice is found in the greater northern
Sacramento Valley region. The welded ash-flow tuff samples are found in close proximity to the
eruptive source. (Modified from Knott, 2006).
15
Figure 6: Nomlaki Tuff Sample Sites. Shaded relief map produced from a Digital Elevation
Model (DEM) of the northern Sacramento Valley highlighting the nine field locations that
yielded the eighteen samples used in this project.
16
Nomlaki Locations: A Comprehensive List
State
Samples
Collected By
Date
Chemo
Type
Ca
1
Hausback
6/26/2000
1 &2
Ca
1
Hausback
5/6/2005
2
AirFall
AshFlow
NAD
83
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
10/12/2007
2
AshFlow
-122.485
NAD
83
Ca
3
Hausback/Poletski
10/14/2007
1
AshFlow
40.3969
-122.529
NAD
83
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
10/14/2007
1
AshFlow
40.3984
-122.529
NAD
83
Ca
2
Hausback/Poletski
10/14/2007
1
AshFlow
8m thick with pink weathered top.
Possible multiple flows present due
to lack of large pumice
40.3984
-122.529
NAD
83
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
10/14/2007
1
AshFlow
Type locality, large lithics at base of
flow (13-20cm) near bed of stream
channel. Largest pumice 14cm
40.2402
-122.115
NAD
27
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
4/30/2008
1
AshFlow
40.2404
-122.112
NAD
27
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
4/30/2008
2
40.2407
-122.111
NAD
27
Ca
1
Hausback/Poletski
4/30/2008
1
Sample ID
Ref ID
Locality Description
Rhyolite tuff along Pass Road,
section of partly to wholly reworked
pumice and gray ash, ~2-3 cm thick
in the Sutter beds, Sutter Buttes.
18-A gray ash horizon at least 30
cm thick.
BH00SB-18A
Sutter Buttes
BH05SB-04A
Red Bluff
BH07SB87-2A
Bear Creek
BH07SB87-7
Horsetown
BH07SB87-8
Cottonwood
Creek
BH07SB87-9A
Gas Point
Lower
Red Bluff
Large fiamme present with 5:1
ratio. Welded Tuff, lithics abundant
(15 cm max). Olivine, clino
pyroxene, plagioclase, in the
Tuscan formation
Pumice clasts found at abandoned
mine town in quarry. Location found
by Roy Hull. Pumice clasts very
abundant (15cm) unwelded tuff,
pyroxene largest grains with
hornblende very rare. Multiple
samples taken, half collected for
XRF. Very weathered surface
Unit roughly 5m with base not
observed, found along road cut.
Largest pumice clasts found near
the top of unit, unwelded, lithic poor
Base exposed along the Tehama
Fm, lower of two flow units, lower
layer 1 m thick. Multiple amp
crystals. Pumice grains largest in
this layer (8-9 cm average) large
green lithics present throughout
bottom layer
BH07SB87-9B
Gas Point
Upper
BH08SB-2A
Tuscan Springs
Lower
BH08SB-4
Tuscan Springs
Middle
BH08SB-6
Tuscan Springs
Upper
10m above river channel, pumice
25cm and unit is roughly 15 m thick
Top of the Nomlaki outcrop, upper
contact with Tuscan Fm observed.
Pumice few and far between and
very small (5cm)
Latitude
Longitude
Datum
39.1867
-121.815
40.0116
-122.458
NAD
27
NAD
83
40.5327
-121.943
40.5017
Tuff
AshFlow
AshFlow
17
NT-17
Bonnie Craggs
17
NT-19
Bonnie Craggs
19
SP09-1A
Mud Creek
17 and 18 are from the ridge just
north of Bear Creek Falls where it
19 is from the ridge N of Bear
Creek falls, as close to the top of
the
Nomlaki Tuff found along road cut,
weathered, unwelded tuff with very
small pumice samples (5cm)
Nomlaki Tuff outcrop about 5m
away from 1A
40.5521
-121.904
NAD
27
Ca
2
Teasdale
6/12/2008
2
AshFlow
40.5519
-121.903
NAD
27
Ca
1
Teasdale
6/12/2008
2
AshFlow
39.8388
-121.794
Ca
1
Poletski
7/9/2009
1 &2
39.8388
-121.794
NAD
27
NAD
27
Ca
2
Poletski
7/9/2009
2
AshFlow
AshFlow
SP09-1C
Mud Creek
CAES#1 829**
Bristol Dry Lake
Upper
Mojave Desert
NA
NA
NA
Ca
1
USGS
2/10/1988
1 &2
AirFall
CAES#1 1143**
Bristol Dry Lake
Lower
Mojave Desert
NA
NA
NA
Ca
1
USGS
1/29/1989
1
AirFall
Table 1: Nomlaki Locations: A Comprehensive List. Comprehensive Table listing all of the Nomlaki Tuff sample identifications,
reference identifications, field descriptions (where applicable), latitude and longitude, datum, state collected in, number of samples
probed, who and when they were collected, associated chemo-type, and tuff classification. Note ** indicates distal location. Bristol Dry
Lake sample provided by Elmira Wan, USGS; (Rosen, 1991).
18
2.2 Laboratory Methods
Pumice preparation and separation is outlined below. The complete modified step-by-step
procedure for Heavy Liquid Separation is found in Appendix A. Samples from the field were
separated into two groups, mineral and glass phases, in order to analyze the chemistry of the tuff.
2.2.1 Pumice Preparation
Collected field samples were subjected to surface cleaning and drying sessions prior to analytical
work. Surface cleaning removed organic and foreign material not associated with the pumice, and
eliminated contamination that may have altered the results of the analysis. Samples were dried at
20ºC for two days to remove all surface and internal moisture from the pumice. The surface was
brushed with a tooth brush, and an air hose removed the remaining organic material. When the
pumice was dry and clean it was ready for separation.
2.2.2 Heavy Liquid Separation
Heavy liquid separation is a process in which samples undergo a partitioning procedure in order
to obtain bulk mineral and glass separates no larger than 1 millimeter in size (Franke, 2007). The
separation and partitioning is based on density. A process modified from Franke (2007) was used
in this study. Sodium-Polytungstate with a density of 2.5g/ml was used as the partitioning agent.
This is an inexpensive, non-toxic liquid that is easy to handle and dilute (Franke, 2007). The
density of 2.5 g/ml is ideal because it represents an intermediate density between the glass and
mineral phases. The mineral phases are the most dense (approximatley 2.7 g/ml) while the glass
phase is the least dense (about 2.3 g/ml) according to Deer and others (1975). A graded column
based on density was produced in a separatory flask with Sodium-Polytungstate. The more dense
mineral phases sank to the bottom of the column and the less dense glass phase floated to the top
19
of the liquid column. The separated phases were then collected, washed, and dried in preparation
for electron microprobe mounting. The additional use of a centrifuge is not required, but it is
optional if the separation is not fully complete (Borrelli and others, 2008). This project did not
require the use of a centrifuge. The size of collected pumice samples varied in volume, but a
minimum of 9 grams of material was required for this process prior to probe analysis. Table 2
catalogs the pumice mass as the samples underwent preparation.
20
Grain Separates from The
Nomlaki Tuff Pumice Samples
Ground
Sample
(g)
%
Retained
After
Grinding
Dry
Washed
Ground
Sample
(g)
%
Retained
After
Wash
%
Xtal:
Bulk
%
Glass:
Bulk
Sample ID
(Single
Pumice)
Ref ID
Cleaned
Bulk
Pumice
(g)
BH07SB87-9A
Gas Point
Lower
5.7
5.6
98.2
1.3
22.8
9.8
15.6
BH07SB87-8
Cottonwood
Creek
9.2
8.9
96.7
2.6
28.3
9.4
20.1
BH07SB87-9B
Gas Point
Upper
7.3645
7.3166
99.3
2.7962
38.0
9.8
28.0
BH07SB87-9A
#2
BH07SB872A**
Gas Point
Lower
7.9871
7.9002
98.9
3.4931
43.7
7.3
35.4
Bear Creek
4.973
4.9427
99.4
3.9462
79.4
10.1
69.3
BH08SB-02A
Tuscan
Springs
Lower
8.2606
8.2083
99.4
4.9301
59.7
13.4
48.0
BH08SB-04
Tuscan
Springs
Middle
3.4124
3.3894
99.3
0.8092
23.7
11.0
11.6
Tuscan
Springs
Upper
4.8174
4.7939
99.5
2.1645
44.9
5.2
35.5
Horsetown
7.2
7.1534
99.4
3.596
49.9
22.4
38.7
Horsetown
7.2312
7.2133
99.8
2.9139
40.3
18.5
27.6
Horsetown
4.4293
4.4117
99.6
1.0161
22.9
4.9
15.0
BH05SB-04A
Red Bluff
1.7613
1.7388
98.7
0.9401
53.4
3.2
41.9
NT08-19
Bonnie
Craggs
8.9859
8.9267
99.3
6.6345
73.8
3.2
64.9
NT08-17#1**
Bonnie
Craggs
8.7286
8.6807
99.5
6.8607
78.6
45.5
70.0
NT08-17#2**
Bonnie
Craggs
8.4582
8.4219
99.6
5.9311
70.1
8.1
64.8
SP09-1A
Mud Creek
Lower
8.8536
8.8337
99.8
4.1529
46.9
12.6
34.5
SP09-1C#1
Mud Creek
Upper
4.9691
4.9526
99.7
3.0655
61.7
7.2
56.1
SP09-1C#2
Mud Creek
Upper
3.4883
3.451
98.9
1.9041
54.6
19.5
41.3
BH08SB-06
BH07SB877#1
BH07SB877#2
BH07SB877#3
Table 2: Grain Separates from the Nomlaki Tuff Pumice Samples. Clean bulk samples do not
exceed 9.5 grams. Welded pumice samples yield higher retention percentage and higher glass
contents. **Indicates Welded Tuff. Each sample processed is a single pumice or fiamme.
21
2.3 Analytical Methods
2.3.1 Electron Microprobe Analysis: Silicic Glass
Microprobe analysis was used to determine the chemical composition of the Nomlaki Tuff glass.
Analysis of the major and minor elemental compositions of the glass samples was conducted at
the Electronic Microprobe Laboratory at the University of California Davis using a Cameca SX
100 Electron Microprobe. The major elements analyzed in silicic glasses were Si, Al, Fe, Ca, K
and Na, while the minor elements analyzed were Mg, Mn, Ti, and Ba according to methods
described by Sarna-Wojcicki and Davis (1991). The glass analysis utilized a 5μ beam diameter,
5nA, and 15 KV beam current. The Corning Glass Standard (GSC), a synthetic glass, and RLS132, homogenous obsidian from Tulancingo Mexico, were used as standards. Glass samples were
compared to the established calibrated chemical values of GSC and RLS conducted by Myers,
and others (1976), and Belkin (2008) respectively (Tables 3 and 4).
GSC:Standard
Element
Oxide Wt %
Element Wt
%
45.78
O
Na
4.06
3.01
Mg
3.89
2.34
Al
14.2
7.52
Si
62.04
29
K
3.6
2.99
Ca
5
3.57
Ti
0.01
0.01
Mn
0.03
0.02
Fe
6.33
4.92
Total
99.16
99.16
Table 3: Established Chemical Calibration Values: GSC Standard. These values were obtained by
Myers and others (1976) of the Corning Glass (GSC). Glass samples of the Nomlaki tuff were
compared to the GSC glass during microprobe analysis.
22
RLS132:Standard
Oxide
SiO2
Oxide Wt
%
75.7
Al2O3
11.44
Fe2O3
1.86
FeO
0.45
Mgo
0.05
CaO
0.12
Na2O
5.25
K2O
4.53
H2O
0.07
TiO2
0.21
P2O5
0.01
MnO
0.15
Total
100.12
Table 4: Established Chemical Calibration Values: RLS 132 Standard. RLS 132 is a homogenous
obsidian from Tulancingo Mexico (Belkin, 2008, personal communication). Glass samples of the
Nomlaki tuff were compared to RLS 132 during microprobe analysis.
The GSC standard was used for K, Na, Mg, Fe, Ca, Al, and Si, while the RLS was used for Si.
Rhodonite, benitoite, and titianum oxide were used as standards for the trace elemental amounts
of Mn, Ba, and Ti respectively in the glass samples (Table 5).
Elements and Standards Utilized on Electron Microprobe
Element
Si
Al
Fe
Ca
K
Na
Mg
Ti
Mn
Standard
GSC, RLS
GSC
GSC
GSC
GSC
GSC
GSC
Rhodonite
Benitoite
Ba
Titianum
Oxide
Table 5: Elements and Standards Utilized on the Electron Microprobe. Standards described by
Sarna-Wojcicki and Davis (1991)
Eighteen glass phase samples were analyzed in this project (Appendix C). The analysis included
three welded ash fall samples, two distal ash fall samples, and thirteen unwelded ash flow
samples. Glass analyses were conducted at twenty distinct fragment sites within the pumice
samples. The selected sites were no smaller than 5μ and no larger than 20μ in diameter (Figure 7).
23
Figure 8 captures a typical sampling site. The largest sites were located where two or more glass
bubble walls came together at a junction (Figure 8).
Figure 7: Back Scatter Image of BC1 Pumice Fragment. Back Scatter Image (BSE) of Bear Creek
pumice fragment formed by grinding of one large fiamme. The large elongate fragment in the
center is an example of a probed site, where each sample location could be no smaller than 5μ
(the size of the sampling beam).
Figure 8: BSE Close-up View of Sampling Site. A sampling site (indicated by circle) could be no
smaller than 5μm and often occurred when two or more glass bubble walls met at a junction.
24
2.3.2 Electron Microprobe Analysis: Bulk Minerals
Bulk mineral chemistries were also obtained using the Cameca SX 100 Microprobe at the
University of California Davis Microprobe Laboratory. A total of four minerals were analyzed in
the samples: pyroxene, amphibole, plagioclase, and Fe-Ti oxides. Beam conditions were
calibrated for each mineral phase in order to acquire accurate weight percentage of the oxides
present. The probe utilized a 1μ beam diameter, 10nA, and 15 KV beam current for the pyroxene
and oxide phases. The amphibole and plagioclase phases required a 10μ beam diameter, 10nA
and 15kV beam current. The major elements analyzed to estimate the pyroxene and Fe-Ti oxides
phases included: Na, Si, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, Al, and Mg. The probe analyzed eleven major elements
to estimate the amphibole content: Na, F, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Cl, Ti, Mn, Fe, and Si. The probe
analyzed six major elements to estimate the plagioclase content: K, Na, Fe, Ca, Si, and Al.
2.4 Cross Lab Comparison
Microprobe setup at the UC Davis lab duplicated the setup used at the United States Geological
Survey Tephrochronology Laboratory in Menlo Park in order to minimize and monitor any crosslab differences in the analyses. Menlo Park has been processing tephra for the last thirty years.
Their methods for analyzing rhyolitic glasses on the JEOL 8900 electron microprobe are clearly
defined and explained by Sarna-Wojcicki and Davis (1991). The University of California Davis
Electron Microprobe Laboratory utilizes a Cameca SX 100 probe to conduct analyses. Three
glass samples were analyzed at both facilities for comparison. Statistically identical analyses were
produced (Figure 9A). The difference between the measured oxides was about 10% of the
analyzed weight percent values of CaO and FeO (Figure 9B). The Data collected from the Davis
facility is therefore acceptable for comparisons with analysis from the Menlo Park Laboratory
25
(See Appendix B for complete data table). Analysis of the three crosschecked samples was also
added to the eighteen samples collected in this project.
FeO (Oxide Wt%)
CaO vs FeO: Lab Check
5.00
4.50
4.00
UCD-Tuscan Springs
3.50
UCD-CAES
3.00
UCD-Sutter Buttes
2.50
2.00
USGS-Tuscan Spring
USGS-CAES
1.50
USGS-Sutter Buttes
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
CaO (Oxide Wt%)
Figure 9A: Binary Plot of CaO vs FeO for Lab Check. Binary plot of FeO vs CaO comparing
three pumice samples analyzed at the University of California Davis Laboratory to similar
analyses from the United States Geological Survey at Menlo Park Tephrochronology Laboratory.
The three samples analyzed at UC Davis are shown as the solid diamond, square, and triangle.
The same three samples were originally analyzed at the Menlo Park lab, plotted as the outlined
diamond, square, and triangle. The data comparison is statistically identical, measured difference
of 10% of the analyzed weight percent values, and therefore demonstrates that the Davis facility
produces very similar results as the Menlo Park laboratory.
CaO vs FeO: Lab Check
1.50
FeO (Oxide Wt%)
1.40
1.30
UCD-Tuscan Springs
1.20
UCD-CAES
UCD-Sutter Buttes
1.10
USGS-Tuscan Spring
1.00
USGS-CAES
0.90
USGS-Sutter Buttes
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
CaO (Oxide Wt%)
Figure 9B: Binary Plot of CaO vs FeO for Lab Check: Expanded View. This plot highlights the
difference between the measured oxides was about 10% of the analyzed weight percent values of
CaO and FeO
26
2.5 X-Ray Fluorescence
X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) major element data for five Nomlaki Tuff pumice samples were
obtained from the Washington State University Geoanalytical Lab using the ThermoARL
Advant'XP+ sequential X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (Hull and Teasdale, 2008). The major
elements analyzed in the whole pumice samples were Si, Ti, Al, Fe, Mn, Mg, Ca, Na, K, and P.
Sampling locations and the number of analyses conducted are shown in Table 6.
XRF Sample Names and Number of Analyses
Sample ID
Ref ID
Samples Run
BH07SB87-2A
Bear Creek
NT07-03
Bear Creek Unwelded
BH07SB87-9A,B
Gas Point
BH07SB87-7
Horsetown
1
1
2
1
Table 6: XRF Sample Names and Number of Analyses. Sampling Locations of the Nomlaki Tuff and
number of analyses conducted on the sequential X-ray fluorescence spectrometer, modified from
Hull and Teasdale (2008).
2.6 Geothermometry
Estimates of crystallization temperature provides an opportunity to understand the Nomlaki Tuff
magma chamber development. Geothermometry estimates the temperatures of equilibrium
mineral assemblages involving the system FeO-Fe2O3-TiO2; more specifically the formation of
coexisting pairs of titaniferous magnetite and ilmenite in igneous rocks (Buddington and
Lindsley, 1964). Temperatures obtained using these methods are accurate to +/- 50 oC. IronTitanium Oxide data from the microprobe was incorporated into a Microsoft Excel program
called ILMAT (ILmenite MAgneTite) created by Lepage (2003). This program uses four
common methods to calculate the molecular fractions of magnetite and ilmenite to obtain
formation temperatures (Lepage, 2003). The step-by-step programming structure is very similar
to the method outlined by Lepage (2003):
27
1. Sum the oxides.
2. Partition the total iron, entered as FeO or Fe2O3 into respective FeO and Fe2O3 cells. The
results are shown in weight percent and incorporated into the new total.
3. Calculate the cation proportion for ulvospinel and ilmenite.
4. Calculate the molecular fraction of ulvospinel and ilmenite with respect to their solid
solutions. ILMAT uses four different methods for the molecular fractions of ulvospinel
and ilmenite. These procedures are taken from Carmichael (1967), Anderson (1968),
Lindsley and Spencer (1982), and Stormer (1983). The results are shown in mol%
ulvospinel and ilmenite.
5. Calculate, for each molecular fraction, of the equilibrium temperatures using the
geothermometer from Powell and Powell (1977).
2.7 Similarity Coefficient (SC)
The glass composition data from the microprobe underwent a simple and effective comparative
analysis to produce Similarity Coefficients (SC). This comparison aides in positively
distinguishing the Nomlaki Tuff of northern California from other similar chemical units. The
same methods outlined by Kuehn and Foit (2006), Borchardt and others (1971), and Borchardt
and others (1972) were followed in this process. The SC of Kuehn and Foit (2006) is based on
concentrations of oxides, for which the concentration of each oxide in one sample is divided by
the concentration of the same element oxide in another sample producing a ratio (R). The greater
concentration is always placed in the denominator. The more alike the two values are the larger
the ratio, and if the two concentrations are identical, the calculated ratio is 1.00. The individual
concentrations are then averaged to produce a SC for a pair of analyses as shown in Equation (1).
28
n
SC( A, B ) 
 Ri
i 1
n
(1)
Where:
i= element number
n= Number of elements in the comparison
Ri= XA/XB
X= Concentration of elements in sample
Weighted averages are used in order to take into account differences in analytical precision and
scatter during analysis. The oxides were given different numeric value: Si, Ca, and Fe were given
a weight of 1 while the oxides of Al and K were given a weight of 0.8 to reflect the greater
scatter. Mg and Ti were weighted at 0.6 and 0.4 respectively to reflect higher relative error of
measurements (Kuehn and Foit 2006). A SC value of 0.92 is typically the lowest acceptable
correlation value (Froggatt, 1992). Following the interpretation by Kuehn and Foit (2006) SC
values greater than 0.95 are considered good evidence for correlation, and SC values greater than
0.97 are considered excellent. Coefficients from 0.95-0.92 are considered less suited to be
correlated and are individually viewed based on their major and minor element compositions.
SC values cannot be used to correlate tephra units because tephra layers from the same or
different source, separated by one million years, can have similarity coefficients of 0.93 or higher
as suggested by Williams (1994). The SC values above 0.95 were chemically scrutinized in order
to determine the feasibility of an acceptable match. The trace element percentages of MgO, MnO,
TiO2, and CaO were examined closely during this process. Variation of 5% or more from the
reported unknown analyses to the database entries was considered not a feasible match, and
therefore not an acceptable identification.
29
Chapter 3
RESULTS
3.1 Grain Separation
Eighteen pumice samples underwent heavy liquid separation. Cleaned pumice masses ranged
from 3.4 grams to 9.2 grams as shown in Table 2. The percentage of pumice remaining after
grinding (crushing whole pumice with a mortal and pestle) ranged from 96.7 % to 99.8 weight %
of the original mass. Welded tuff samples had higher retention percentages. Following washing
and decanting of the ground sample, 22.8 % to 79.4 weight % of the original mass remained. The
welded tuff samples again had the higher retention percentage. After the final separation, the
overall crystal content from the bulk pumice sample ranged from 5.2 to 45.5 weight %, while the
glass content ranged from 11.6 to 70.0 weight %. Welded pumice samples yielded higher glass
content than the unwelded pumice samples.
3.2 Glass Shard Analysis
Table 7 displays the average normalized oxide values for each of the eighteen samples analyzed
on the electron microprobe. The oxide values were normalized to 100 percent following SarnaWojciki and Davis, (1991). The oxide totals range from 95-97%. The low totals are due to minor
hydration of the glass fragments; normalizing eliminates this effect. The hydration occurs either
as primary (magmatic) water, and as water added after eruption (Williams, 1994). The raw oxide
totals are reported in Appendix C.
30
Nomlaki Tuff Samples Oxide Normalized Averages
Sample ID
Ref ID
SiO2
BH07SB87_2A**
Bear Creek
76.08
BH07SB87_8
Cottonwood Cr
78.07
TiO2
0.27
0.19
Al2O3
13.64
12.56
FeO
1.08
0.85
MnO
0.05
0.04
MgO
0.21
0.18
CaO
1.26
0.85
Na2O
3.89
3.10
K2O
3.42
4.01
Total
100
100
BH07SB87_9A2
Gas Point Lower
77.39
0.22
13.26
0.90
0.03
0.17
0.81
3.09
4.00
100
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9B
Gas Point Lower
Gas Point Upper
Mud Creek
Upper
Mud Creek
Upper
Mud Creek
Lower
Red Bluff
Horsetown
Horsetown
Horsetown
Bristol Dry Lake
Sutter Buttes
Bonnie Craggs
Bonnie Craggs
Bonnie Craggs
Tuscan Springs
Lower
Tuscan Springs
Middle
Tuscan Springs
Upper
77.98
78.08
0.19
0.18
12.71
12.79
0.87
0.86
0.04
0.03
0.18
0.16
0.86
0.79
3.33
3.12
3.74
3.86
100
100
75.82
0.27
13.69
1.11
0.04
0.27
1.34
3.66
3.70
100
75.94
0.27
13.52
1.27
0.06
0.29
1.31
3.92
3.31
100
76.97
76.30
78.06
77.72
77.89
77.05
77.35
75.86
78.32
76.21
0.24
0.24
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.20
0.26
0.18
0.26
12.94
13.24
12.78
12.65
12.70
12.86
12.76
13.45
12.63
13.49
1.09
1.10
0.56
0.82
0.84
1.04
0.96
1.09
0.28
0.90
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.26
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.23
0.19
0.24
0.06
0.16
1.07
1.15
0.86
0.89
0.85
1.06
0.91
1.28
0.81
1.24
3.81
3.58
3.65
3.78
3.66
3.86
3.93
3.62
3.09
3.79
3.52
3.96
3.64
3.58
3.58
3.47
3.55
3.99
4.42
3.82
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
77.76
0.19
12.66
0.85
0.04
0.17
0.89
3.57
3.75
100
76.14
0.26
13.45
1.16
0.05
0.29
1.34
3.75
3.45
100
77.59
0.20
12.75
0.90
0.04
0.18
0.90
3.49
3.83
100
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1A#1
BH05SB04A
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#3
CAES1
BH00SB_18A
NT08_17#1**
NT08_17#2**
NT08_19
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_6
Table 7: Nomlaki Tuff: Electron Microprobe Sample Oxide Averages. Nomlaki Tuff glass
fragment oxide normalized averages from the probed samples. These values are based on the raw
microprobe data. The values were normalized to 100 percent to eliminate the effect of glass
hydration. Raw, un-normalized data are given in Appendix C. Note ** indicates welded tuff.
Table 8 displays the raw whole rock XRF data from the five samples analyzed (Hull and
Teasdale, 2008). Oxide totals from the XRF analyses range from 92-95%. These data are also
normalized to 100% to account for hydration. Normalized data are found in Appendix D.
Raw Major Elements (Weight %):
Sample
ID
Ref ID
SiO2
BH07SB877
NT08_17#1
**
BH07SB872A**
BH07SB879A
BH07SB879B
TiO2
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
Horsetown
71.37
0.265
13.45
1.31
0.038
0.32
1.61
3.17
3.14
0.029
94.70
Bonnie
Craggs
67.86
0.357
15.50
2.49
0.075
0.56
2.27
3.45
2.83
0.029
95.43
69.89
0.308
14.22
1.90
0.064
0.52
2.07
3.78
3.08
0.076
95.90
69.04
0.262
13.76
1.52
0.051
0.40
1.55
3.01
3.28
0.051
92.92
69.48
0.258
13.91
1.50
0.049
0.35
1.48
2.99
3.42
0.044
93.49
Bear Creek
Gas Point
Lower
Gas Point
Upper
Table 8: Un-Normalized Major Element XRF Data for The Normlaki Tuff. This data is modified
from Hull and Teasdale (2008). Note ** indicates welded tuff.
31
Whole pumice XRF data shows high silica content (70% and greater). Individual glass analyses
(normalized) from the microprobe show silica content ranging from 75 to 79 weight percent
oxide, and therefore identifying the pumice samples as subalkaline rhyolite (Figure 10).
Misidentification of tuff samples can be avoided by examining and comparing the glass
chemistries of the stratigraphically similar Putah Tuff with the Nomlaki Tuff. The two units are
similar in appearance, but distinct in chemistry (Figure 11). The Putah Tuff has a higher FeO
content, and lower CaO content in comparison to the Nomlaki Tuff. None of the eighteen samples
analyzed in this study chemically match the Putah Tuff.
SiO2-(K2O+Na2O)(TAS) Diagram
16.00
Bear Creek
Cottonwood Creek
14.00
Phonolite
Gas Point Lower 2
Gas Point Lower 1
Gas Point Upper
12.00
Tephriphonolite
Mud Creek 1C#2
Foidite
Mud Creek 1C#1
K2O+Na2O%
10.00
Trachyte
Mud Creek 1A#1
Phonotephrite
Red Bluff
Trachyandesite
Horsetown 1
8.00
Tephrite
6.00
Rhyolite
Basaltic
trachyandesite
Horsetown 2
Horsetown 3
CAES
Basanite Trachybasalt
Sutter Buttes
Bonnie Craggs 17#1
4.00
Bonnie Craggs 17#2
Dacite
Basalt
2.00
Basaltic
andesite
Andesite
Bonnie Craggs 19
Tuscan Springs Lower(1)
Tuscan Springs Middle(2)
Picrobasalt
Tuscan Springs Upper(3)
ClassifyLine1
0.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
75.00
80.00
ClassifyLine2
ClassifyLine3
SiO2%
ClassifyLine4
ClassifyLine5
ClassifyLine6
Figure 10: Total Alkali-Silica Plot. The Total Alkali-Silica plot for the Nomlaki Tuff samples
based on the (normalized) electron microprobe data. All the samples analyzed in the project range
from 75-79%, thus indicating that the pumice samples are subalkaline rhyolitic.
ClassifyLine7
ClassifyLine8
ClassifyLine9
ClassifyLine10
ClassifyLine11
Andesite
Phonolite
Tephriphonolite
Phonotephrite
Tephrite
Basanite
Picrobasalt
Basalt
Trachybasalt
Basaltic
trachyandesite
Trachyandesite
Trachyte
Basaltic
andesite
Rhyolite
Dacite
Foidite
32
Cao vs FeO:Nomlaki vs Putah
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
FeO
USGS_NOMLAKI
USGS_PUTAH
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
CaO
Figure 11: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Putah vs. Nomlaki Tuff. Binary plot of FeO vs
CaO displaying the difference between the Putah Tuff and Nomlaki Tuff. The two tuff units are
stratigraphically similar however the FeO content is higher and the CaO content is lower in the
Putah Tuff. All samples analyzed in this project plot well within the recognized Nomlaki tuff
range of CaO and FeO content shown in the dashed oval.
Figure 12: Knott (2006) Binary Variation Diagram of CaO vs FeO. There are two distinct clusters
of data as shown with the ovals. The homogeneous smaller cluster represents the Artists Drive
tuff, while the heterogeneous cluster (bounded by the larger dotted oval) is the Nomlaki Tuff.
The sample names are shown in the legend located in the upper left hand corner.
33
3.2.1 Pumice Chemo-types
Well-defined clusters of glass data, or chemo-types, for the Nomlaki Tuff are observed in the
microprobe glass geochemistry data. Knott (2006) plotted and noted chemical clusters of the
Nomlaki Tuff and other stratigraphically similar marker beds in Death Valley using the oxide
weight percent of CaO and FeO on a binary plot (Figure 12). Knott's figure demonstrates the
homogenous chemo-type cluster of the Artists Drive Tuff (stratigraphically lower than the
Nomlaki Tuff in Death Valley). Using a similar plot, Figure 13, depicts clustered chemo-types for
the Nomlaki Tuff in northern California. Chemo-type 1 is defined from 0.6-1.0 oxide weight
percent CaO, and 0.65-1.0 oxide weight percent FeO. Chemo-type 2 is defined from 1.1-1.4
oxide weight percent CaO, and 0.8-1.4 oxide weight percent FeO. Nine samples plot within
chemo-type 1, eight samples plot within chemo-type 2, while four samples plot within both fields.
The four welded samples all plot within chemo-type 2, while the unwelded samples plot within
both fields.
Within each chemo-type classification there are sub domains. For example, within chemo-type 2
the chemical analyses of sample Red Bluff 1 display relatively low CaO concentrations. Sub
domains of the chemo-types may be additional complexities of the eruption model proposed in
this thesis. However, the chemical variation within the glass geochemistry data are simplified into
only two chemo-types for modeling of the Nomlaki Tuff eruption.
34
Nomlaki Tuff Feo vs Cao:
1.50
1.40
Bear Creek 1
Chemo-Type 2
Cottonwood Creek 1
Gas Point Lower 2
1.30
Gas Point Lower 1
Gas Point Upper 1
Mud Creek 1C#2
1.20
Mud Creek 1C#1
Mud Creek 1A#1
1.10
FeO
Chemo-Type 1
Red Bluff 1
Horsetown 1
Horsetown 2
1.00
Horsetown 3
Bonnie Craggs 17#1
Bonnie Craggs 19
0.90
Bonnie Craggs 18
Tuscan Springs 1
Tuscan Springs 2
0.80
Tuscan Springs 3
CEAS
0.70
0.60
0.40
Sutter Buttes
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
CaO
Figure 13: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Clustered Chemo-types. Binary diagram of FeO
vs CaO similar to Knott (2006). The ovals delineate the clustered chemo-types of the Nomlaki
Tuff. Chemo-type 1 is defined from 0.6-1.0 oxide weight percent CaO, and 0.65-1.0 oxide weight
percent FeO. Chemo-type 2 is defined from 1.1-1.4 oxide weight percent CaO, and 0.7-1.4 oxide
weight percent FeO. Note Bear Creek 1, and Bonnie Craggs 17#1 are welded samples.
35
3.2.2 Stratigraphic Relationships
Multiple samples of the Nomlaki Tuff were taken from four sites; Tuscan Springs, Gas Point,
Mud Creek, and the CAES core from Bristol Lake where the exact stratigraphy is known. Ashflow tuff samples were collected at Tuscan Springs, Gas Point, and Mud Creek while an air-fall
tuff was provided from the distal location at Bristol Lake by Elmira Wan of the United States
Geological Survey.
Three samples were collected at Tuscan Springs (Figure 14). Tuscan Springs 1 was the lowest
stratigraphically and plots within chemo-type 1. The sample collected from Tuscan Springs 2 was
stratigraphically up sequence from the first location and plots within chemo-type 2. Lastly,
Tuscan Springs 3 was collected from the top of the outcrop sequence, and plots in chemo-type 1.
Three samples were collected at Gas Point, two pumice fragments from the stratigraphic lowest
flow unit and one pumice sample from the top of the outcrop (Figure 15). The three samples plot
within chemo-type 1.
Three pumice samples were collected and analyzed at Mud Creek (Figure 16), one from the
lowest unit (Mud Creek 1A) and two from the upper unit (Mud Creek 1C#1 and 2). Mud Creek
1A plots within chemo-type 1 and spans into chemo-type 2, while Mud Creek 1C#1 and Mud
Creek 1C#2 plot within chemo-type 2.
CAES-1 core provided two samples in this analysis (Figure 17). Core depths were known and the
stratigraphy was established. The deepest core sample plots within chemo-type 1 and the
shallowest core sample plots within both chemo-types 1 and 2.
36
Nomlaki Tuff FeO vs CaO: Tuscan Springs
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
FeO
Tuscan Springs 3
Tuscan Springs 2
Tuscan Springs 1
2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
CaO
Figure 14: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Tuscan Springs. Binary diagram of FeO vs CaO
for three samples (20 points from each fragment) collected from Tuscan Springs. At this location
the stratigraphic relationship was known. Tuscan Springs 1 was stratigraphically lowest and
plotted in chemo-type 1. The sample collected from Tuscan Springs 2 was stratigraphically up
sequence from the first location and plots within chemo-type 2. Lastly Tuscan Springs 3 was
collected from the top of the outcrop sequence and plots within chemo-type 1.
Nomlaki Tuff FeO vs CaO: Gas Point
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
FeO
Gas Point Lower 2
Gas Point Lower 1
Gas Point Upper 1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
CaO
Figure 15: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Gas Point. Bianary diagram of FeO vs CaO for
the three samples (20 points from each fragment) collected at Gas Point. There were two pumice
grains from the stratigraphic lowest sequence and one pumice sample from the top of the outcrop.
All three samples plotted within chemo-type 1.
37
Nomlaki Tuff FeO vs CaO: Mud Creek
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
Feo
Mud Creek 1C#2
Mud Creek 1C#1
Mud Creek 1A#1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Cao
Figure 16: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Mud Creek. Binary diagram of FeO vs CaO for
the three samples (20 points from each fragment ) collected at Mud Creek. The two top samples
(Mud Creek 1C#1 and Mud Creek 1C#2) plot within chemo-type 2. The sample collected from
the bottom of the sequence (Mud Creek 1A) plots within chemo-type 1 and chemo-type 2. This
location displays the most erosion and scouring of the outcrops.
Nomlaki Tuff Cao vs FeO: CAES
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
CAES 1143
1.1
FeO
CAES 829
CAES 829*
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
CaO
Figure 17: Binary Variation Plot of CaO vs FeO: Bristol Lake Core. Binary diagram of FeO vs
CaO for two samples (20 points from each fragment) collected from the Bristol Lake Core CAES.
CAES 829 and CAES 1143 were originally analyzed by the USGS Tephrochronology lab, while
CAES 829* was reanalyzed at the UC Davis microprobe lab. CAES 1143 is stratigraphically
lower in the core and plots within chemo-type 1. CAES 829 plots with in both Chemo-type 1 and
2.
38
3.3 Bulk Mineral Analysis
Prior studies did not determine the importance of mineral chemistry, or chemical variations
within mineral phases of the Nomlaki Tuff. This study investigated the bulk mineral chemistries
within the pumice samples to determine if they are effective for establishing correlations between
tuff samples. These analyses consisted of mineral separates from Bear Creek, Cottonwood Creek,
and Gas Point (two from Gas Point Lower and one from Gas Point Upper) Six samples from
Mud Creek and Tuscan Springs were used for plagioclase analysis. A total of ten sites for each
phase were analyzed in each sample. Several of the grains exhibited zoning or banding features
(Figure 18). These zoned grains underwent a sampling technique known as a run. In a run a
number of points, or line of points, are selected to examine key features. During this type of
analysis each run was considered a single grain site, and therefore more than ten points were
collected for each phase. The mineral phases were identified with the aid of backscattered
electron images (Figure 19) because of their unique reflectance and mineral properties. The Fe-Ti
oxides were the brightest phases present, often white, while the most common phase, plagioclase,
was the darkest. The pyroxene and amphibole phases were the intermediate toned minerals.
Adjusting the contrast and brightness of the Fe-Ti oxides lead to a clear distinction between
magnetite-ulvospinel and ilmenite-hematite phases (Figure 20). The three mineral phases
analyzed are shown in Figures 21-23.
39
Figure 18: Electron Back Scatter Image from Cottonwood Creek. BSE image from Cottonwood
Creek amphibole grain. Notice the zoning features in the lower right hand corner and middle of
the grain. A run of three points were collected spanning the zoning in the lower right hand corner
to the upper left hand corner.
Figure 19: Full Extent View of Typical Mineral Sample. The bright white mineral phases
represent the Fe-Ti Oxides, darkest phases are the plagioclases, and the intermediate tones are the
pyroxene and amphibole phases.
40
Figure 20: Close-Up View of Fe-Ti Oxide. Close-up view of oxides where the contrast and
brightness are adjusted to exhibit the two distinct phases (magnetite-ulvospinel on the left and the
slightly darker ilmenite-hematite phase on the right).
The pyroxene phase is represented in Figure 21A. Pyroxene from all five pumice samples plot in
the hypersthene region. Figure 21B depicts the tight clustering of pyroxene samples where little
chemical variation is detected. The feldspar compositions are plotted in Figure 22A. Feldspar
compositions span the albite-anorthite arm (andesine to bytonite region) of the ternary diagram.
Plagioclase from chemo-type 2 locations plot along the andesine to labradorite region, while
plagioclase samples from chemo-type 1 locations plot along the andesine to bytonite region
(Figure 22B and Figure 22C). There is distinct chemical variation (zoning) of Ca and Na from
core to rim in the Nomlaki Tuff plagioclase. Normal zoning is shown in two feldspar grains from
chemo-type 1, while oscillatory zoning is shown in two feldspar grains from chemo-type 2
(Figure 22D). Appendix F contains the An core to rim data. In normal zoning, the cores are Anrich and grade continuously and smoothly to an Ab-rich rim. Some plagioclase grains display abrupt
changes in An content from core to rim, characteristic of oscillatory zoning. Both normal and
41
oscillatory zoning were found in plagioclase grains from both chemo-types 1 and 2. The
amphibole phase is plotted in Figure 23. Amphiboles from all five samples plot in the calcic
clinoamphibole region, with little chemical variation.
Figure 21A: The Pyroxene Mineral Analysis. All five samples are plotted in one region of the
plot: the Ca rich Hypersthene zone of the Orthopyroxene region.
Figure 21B: The Pyroxene Mineral Analysis: Close-Up View. Close-up view of part of the
Pyroxene Triangle. All samples cluster in the Hypersthene region.
42
Figure 22A: The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis. All the samples plotted within the Plagioclase
Feldspar arm of the diagram (bytonite to andesine regions). The samples exhibit a wide range of
composition due to the varying amounts of Ca and Na caused by zoning.
43
Figure 22B: The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis: Chemo-type 2. Plagioclase Ternary diagram for
chemo-type 2 samples. The samples plot along the andesine to labradorite region.
Figure 22C: The Plagioclase Mineral Analysis: Chemo-type 1. Plagioclase Ternary diagram for
the chemo-type 1 samples. The samples plot along the andesine to bytonite region.
44
C
h
e
m
o
t
y
p
e
1
C
h
e
m
o
t
y
p
e
2
Figure 22D: BSE and An Core to Rim Analyses. BSE images from BH08SB_2,SP091A,
SP091C_1, and SP091_2 and An profiles of plagioclase samples. Each profile starts from the core
and ends at the rim of the crystal, as indicated by the white arrow. The top two samples are from
chemo-type 1 locations and display normal zoning, An-rich cores gradually grading into more
Ab-rich rims The two bottom samples are from Chemo-type 2 locations, where the An content
varies indicating oscillatory zoning.
45
Figure 23: The Amphibole Mineral Analysis. Five samples all fall within the calcic
clinoamphibole zone. There is minor compositional variation, probably due to zoning.
46
3.4 Similarity Coefficient Analysis
The Nomlaki Tuff glass similarity coefficients from the sample locations were compared with a
database compiled of several thousand-glass analyses conducted by United States Geological
Survey Tephrochronology Laboratory to ensure proper identification as Nomlaki Tuff. The
database included several hundred identified tephra units from all across the United States.
An averaged normalized value of the glass geochemical analysis from each sampling site was
calculated, and designated as an unknown entry for SC calculations. The unknown (shown in the
green box in Table 10) entry was then compared to the known United States Geological Survey
tephra database. The average values originated by combining the normalized probe data from
each sample. After the data were combined, a mean average for each oxide was calculated in
addition to a standard deviation, range, and confidence level as shown in Table 9, (Complete
statistical datasets are found in Appendix E). Glass sample analyses included data for twenty
different probe sites from each pumice fragment. Eighteen glass samples were analyzed with the
microprobe, and eighteen average unknown values were calculated and prepared for the SC
analysis. Table 10 lists the 23 closest or highest SC values to the unknown sample analysis.
Inspection and discrimination of the trace elements eliminates a majority of the values (shown as
a yellow box), due to a difference of 5% or more in one or more of the trace elements (MgO,
MnO, TiO2, and CaO). The remaining entries are acceptable (shown with an double asterisk)
known Nomlaki Tuff locations. All eighteen samples produced acceptable SC values and
matched known Nomlaki Tuff analyses.
47
Nomlaki Tuff: Glass Shard Statistical Data
BH07SB87_2A
Na2O
MgO
Mean
Standard
Deviation
3.754
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
0.208
13.172
73.399
3.306
0.259
0.045
0.187
0.616
Range
0.972
0.191
0.728
Minimum
3.099
0.143
Maximum
4.071
0.333
19
0.125
Count
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
TiO2
MnO
1.216
0.262
0.047
1.067
96.431
0.220
0.045
0.032
0.034
0.123
0.588
2.112
0.690
0.152
0.106
0.400
1.898
12.840
72.217
3.025
1.144
0.214
0.121
0.011
0.866
95.639
13.568
74.328
3.715
1.296
0.320
0.110
1.266
97.537
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
0.022
0.090
0.297
0.106
0.022
0.016
0.017
0.059
0.284
FeO
Total
Table 9: Statistical Glass Shard Data for Nomlaki Tuff Sample BH07SB87_2A. Example of the
statistical glass shard data for Nomlaki Tuff sample BH07SB87_2A (Bear Creek). The calculated
mean oxide values are used as the inputs for the unknown SC calculations. Additionally the
standard deviation, range, minimum value, maximum value, count, and confidence level (95%)
are calculated. The confidence level, or interval, is based on the standard deviation and mean
average of the oxide.
48
Nomlaki Tuff Similarity Coefficient Calculation: BH07SB87_2A (Bear Creek)
Sample Number
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
MgO
MnO
CaO
TiO2
1
BH08SB_2A(Poletski)
77.77
12.66
0.95
0.17
0.04
0.89
0.19
2
GL2-2.10 POP2 T356-8
77.63
13
0.96
0.17
0.04
0.9
0.18
3
JRK-DV-222pop2(9s) T495-10
77.54
12.78
0.97
0.16
0.03
0.85
0.19
4
CAES#1 829 T539-9
77.44
12.7
1.04
0.18
0.05
0.9
0.19
5
758-322 T355-10
77.54
12.8
1
0.17
0.03
0.86
6
76-CB-1624 T104-10
77.95
12.57
0.95
0.15
0.03
0.9
7
BL-3497 T266-2
77.67
12.56
0.91
0.17
0.03
8
CR-S2-78-SC-8D1_5-8CMPOP1 T499
77.87
12.56
0.95
0.17
9
CR-S2-78-SC-8D1 5-8CM pop1
77.87
12.56
0.95
0.17
10
LD-67, T3,4
77.62
12.96
0.86
11
RPT(M)-21 T405-6
77.19
12.93
12
LD-67
77.63
12.94
13
BUR-989.4
78.2
14
AVG 18 Rockland Tephra
15
WILL-2, T8-2
16
Na2O
K2O
Total
SC
3.57
3.75
99.99
1
3.53
3.59
100
0.98
3.58
3.9
100
0.98
3.56
3.94
100
0.97
0.2
3.73
3.67
100
0.97
0.2
3.59
3.65
99.99
0.97
0.89
0.18
3.96
3.63
100
0.97
0.05
0.86
0.2
3.88
3.46
100
0.97
0.05
0.86
0.2
3.88
3.46
100
0.97
0.17
0.03
0.87
0.18
3.67
3.64
100
0.97
0.93
0.17
0.04
0.9
0.17
3.78
3.89
100
0.97
0.86
0.17
0.03
0.87
0.18
3.71
3.61
100
0.97
12.44
1.04
0.17
0.05
0.87
0.2
3.27
3.76
100
0.97
77.78
12.71
0.92
0.17
0.03
0.89
0.16
3.74
3.58
99.98
0.96
77.86
12.77
0.86
0.17
0.01
0.88
0.17
3.67
3.61
100
0.96
RPT(M)6A, T1, N-ASW-92, P
77.71
12.71
0.93
0.17
0.03
0.93
0.15
3.61
3.76
100
0.96
17
TULE LAKE 295, T73-9, 56.69 m
78.07
12.66
0.85
0.16
0.03
0.84
0.19
3.64
3.56
100
0.96
18
SR-3-6 minor1 T297-6
76.85
12.96
0.94
0.17
0.04
0.94
0.2
3.97
3.93
100
0.96
19
JY-91-6 T314-9
77.44
12.82
0.91
0.17
0.03
0.89
0.17
3.96
3.62
100
0.96
20
LC-86-888 T143-5
77.55
12.69
0.91
0.18
0.03
0.92
0.17
3.78
3.77
100
0.96
21
BUR-996
78.38
12.45
1.02
0.18
0.06
0.87
0.19
3.17
3.66
99.98
0.96
22
JOD-5-5-83A(100-200), T67-2
78.03
12.67
0.9
0.18
0.03
0.86
0.17
3.6
3.57
100
0.96
23
WO-2 T314-10
77.46
12.78
0.94
0.18
0.03
0.88
0.17
3.91
3.65
100
0.96
Table 10: Similarity Coefficient Calculation for Bear Creek. Example SC calculation for Bear
Creek, (Red Boxes). The 23 closest SC matches for Nomlaki Tuff sample BH07SB87_2A.
Yellow boxes eliminate acceptable SC values due to the variation of 5% or more from the
reported unknown analyses to the database entries. Acceptable, feasble, and documented Nomlaki
Tuff analyses are indicated with a double asterisk (**). JRK-DV-222pop2(9s), CAES#1 829, and
758-322 are values of Nomlaki Tuff glass analyses provided by Elmira Wan of the USGS.
49
3.5 Geothermometric Conditions
Iron-Titanium Oxide data from the microprobe is used in calculating equilibrium temperatures
(Powell and Powell, 1977). ILMAT uses four different methods from Carmichael (1967),
Anderson (1968), Lindsley and Spencer (1982), and Stormer (1983) to calculate the equilibrium
temperatures based on molecular fractions of ulvospinel and ilmenite (Table 11).
Fe-Ti Oxide Geothermometer by Powell & Powell
(1977)
Chemo type
1
1
2
2
Location:
Gas
Point
(87-9A)
Temp ºC
Tuscan
Springs (2)
Temp ºC
Mud
Creek (91C)
Temp ºC
Bear
Creek
(87-2A)
Temp ºC
Temperature Calculation
based on the methods
from these authors:
Carmichael (1967)
Anderson (1968)
Lindsley & Spencer
(1982)
Stormer (1983)
861
831
849
817
1008
999
908
878
859
864
852
855
1012
1023
912
918
Average
854
843
1011
904
Table 11: Fe-Ti Oxide Geothermometer by: Powell & Powell (1977). Geothermometric
equilibrium temperatures at Gas Point, Tuscan Springs, Mud Creek, and Bear Creek based on the
calculated molecular fractions of ulvospinel and ilmenite from Carmichael (1967), Anderson
(1968), Lindsley and Spencer (1982), and Stormer (1983) using ILMAT. Note Gas Point and
Tuscan Springs represent samples from chemo-type 1, and Mud Creek and Bear Creek represent
samples from chemo-type 2.
Four locations: Gas Point, Tuscan Springs, Bear Creek, and Mud Creek, provided Iron-Titanium
Oxide data to calculate geothermometric temperatures. Gas Point and Tuscan Springs represent
samples from chemo-type 1 and had an average temperature of 849ºC, while Bear Creek and Mud
Creek represent samples from chemo-type 2 and had an average temperature 957ºC, (Appendix G
Geothermometic data). The calculated temperatures from the chemo-type 1 samples were lower
50
than the temperatures from the chemo-type 2 samples. Chemo-type 1 temperatures ranged from
817ºC to 864ºC (according to Anderson, 1968; and Stormer, 1983, respectively), and chemo-type
2 temperatures ranged from 878ºC to 1023ºC (Anderson, 1968; Stormer, 1983). Calculated
temperatures were lowest using the molar proportions of ulvospinel and ilmenite from Anderson
(1968), and highest using the proportions produced by Stormer (1983).
51
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
4.1 Eruptive Scenarios
The geochemical patterns from the glass and mineral analyses conducted on the Nomlaki Tuff
have several possible eruptive explanations. Three potential models include: 1) a single eruption
from a zoned magma chamber, 2) multiple eruptions from a volcanic vent, and 3) a single
eruption from a complex magma chamber. The models are discussed below from the most likely
to the least likely scenario based on the collected evidence.
4.1.1 Zoned Magma Chamber
Zoned magma chambers are common with large scale plinian eruptions. The Bishop and Amalia
tuffs are considered products of single eruptions from zoned chambers (Carey and Samson,
2009). Glass chemistry and tuff stratigraphy are useful in determining whether a zoned magma
chamber is present. The volcanic deposits erupted from a zoned magma chamber are
stratigraphically inverted from the magma chamber layering (Carey and Samson, 2009). For
example, the bottom of the erupted deposit reflects the silicic (more evolved) upper portion of the
magma chamber, while the top of the deposit resembles the less silicic, lower portion of the zoned
magma chamber. Chemical Variation plots from Gas Point and Bear Creek (Figure 24)
demonstrate that the first unit deposited (chemo-type 1) is a more evolved magma than the second
depositional unit (chemo-type 2). As the eruption progressed from the top of the magma chamber
down the products became less evolved. These results are similar to those reported by Feely and
others (2008), Milner and others (2003), and Conrey (2001). Scouring of the already deposited
chemo-type 1 deposits by the chemo-type 2 ash-flow during transport is most likely responsible
for the mixture of chemo-types 1 and 2 silicic samples found at the top of the out crop at Tuscan
52
Springs and Mud Creek. The upper section of the Tuscan Springs and Mud Creek outcrops were
highly eroded, and had very few and small pumice fragments scattered throughout. Alternately,
the mixtures could be the result of sedimentary reworking and mixing of the deposits, as the
contacts of the top of outcrops gradually grade into the soil horizon.
53
SiO2 vs TiO2: Chemo-types
SiO2 vs Na2O: Chemo-types
0.35
4.50
4.00
0.30
3.50
0.25
2.50
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
2.00
TiO2 (wt%)
Na2O (wt%)
3.00
0.20
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
0.15
1.50
0.10
1.00
0.05
0.50
0.00
73.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
78.00
79.00
0.00
73.00
80.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
78.00
79.00
80.00
SiO2 (wt%)
SiO2 (wt%)
SiO2 vs Al2O3: Chemo-types
SiO2 vs CaO: Chemo-types
18.00
1.60
16.00
1.40
14.00
1.20
12.00
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
0.80
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
Al2O3 (wt%)
CaO (wt%)
1.00
10.00
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
8.00
0.60
6.00
0.40
4.00
0.20
0.00
73.00
2.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
78.00
79.00
0.00
73.00
80.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
78.00
79.00
80.00
SiO2 (wt%)
SiO2 (wt%)
SiO2 vs K2O: Chemo-types
SiO2 vs FeO: Chemo-types
4.50
1.40
4.00
1.20
3.50
1.00
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
0.60
K2O (wt%)
FeO (wt%)
3.00
0.80
2.50
Gas Point (Chemo type 1)
Bear Creek (Chemo type 2)
2.00
1.50
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
SiO2 (wt%)
78.00
79.00
80.00
0.00
73.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
77.00
78.00
79.00
80.00
SiO2 (wt%)
Figure 24: Chemical Variation Diagrams. Chemical variation diagrams of SiO2 vs major and
minor elements. The Gas Point (diamonds) samples plot within chemo-type 1, while the Bear
Creek (squares) sample plot in chemo-type 2. This plot shows that chemo-type 1 is more evolved
(higher silica content) than chemo-type 2. The units are deposited in an inverted manner; the
more evolved unit is on the bottom of the deposit followed by the less evolved unit deposited on
top. This is characteristic of a zoned magma chamber.
54
Hahn and others (1979) reported on numerous Pleistocene epoch tuffs in Guatemala that
displayed inverted stratigraphy. Hildreth (1979) and Hildreth and Wilson (2005) noted this
pattern in the Bishop Tuff. Isotopic investigation of 87Sr/86Sr by Christensen and DePaolo (1993)
and Johnson and others (1990) revealed that the isotopic ratios of sanidine also decreases from
the bottom to the top of the Bishop Tuff, further supporting chemically-inverted deposits due to a
zoned magma chamber.
The average eruption temperatures for the magma from chemo-types 1 and 2 were 849ºC and
957ºC respectively. According to the zoned magma chamber model, the hottest magma is found
in the deepest part of the chamber, while the coolest magma is found near the top of the chamber.
Figure 25 depicts the zoned magma chamber model for the Nomlaki Tuff. The lower deposit,
chemo-type 1, is more silicic and cooler than the upper deposit, chemo-type-2.
55
Chemo-type 2
Chemo-type 1
Temperature
Figure 25: Zoned Magma Chamber Model. Zoned Magma chamber model for the eruptive history
of the Nomlaki Tuff. Chemo-type 1 (lower temperature) is a more evolved magma and is erupted
first followed by the eruption of the less evolved magma chemo-type 2 (higher temperature) .
This type of chamber and eruption produce inverted tuff stratigraphy.
56
4.1.2 Multiple Eruptions
The second scenario of the Nomlaki Tuff eruptive history involves multiple eruptions from a
single magma chamber. Figure 26 depicts multiple eruptions from a single volcanic center similar
to Carey and Samson (2009). The chemo-type 1 pumice (eruption 1) yields the lower FeO and
CaO content magma and is deposited first at a lower temperature. After a repose time and
chemical evolution of the chamber, the second eruption takes place at a higher temperature.
Eruption 2 occurs at the same volcanic center yielding a higher FeO and CaO magma content
(chemo-type 2). This unit is deposited on top of the first eruptive unit.
The multiple eruption model is an accurate scenario that describes the eruptive history of the
Nomlaki Tuff, but it has limitations. For example, this model does not explain the inverted
stratigraphy that is similar to the Bishop and Amalia Tuffs. Additionally, the multiple eruption
model does not factor in the time period between eruptive events. The Nomlaki Tuff is deposited
as thick ash-flow units in the northern Sacramento Valley with no other stratigraphic units
deposited in-between. Investigation at the distal Bristol Dry Lake Core (CAES) reveals no time
gap in between Nomlaki Tuff deposits (Rosen, 1991; Brown and Rosen, 1995). This suggests
little time between eruptive events, which would indicate that for the multiple eruption model to
be plausible the magma chamber would need to recharge in a short time period.
57
Time Break between eruptions; evolution of magma to chemo type 2 chemistry
Chemo-type 1
Chemo-type 2
Chemo-type 1
Figure 26: Multiple Eruption Model. The Multiple Eruption Model is where the first eruption
deposits chemo-type 1 pumice. There is a time break in between eruptions (shown by the dashed
vertical line). The second eruption, from the same volcanic source, deposits chemo-type 2 some
period of time later.
4.1.3 Complex Magma Chamber
This third scenario is related to a zoned magma chamber in the similar way that the chamber is
affected by complex, open-system behavior (Carey and Samson, 2009). The chamber involved
with this eruption is modified by assimilation or by mixing with chemically different magmas
during recharge events (Sumner and Wolf, 2003). Clynne (1990) characterized the Lassen center
58
as a complex magmatic system. This type of chamber produces different volcanic rock types
during the eruptive phases. These volcanic rock types range from mafic basalts to more silicious
dacites. The silica content in the magma varies from the start of the eruption to end of the
eruption. Complex chambers involve the mixing of country rock or a magmatic recharge event to
change the chemistry of the chamber (Figure 27). There is little evidence for this model in the
generation of the Nomlaki Tuff. Silica content for the Nomlaki Tuff varies from 75% to 79%
(oxide weight percent). The Nomlaki Tuff does not include multiple volcanic rock types, mafic
enclaves, or magmatic inclusions with varying silica content. There is limited silica variation (~4
wt%) between the lower deposit (chemo-type 1) and the upper deposit (chemo-type 2). These
lines of evidence suggest that the Nomlaki Tuff did not erupt from a complex magmatic body.
Figure 27: Complex Magma Chamber Model. The recharge event causes a variation in
composition for the bottom of the magma chamber.
59
4.2 Mineral Analyses
The goal of analyzing phenocryst mineral chemistry was to determine if variation in the mineral
phases indicate the presence of different flow units. All the phases analyzed showed little
chemical variation between the various samples. The five pyroxene samples plot in the
hypersthene region of the pyroxene ternary diagram (Figure 21A). The five amphibole samples
plot in the caclic clinoamphibole region in the amphibole ternary diagram (Figure 23). Zoned
feldspar chemical variations may prove to be helpful in determining features of the zoned magma
chamber.
60
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
The eruptive and depositional history of the Nomlaki Tuff in the northern Sacramento Valley is
complex but important in understanding the significance of this widespread volcanic marker.
Glass geochemistry reveals a silica-rich rhyolite lapilli tuff characterized by two chemically
distinct clustered chemo-types. The data supports an eruption of at least two successive,
chemically-distinct units of Nomlaki Tuff deposited at 9 different northern Sacramento Valley
locations. The stratigraphy of the two chemo-types is best explained by sequential eruption,
pyroclastic flow, and volcanic deposition from a zoned magma chamber. The most evolved,
silicic upper chamber, unit was deposited first (chemo-type 1), followed by the less evolved,
lower chamber, unit deposited second (chemo-type 2). Geothermometric calculations also support
the model by demonstrating that the more evolved, upper magma chamber was cooler than the
less evolved, lower magma chamber. The Multiple Eruption, and Complex Magma Chamber
models lack sufficient field and geochemical evidence to be considered as plausible scenarios.
In the future, further microprobe analyses of the Nomlaki Tuff from additional, multiple-layer
stratigraphic sections are advised. These studies could concentrate on stratigraphic sections,
focusing on glass and plagioclase geochemistry as well as geothermometric and geobarometric
analyses to further characterize and potentially subdivide the Nomlaki Tuff.
61
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Heavy Liquid Separation
Appendix B. Cross-Lab Comparison Data Table
Appendix C. Raw Nomlaki Tuff Electron Microprobe Data
Appendix D. Normalized Pumice X-Ray Fluorescence Data
Appendix E. Statistical Glass Fragment Tables
Appendix F. An Core to Rim Data
Appendix G. Geothermometric Calculations
62
APPENDIX A
Heavy Liquid Separation
This section describes the methods incorporated in the laboratory after the field portion
concluded. Detailed sample cleaning and preparation was undertaken. The laboratory work
allowed for accurate sample analyses to occur. Pumice preparation and separation is outlined
below. The preparation below is altered from the method outlined by Franke (2007):
1. Select pumice from sample
a. Clean selected pumice with brush (soft to medium bristles, similar to a
toothbrush) to remove all the groundmass material. The most efficient method for
removing the cleaned material off is with the use of an air-gun.
2. Bulk Weighing
a. Once the sample is clean, place a white weighing sheet down on a simple digital
scale (accuracy to the hundredths place) and tare.
b. Place the clean pumice on the scale and record weight (Table 1).
i. Note: no more than 9 grams is required for microprobe analysis.
3. Crush Bulk Pumice
a. Place pumice into a mortar and pestle (porcelain if crushing unwelded tuff or
metal if crushing welded tuff).
b. Place a large sheet of paper under the mortal and pestle to catch ejected material
that often occurs during the crushing and grinding phase.
c. Crush and grind into a fine powder
d. Scoop a small amount of ground sample to view the size of the particles under a
dissecting microscope.
i. Place a white 3.5x5 index card down on the microscope stage and place a
small pinch of ground sample onto it.
ii. Measure the particles with a ruler to compare sizes
1. Note: Particles can not be larger than 1mm, if so continue
crushing and grinding process until the size is obtained.
iii. Empty the contents of index card back into the mortar and pestle.
4. Ground Sample Weighing
a. Place large weighing sheet on high precision analytical scale (accuracy to the
thousandths or ten thousandths) and tare.
b. Empty contents of mortar onto weighing sheet making sure to get the entire
sample off the pestle and the bottom of the mortar and record (Table 1).
5. Wash Ground Sample
a. Take the ground sample and empty it into a large 500 ml beaker.
b. Fill the beaker three quarters the way up with hot water and swirl solution around
in a circular manner for a few seconds.
63
6.
7.
8.
9.
i. Note: the heavy minerals and glass will sink to the bottom of the beaker
in a few seconds
c. Decant water out (dirty brown/cloudy water) removing all the unwanted
groundmass material and dust.
d. Iterate steps b and c again ten to fifteen times until the decant water is clear thus
leaving only minerals and glass behind.
Filter Ground Sample
a. Obtain large glass funnel, 500 ml Erlenmeyer flask, and white filter paper.
b. Record the sample number on the filter paper and place the paper in the funnel
and the funnel in the Erlenmeyer flask.
c. Pour the clean decant from the 500 ml beaker through the filter paper.
i. The use of a spray bottle maybe required to obtain the material left
behind in the beaker (tap water is preferred).
d. Allow five minutes for the water to filter out and down the funnel into the flask.
Dry Ground Sample
a. Place the filter paper under a cooking lamp.
b. Dry until no water remains (5-15 minutes)
c. Once the sample is dry turn the cooking lamp off for about 5 minutes to allow the
sample to rehydrate to room humidity.
Dry Sample Weigh
a. Place a new large weighing sheet on the high precision analytical scale, and tare
b. Empty the dry sample contents onto the weighing sheet.
i. Obtain as much sample as possible by placing a large sheet of clean
paper under the weighing sheet to protect against any sample spilling off
the weighing sheet.
c. Place weighing sheet and contents on scale, weigh, and record (Table 1).
Heavy Liquid Preparation
a. Na Polytungstate is used as the heavy liquid to carry out the separation process. It
is a non toxic and reusable fluid that is easy to handle.
i. Note: it is mildly volatile therefore cover the liquid when not in use to
prevent the evaporation of water.
b. Create the desired density solution.
i. Use the known densities of materials in the lab to obtain desired solution.
1. Quartz:2.66
2. Feldspar:2.53
ii. The use of distilled water is required to dilute the solution
c. Pour 200 ml of Na Polytungstate into a clean beaker.
d. The desired density of the solution is roughly 2.5, and in order to achieve this
density dilution is required (pure Na Polytungstate has a density of roughly 2.7).
i. Place the quartz and feldspar samples in the beaker.
ii. Add distilled water into the beaker in small amounts with a squirt bottle
and stir vigorously.
1. Note: When the quartz sample sinks the density of the solution is
less than 2.66.
iii. Continue to add distilled water and stirring until the feldspar sample
sinks.
e. Cover the Na Polytungstate when not in use.
64
10. Separation
a. Obtain a Separatory funnel, ring stand and base, two small cone funnels, two
large 500 ml Erlenmeyer flasks, two large 500 ml beakers, distilled water in a
spray bottle, small filter paper, one large 1000 ml beaker, and scooping
rod/spatula .
b. Place the separatory funnel in the ring stand and base making sure the bottom
valve is in the closed position or in the horizontal position.
c. Place one Erlenmeyer flask below the funnel.
d. Pour in a small amount (20-30 ml) of the prepared Na Polytungstate liquid into
the funnel.
e. Add the prepared sample to the funnel by carefully pouring the contents in.
f. Gently sir the sample around in the funnel with the aide of the spatula avoiding
splashing the liquid up the sides of the funnel.
i. The spatula helps separate the sample out so that the heavy minerals will
settle to the bottom of the funnel leaving the light glass shards at the top.
ii. The addition of a small amount of Na Polytungstate maybe required to
wash some of the sample down that splashed onto the sides of the funnel
when it was added.
g. Continue to stir for 5-10 minutes then allow sample to settle for another 5
minutes.
h. While waiting for the sample to settle out take two clean small filter papers and
record the sample number on each and “heavies” on one filter paper and “lights”
on the other (heavies indicates the heavy minerals that sank to the bottom of the
funnel, and the lights indicates the light glass particles that remain in the upper
part of the funnel).
i. Place the “Heavies” filter paper in a small cone funnel and place the funnel in the
Erlenmeyer flask under the separatory funnel.
j. Move the bottom flow valve of the separatory funnel to the open or vertical
position to allow the flow of the liquid to pass.
i. Note: The fluid will flow very quickly, therefore careful observation is
required as to obtain the desired part of the sample.
ii. Often quick open and close movements of the valve aides in achieving
this step with the greatest accuracy.
k. Once the heavy minerals have been collected in the small cone funnel below the
separatory funnel rinsing with distilled water is required.
i. Remove the Erlenmeyer flask and funnel/filer paper from the bottom of
the separatory funnel.
ii. Spray distilled water in the small cone funnel multiple times to rinse the
sample. Wait a minute or so between washings to allow the filter paper to
drain
1. Wash the sample five to seven times.
l. Place the second Erlenmeyer flask with the other small cone funnel and the
“lights” filter paper emplaced under the separatory flask.
m. Conduct the same process outlined above to obtain the less dense glass particles,
but instead of closing the bottom flow valve of the separatory flask allow all the
Na Polytungstate and particles to flow into the small funnel cone (this is the only
65
remaining part of the bulk sample that needs to be collected therefore no further
separation are required).
n. The spray bottle with distilled water is required to obtain the remnant particles
left behind in the separatory funnel. Spray the walls of the funnel and the bottom
by the flow valve to ensure total sample collection.
o. Wash the Lights the same way the heavies were washed, making sure to use
distilled water.
p. Once the two separated samples are thoroughly washed place them under a
cooking lamp for 15 minutes to dry.
11. Separated Sample Weighing
a. Once the samples are dry allow them to rehydrate to room condition for another 5
minutes.
b. Weigh one of the samples with the high precision analytical scale
i. Place a small weigh sheet on the scale and tare.
ii. Take the sheet off the scale.
iii. Empty the sample onto the weigh sheet (again it is advised that a clean
large sheet of paper is placed under the weigh sheet to capture any rouge
particles that fly off when transferring the sample from the filter paper to
the weighing sheet).
iv. Weigh and record (Table 1).
c. Weigh the other constituent of the sample the same way as outlined above.
d. Place the particles in separate labeled vials.
12. Clean up
a. The Na Polytungstate is reusable therefore it is critical that the utmost care is
giving while rising and cleaning the tools.
b. Rise all the glassware and tools with distilled water making sure to collect all the
rise water into the large 1000 ml beaker.
c. Cover the large beaker and set aside once the rinsing is completed.
d. Wash all the materials in the sink with soap and hot water.
e. Once the materials are dry conduct the above process until the desired number of
samples are prepared.
66
APPENDIX B
Cross-Lab Comparison Data Table
Cross-lab Comparison data Table
UC DAVIS
CaO
FeO
TSN
1.13
1.07
CAES
1.06
1.04
Sutter Buttes
0.91
0.96
USGS
FeO
CaO
TSN
1.07
1.07
CAES
0.95
0.97
Sutter Buttes
0.99
1.03
67
APPENDIX C
Raw Nomlaki Tuff Electron Microprobe Data
Raw Nomlaki Tuff Electron Microprobe Data
Data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Na2O
3.71
3.96
3.85
3.95
3.83
3.78
3.96
3.85
3.85
3.64
3.80
3.41
4.07
3.97
3.10
3.31
3.83
3.97
3.87
3.46
MgO
0.20
0.23
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.26
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.23
0.18
0.24
0.23
0.33
0.18
Al2O3
13.05
13.28
12.97
13.11
12.86
13.15
13.25
13.06
13.10
12.84
13.19
13.09
13.56
13.11
13.11
13.57
13.11
13.25
13.24
13.35
SiO2
74.33
74.24
73.68
74.22
73.57
72.99
73.89
73.31
74.10
73.44
73.91
73.17
72.47
73.31
72.99
72.91
72.60
73.55
72.22
73.37
K2O
3.03
3.22
3.23
3.28
3.49
3.35
3.33
3.15
3.31
3.63
3.25
3.58
3.20
3.08
3.70
3.71
3.15
3.02
3.25
3.08
CaO
1.25
1.17
1.16
1.19
1.20
1.23
1.16
1.30
1.25
1.22
1.28
1.14
1.24
1.19
1.18
1.21
1.15
1.21
1.28
1.25
TiO2
0.31
0.32
0.22
0.28
0.27
0.21
0.27
0.31
0.22
0.32
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.28
0.25
0.24
MnO
0.03
0.04
0.07
-0.01
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.01
FeO
1.05
1.08
0.57
0.87
1.05
1.01
1.26
1.23
0.97
1.06
1.11
1.10
1.02
1.13
1.06
0.90
1.26
0.98
1.27
0.88
BaO
-0.03
-0.07
-0.01
0.02
0.06
0.22
0.05
0.12
0.10
0.17
0.21
0.19
0.16
0.02
0.10
-0.03
0.03
-0.04
0.04
0.20
Total
96.97
97.54
95.89
97.07
96.52
96.11
97.47
96.56
97.11
96.62
97.22
96.11
96.27
96.35
95.80
96.10
95.66
96.54
95.85
96.01
Sample ID
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
BH07SB87_2A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
2.39
2.39
3.15
3.44
2.89
3.27
3.10
2.78
3.16
3.04
1.65
3.63
2.80
3.25
3.10
3.35
3.33
3.29
2.74
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.21
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.52
0.14
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
12.37
12.02
12.30
12.32
11.80
11.88
11.90
12.10
11.60
11.64
12.31
12.45
12.10
12.22
12.47
12.00
12.09
12.37
12.13
75.92
74.83
75.76
76.43
76.48
76.48
76.03
74.66
72.73
74.52
75.50
76.20
74.97
73.71
74.65
74.83
75.92
74.82
75.89
3.83
3.56
4.17
3.52
4.03
3.62
3.84
4.18
3.83
3.91
4.03
3.65
4.12
3.68
4.07
3.86
3.59
3.96
4.01
0.87
0.88
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.84
0.74
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.85
0.85
1.03
0.78
0.78
0.76
0.79
0.75
0.83
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.17
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.05
-0.06
-0.02
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.90
0.84
0.89
0.73
0.76
0.88
0.73
0.75
0.90
0.81
0.90
0.90
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.66
0.79
0.70
0.86
0.26
0.29
-0.04
0.04
0.07
-0.12
0.18
-0.01
0.18
0.13
0.16
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.16
0.22
0.10
0.30
-0.02
96.95
95.18
97.49
97.74
97.18
97.40
96.91
95.61
93.61
95.29
95.76
98.17
96.95
94.82
96.38
96.05
97.06
96.57
96.88
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
BH07SB87_8
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
2.17
3.22
3.20
2.11
3.30
3.05
3.04
3.01
3.01
3.11
3.10
3.00
3.04
2.82
3.34
0.21
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.11
0.14
0.12
16.51
11.90
12.07
15.02
11.85
12.63
12.28
12.70
12.74
12.04
12.11
11.96
12.24
12.95
12.10
71.37
75.02
73.60
72.41
74.96
75.06
75.23
74.51
74.22
74.62
74.42
74.25
75.40
74.89
75.13
3.80
4.13
3.93
4.11
3.70
3.70
3.97
3.79
3.97
3.77
3.65
3.82
3.75
4.04
3.57
0.84
0.75
0.80
0.78
0.71
0.72
0.83
0.84
0.78
0.73
0.77
0.80
0.70
0.83
0.80
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.07
0.01
-0.03
-0.01
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.11
0.02
0.03
0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.13
0.91
0.82
0.95
0.94
0.74
0.86
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.82
0.84
1.02
0.85
0.65
0.26
0.22
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.13
-0.19
0.28
-0.11
0.18
0.02
0.07
96.32
96.43
95.04
95.85
95.73
96.54
96.80
96.35
96.14
95.53
95.53
95.08
96.65
96.76
96.11
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
BH07SB87_9A2
68
Data
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Na2O
3.32
3.19
3.05
3.36
3.27
3.27
3.29
3.38
3.35
3.16
2.85
3.35
3.23
2.82
3.19
3.38
2.65
3.24
3.38
3.33
3.10
MgO
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.17
0.11
Al2O3
12.26
12.27
12.27
12.09
11.90
12.62
12.22
12.90
12.19
12.29
12.52
12.27
12.08
11.74
12.25
12.05
11.84
12.29
12.30
11.98
11.89
SiO2
75.13
75.05
75.14
75.45
75.18
75.21
75.27
75.37
75.08
74.49
75.18
74.99
75.13
71.62
75.16
75.12
72.83
75.18
75.34
75.71
74.61
K2O
3.61
3.52
3.96
3.38
3.44
3.74
3.71
3.59
3.69
3.65
3.66
3.39
3.59
3.72
3.56
3.61
3.43
3.54
3.57
3.49
3.52
CaO
0.81
0.85
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.87
0.89
0.86
0.91
0.81
0.76
0.84
0.80
0.76
0.91
0.80
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.79
0.79
TiO2
0.12
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.21
0.18
0.19
0.25
0.20
0.18
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.20
0.19
0.20
MnO
0.06
0.00
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.11
0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02
0.02
0.03
-0.01
0.05
0.01
FeO
0.82
0.93
0.93
0.76
0.83
0.81
0.89
0.83
0.92
0.73
0.89
0.92
0.83
0.89
0.78
0.84
0.75
0.73
0.75
0.87
0.80
BaO
0.17
0.23
0.06
0.27
0.12
0.10
-0.09
-0.06
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.17
0.08
0.03
0.26
-0.06
0.29
0.04
0.12
0.06
Total
96.46
96.41
96.64
96.53
95.94
97.13
96.61
97.34
96.52
95.53
96.34
96.34
96.25
92.02
96.22
96.45
92.68
96.44
96.58
96.69
95.10
Sample ID
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
BH07SB87_9A1
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
3.48
3.23
1.85
2.13
3.17
3.18
3.16
3.27
2.06
3.12
3.31
3.16
3.22
3.42
3.03
3.11
3.00
3.22
3.18
3.26
0.19
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.18
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.15
0.11
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.15
12.15
12.23
12.28
12.01
12.07
12.15
12.46
12.18
11.96
12.28
12.37
15.39
12.22
12.47
12.21
12.15
12.12
12.37
12.44
12.30
75.54
75.09
75.93
75.95
76.19
74.99
75.60
75.99
75.71
74.65
77.07
71.86
75.60
75.80
76.21
75.17
76.31
76.23
77.00
76.68
3.64
3.56
3.60
3.52
3.96
3.86
3.94
3.89
3.64
3.71
3.44
3.66
3.53
3.61
3.98
3.92
3.88
3.85
3.88
3.85
0.73
0.73
0.76
0.80
0.80
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.72
0.80
0.81
0.67
0.76
0.77
0.73
0.74
0.84
0.82
0.76
0.80
0.23
0.11
0.17
0.12
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.04
-0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.06
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.03
0.89
0.83
0.78
0.92
0.88
0.96
0.78
0.83
0.85
0.89
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.86
0.76
0.80
0.73
0.78
0.84
0.80
0.18
-0.01
0.03
0.04
0.16
0.08
0.34
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.15
-0.01
-0.10
-0.03
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.21
-0.04
0.23
97.13
95.96
95.58
95.70
97.58
96.36
97.41
97.37
95.40
95.85
98.32
95.94
96.57
97.31
97.57
96.52
97.39
97.84
98.39
98.26
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
BH07SB87_9B
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
3.02
3.56
3.66
3.31
3.63
3.91
3.52
3.65
3.61
3.41
3.91
3.57
3.66
3.78
2.74
3.60
3.48
3.27
3.82
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.33
0.28
0.22
0.29
0.27
0.25
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.22
0.27
0.25
0.27
0.31
13.30
13.28
12.93
12.99
14.87
13.11
13.42
13.37
13.03
13.15
13.20
12.73
13.14
13.26
12.40
13.22
13.20
13.01
13.09
72.08
72.59
73.29
72.07
72.93
74.18
73.99
73.89
73.64
74.39
74.63
71.77
73.12
73.82
71.16
73.32
74.22
71.84
73.49
4.11
3.54
3.36
3.58
3.47
3.28
3.47
3.55
3.74
3.65
3.45
3.61
3.49
3.36
4.05
3.68
3.49
3.86
3.44
1.23
1.26
1.29
1.32
1.27
1.33
1.31
1.32
1.21
1.31
1.34
1.39
1.34
1.25
1.32
1.25
1.38
1.25
1.36
0.28
0.23
0.27
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.25
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.26
-0.01
0.06
0.03
0.07
-0.02
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.04
-0.04
0.07
0.07
0.08
-0.03
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.77
1.23
1.14
0.82
1.05
1.11
1.05
1.16
1.04
1.11
1.20
1.28
1.07
1.17
0.89
1.00
1.05
0.97
1.20
0.12
0.02
-0.04
0.13
0.03
0.11
-0.10
0.17
0.16
-0.03
0.27
0.00
0.03
0.22
0.21
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.02
95.15
96.02
96.20
94.76
97.84
97.55
97.21
97.69
97.01
97.58
98.57
94.99
96.44
97.47
93.30
96.75
97.46
94.89
97.04
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
SP09_1C#2
69
115
Data
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
3.68
Na2O
3.76
3.83
3.81
3.83
3.75
3.78
3.71
3.78
3.99
3.61
3.71
3.84
3.68
3.67
3.91
3.86
4.03
3.91
3.95
3.68
0.29
MgO
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.29
0.25
14.08
Al2O3
13.05
12.96
13.30
13.31
13.23
13.24
12.78
13.38
13.40
13.16
13.05
13.15
13.06
12.95
13.19
12.98
13.26
13.15
13.05
13.00
76.22
SiO2
74.05
74.23
73.69
74.34
73.37
72.19
74.00
73.34
74.34
73.34
73.57
73.19
73.40
74.00
73.87
73.65
73.95
74.45
74.16
73.71
3.37
K2O
3.51
3.15
3.04
3.03
3.20
3.07
3.16
3.12
3.37
3.38
3.17
3.21
3.26
3.26
3.17
3.47
3.25
3.06
3.18
3.16
1.26
CaO
1.25
1.25
1.23
1.26
1.26
1.32
1.28
1.27
1.28
1.34
1.27
1.30
1.30
1.25
1.24
1.26
1.38
1.21
1.28
1.27
0.28
TiO2
0.27
0.31
0.30
0.31
0.24
0.27
0.24
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.26
0.23
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.26
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.29
0.11
MnO
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.00
0.06
1.10
FeO
1.28
1.21
1.23
1.33
1.29
1.14
1.03
1.27
1.38
1.31
1.43
1.22
1.25
1.11
1.17
1.19
1.28
1.29
1.20
1.15
0.03
BaO
-0.05
0.08
0.10
0.26
0.08
0.00
-0.02
0.16
0.19
0.33
0.04
0.17
0.05
0.01
0.29
0.21
0.00
0.11
-0.02
-0.02
100.41
Total
97.44
97.34
97.05
97.96
96.77
95.30
96.57
96.92
98.56
97.09
96.87
96.69
96.55
96.85
97.45
97.19
97.71
97.84
97.34
96.57
SP09_1C#2
Sample
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
SP09_1C#1
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
3.88
3.80
3.06
3.86
3.55
3.96
3.96
3.44
3.66
3.63
3.76
3.60
3.55
3.35
3.63
4.13
3.76
3.57
3.58
3.94
0.24
0.25
0.16
0.32
0.23
0.30
0.27
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.24
0.29
0.20
0.15
0.29
12.51
12.96
12.31
13.21
12.28
13.08
13.12
12.26
12.09
11.80
12.46
11.83
12.34
12.01
12.29
12.70
12.87
12.68
12.08
12.96
74.44
73.68
74.93
73.32
73.59
73.54
73.21
75.31
75.14
75.94
74.34
75.13
74.67
74.95
74.84
73.04
73.65
74.23
75.43
73.05
3.23
3.23
4.15
3.19
3.58
3.12
2.97
3.57
3.31
3.30
3.15
3.54
3.81
3.92
3.58
3.02
3.34
3.53
3.39
3.08
1.10
1.37
0.75
1.26
1.02
1.25
1.46
0.80
0.91
0.79
1.06
0.86
0.75
0.86
0.79
1.17
1.21
1.06
0.83
1.28
0.19
0.29
0.17
0.33
0.23
0.25
0.31
0.16
0.16
0.23
0.23
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.23
0.32
0.27
0.15
0.19
0.28
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
-0.03
0.03
0.05
0.06
-0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.00
0.11
0.09
0.00
0.07
0.04
1.11
1.18
0.81
1.07
1.07
1.26
1.41
0.94
0.96
0.89
1.04
0.96
0.94
0.98
0.76
1.26
1.24
0.88
0.88
1.34
0.24
-0.04
0.11
0.10
-0.05
0.19
0.07
0.39
0.19
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.29
0.03
0.05
-0.01
0.17
0.00
0.03
0.04
97.01
96.78
96.47
96.66
95.56
96.98
96.83
97.12
96.59
96.79
96.35
96.37
96.72
96.59
96.32
95.99
96.90
96.32
96.63
96.28
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
SP09_1A#1
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
3.16
3.25
3.55
3.77
3.65
3.69
2.58
3.55
3.92
3.50
0.24
0.23
0.26
0.22
0.23
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.24
13.16
12.79
12.57
12.71
12.59
13.16
12.36
12.23
12.83
13.19
72.71
73.58
71.77
73.88
73.26
73.80
72.68
73.48
74.21
74.30
4.02
3.86
3.71
3.49
3.56
3.40
4.31
3.67
3.64
3.86
1.09
1.09
1.12
1.07
1.06
1.13
1.05
1.07
1.10
1.12
0.24
0.22
0.19
0.21
0.24
0.25
0.22
0.19
0.25
0.21
0.05
-0.01
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.01
-0.05
0.05
0.09
1.07
1.04
1.17
1.04
1.06
1.01
1.03
0.92
1.01
0.98
0.28
0.10
-0.03
0.14
0.22
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.04
0.19
96.02
96.16
94.37
96.62
95.95
97.01
94.76
95.62
97.27
97.68
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
70
Data
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Na2O
3.80
3.35
3.20
3.63
3.44
2.96
2.85
3.72
3.11
3.83
MgO
0.23
0.27
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.24
0.25
0.28
0.26
Al2O3
12.99
12.92
12.48
12.71
12.44
12.63
12.46
12.31
12.46
12.61
SiO2
72.81
71.96
71.10
73.18
73.38
74.30
71.71
73.08
72.75
73.00
K2O
3.48
3.99
3.94
3.60
3.66
4.08
4.19
3.60
4.21
3.56
CaO
1.12
1.08
1.08
1.13
1.10
1.12
1.13
1.08
1.12
1.11
TiO2
0.29
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.23
0.23
MnO
0.05
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.08
FeO
0.92
1.08
1.11
1.15
1.06
1.07
1.18
1.09
1.00
1.15
BaO
0.04
-0.07
0.16
0.21
-0.03
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.06
-0.02
Total
95.73
94.99
93.63
96.15
95.60
96.85
94.02
95.37
95.23
95.83
Sample
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
BH05SB04A
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
3.49
3.54
3.61
3.52
3.61
3.77
3.36
3.63
3.66
3.65
3.64
3.74
3.60
3.63
3.68
3.34
2.76
3.61
3.73
3.01
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.07
12.51
11.90
12.37
12.58
12.31
12.47
12.67
12.53
12.26
12.14
12.48
12.42
12.31
12.22
12.48
12.54
11.68
12.25
12.48
12.25
75.90
74.33
76.03
75.87
74.43
75.37
76.37
75.67
75.24
75.47
76.30
75.53
75.38
74.71
76.69
75.53
71.84
75.72
75.76
75.45
3.63
3.55
3.59
3.59
3.44
3.21
3.57
3.50
3.57
3.36
3.43
3.63
3.45
3.60
3.56
3.55
3.59
3.56
3.47
3.53
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.83
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.85
0.85
0.87
0.82
0.88
0.86
0.88
0.84
0.79
0.81
0.81
0.83
0.80
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.03
-0.01
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
-0.03
0.01
0.12
-0.02
-0.02
0.07
0.53
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.58
0.58
0.51
0.78
0.51
0.59
0.62
0.53
0.46
0.63
0.45
0.51
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.42
0.09
-0.02
-0.03
-0.21
0.11
0.09
0.20
0.11
0.14
0.04
0.23
-0.05
0.23
0.11
0.09
0.18
0.12
0.03
0.06
0.14
97.28
94.94
97.26
97.27
95.70
96.65
97.80
97.46
96.62
96.44
97.89
97.01
96.55
96.03
98.09
96.74
91.73
96.83
97.21
95.95
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
BH07SB87_7#1
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
3.61
3.71
3.82
3.64
3.72
3.80
3.68
3.58
3.70
3.67
3.41
3.77
3.78
3.70
3.65
3.61
3.60
3.81
3.72
3.39
0.18
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.13
12.04
12.44
12.10
12.43
12.30
12.08
12.22
12.44
12.28
12.53
12.45
12.48
12.20
12.23
12.27
12.15
12.38
12.32
12.16
12.10
76.09
74.66
76.01
75.61
75.37
75.29
74.57
75.45
75.94
75.59
76.50
75.87
75.60
75.52
74.94
74.79
75.96
75.80
75.50
74.36
3.39
3.61
3.35
3.64
3.32
3.29
3.38
3.42
3.57
3.39
3.52
3.53
3.47
3.64
3.32
3.61
3.67
3.45
3.46
3.59
0.85
0.87
0.93
0.87
0.95
0.89
0.86
0.86
0.88
0.86
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.83
0.90
0.87
0.82
0.85
0.81
0.78
0.19
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.24
0.22
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.23
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.08
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.11
0.05
1.02
0.79
0.79
0.74
0.92
1.07
0.70
0.87
0.80
0.86
0.55
0.77
0.89
0.83
0.79
0.78
0.73
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.17
-0.01
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.06
0.12
0.07
0.01
0.16
0.27
0.03
0.11
0.22
0.20
-0.03
0.36
0.16
-0.07
0.23
97.61
96.44
97.60
97.48
97.15
96.94
95.98
97.02
97.52
97.42
98.01
97.67
97.34
97.40
96.53
96.18
97.89
97.51
96.81
95.48
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
BH07SB87_7#2
216
217
218
219
220
3.55
3.78
3.64
2.78
3.29
0.13
0.14
0.23
0.07
0.12
12.38
12.23
12.52
12.75
11.76
76.58
76.13
74.38
79.58
75.42
3.48
3.69
3.37
3.78
3.46
0.81
0.78
0.99
0.69
0.75
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.19
-0.03
-0.02
0.01
0.04
-0.07
0.70
0.85
1.04
0.61
0.65
0.07
0.06
0.11
-0.01
0.10
97.85
97.82
96.47
100.46
95.73
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
71
Data
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Na2O
3.56
3.25
2.80
3.78
3.78
3.69
3.69
3.86
3.89
3.62
3.76
3.63
3.16
3.74
3.95
MgO
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.20
0.12
0.20
0.14
0.16
Al2O3
12.34
11.94
11.09
12.33
12.04
12.42
12.76
12.78
12.78
11.85
12.73
12.42
12.80
12.38
12.39
SiO2
76.74
75.64
71.43
76.20
75.92
75.66
75.50
75.36
74.89
76.08
75.19
76.19
74.86
75.54
75.59
K2O
3.59
3.69
3.37
3.38
3.27
3.61
3.40
3.31
3.39
3.48
3.41
3.45
3.45
3.34
3.54
CaO
0.67
0.78
0.68
0.89
0.85
0.82
0.88
0.92
1.03
0.74
1.00
0.82
0.92
0.80
0.66
TiO2
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.21
MnO
-0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.11
-0.02
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.03
-0.02
0.01
0.10
0.08
FeO
0.63
0.64
0.47
0.93
0.88
0.79
0.89
1.01
0.99
0.75
1.11
0.71
1.02
0.86
0.81
BaO
-0.06
0.23
0.00
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.00
0.15
0.07
0.09
0.05
-0.09
0.23
0.03
0.24
Total
97.80
96.45
90.10
98.12
97.38
97.47
97.55
97.83
97.49
97.06
97.70
97.49
96.84
97.12
97.62
Sample
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
BH07SB87_7#3
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
3.68
3.70
3.67
3.70
3.62
3.57
3.45
3.61
3.58
2.97
3.65
3.42
3.51
3.85
3.79
3.63
3.40
3.66
3.79
3.51
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.18
0.26
0.17
0.17
0.28
0.21
0.27
0.25
0.20
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.21
12.60
12.87
12.87
12.57
12.89
12.35
12.43
13.01
12.66
13.24
13.11
12.45
12.76
13.08
13.26
13.02
12.35
12.76
13.21
12.62
75.05
74.53
74.43
74.72
74.26
75.99
75.70
73.57
75.39
74.13
73.63
75.52
74.55
73.58
74.05
74.88
75.14
74.70
74.05
75.02
3.30
3.36
3.44
3.26
3.34
3.59
3.67
3.17
3.30
3.09
3.27
3.27
3.49
3.14
3.10
3.30
3.45
3.22
3.18
3.23
0.98
1.10
1.04
1.02
1.28
0.87
0.85
1.25
0.99
1.27
1.21
1.02
1.10
1.28
1.30
1.24
0.91
1.11
1.23
1.01
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.27
0.16
0.27
0.23
0.22
0.29
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.21
0.26
0.27
0.19
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.05
-0.01
0.07
-0.02
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.96
1.03
1.02
0.90
1.29
0.70
0.96
1.14
1.04
1.30
1.23
0.84
1.11
1.00
1.20
1.06
0.85
0.88
1.24
1.11
0.32
0.10
-0.01
0.19
0.08
0.02
0.25
0.03
0.23
0.24
0.10
0.13
0.08
0.17
0.18
-0.03
0.29
0.38
0.13
0.16
97.33
97.22
96.94
96.85
97.36
97.60
97.74
96.38
97.72
96.78
96.85
97.17
97.11
96.64
97.42
97.70
96.78
97.31
97.43
97.09
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
TSN1
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
3.86
3.86
3.61
3.75
3.48
3.39
3.84
3.88
3.71
3.62
3.70
3.56
3.72
3.92
3.84
3.88
3.34
3.48
3.54
3.95
0.22
0.22
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.16
0.30
0.24
0.28
0.17
0.23
0.16
0.22
0.26
0.25
0.19
0.21
0.14
0.16
0.25
12.20
12.51
12.46
12.56
12.14
12.01
12.62
12.49
12.85
11.91
12.61
12.07
12.38
12.55
12.48
12.28
12.20
11.53
11.86
12.61
73.71
73.22
73.35
74.33
73.78
74.74
72.21
72.98
73.31
74.37
72.78
75.28
73.96
74.07
74.46
73.94
73.51
74.54
74.53
73.23
3.23
3.23
3.49
3.50
3.62
3.81
2.84
3.00
3.60
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.26
3.15
3.30
2.98
3.87
3.43
3.32
2.94
1.04
1.07
1.06
1.00
1.03
0.84
1.18
1.01
1.30
0.83
1.18
0.80
1.05
1.12
1.11
1.05
1.05
0.64
0.85
1.20
0.26
0.21
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.30
0.25
0.26
0.16
0.24
0.19
0.23
0.26
0.24
0.20
0.24
0.18
0.18
0.26
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.07
1.07
1.05
1.01
1.06
0.97
0.78
1.16
1.20
1.15
0.86
1.01
0.85
0.94
0.96
1.12
1.03
0.98
0.75
0.73
1.28
0.03
0.26
0.07
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.18
0.06
-0.03
-0.06
0.40
-0.19
0.28
0.24
0.29
0.19
0.14
0.00
-0.01
0.48
95.64
95.66
95.62
96.88
95.49
96.02
94.65
95.11
96.56
95.25
95.51
96.24
96.11
96.58
97.13
95.80
95.57
94.72
95.19
96.25
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
CAES1
72
Data
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
Na2O
3.84
3.93
3.68
3.72
3.89
3.93
3.76
3.75
3.91
3.86
3.73
3.77
3.72
3.49
3.73
3.83
3.79
3.78
3.82
3.77
4.09
3.92
3.48
MgO
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.18
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.19
0.17
0.08
0.21
0.18
0.13
Al2O3
12.74
12.79
11.82
12.45
13.16
12.53
12.24
12.04
12.43
12.49
12.25
11.90
11.99
12.12
12.16
12.32
12.65
12.37
12.28
12.06
12.09
12.11
12.25
SiO2
74.57
73.90
73.76
74.28
72.78
73.43
74.76
74.73
75.66
75.45
75.36
75.62
74.94
75.46
74.86
74.57
74.47
75.19
75.18
72.59
75.14
75.36
75.01
K2O
3.26
3.25
3.36
3.45
3.36
3.29
3.36
3.54
3.31
3.34
3.26
3.60
3.40
3.27
3.51
3.28
3.30
3.53
3.43
4.01
3.56
3.24
3.94
CaO
1.05
1.07
0.80
0.92
1.39
1.09
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.84
0.82
0.83
0.85
0.85
0.83
0.83
1.05
0.83
0.84
0.57
0.85
0.83
0.64
TiO2
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.24
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.20
0.18
0.16
MnO
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.00
-0.03
0.03
-0.01
0.06
0.10
-0.01
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.07
-0.02
0.01
FeO
0.96
0.98
0.80
1.02
1.36
0.98
0.93
0.84
0.79
0.85
0.75
0.97
0.92
0.75
0.87
0.87
1.09
0.90
0.82
1.45
0.85
0.83
0.67
BaO
0.10
0.20
0.25
-0.08
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.10
0.26
-0.10
0.18
0.11
0.20
-0.16
0.05
0.24
0.08
0.04
-0.06
0.18
0.16
-0.03
Total
97.02
96.63
94.88
96.27
96.65
95.82
96.32
96.33
97.39
97.50
96.51
97.27
96.38
96.46
96.37
96.09
97.09
97.17
96.81
94.71
97.21
96.80
96.29
Sample
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
BH00SB_18A
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
3.60
3.49
2.83
3.46
3.68
3.41
3.45
3.55
3.59
3.53
3.55
3.61
3.57
3.42
3.52
3.47
3.56
3.47
3.68
3.61
3.54
3.54
3.69
3.61
3.49
0.29
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.23
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.17
0.26
0.24
0.27
0.29
0.24
0.26
0.21
0.19
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.27
0.21
0.23
13.21
12.78
13.12
13.06
13.33
13.20
13.05
13.13
13.05
13.29
13.23
13.02
12.83
13.16
13.13
12.87
13.32
12.93
13.11
12.92
12.99
13.04
13.08
13.06
12.95
74.19
73.33
73.86
73.99
74.08
74.29
74.77
73.52
73.64
73.35
74.56
74.66
73.92
73.87
73.07
74.12
73.62
73.50
72.91
73.48
73.11
73.25
73.60
73.15
73.31
3.89
3.90
4.37
3.93
3.97
3.90
3.60
4.15
3.72
3.86
3.91
3.74
3.80
3.79
3.76
3.87
3.92
3.98
3.95
3.69
3.93
3.74
3.85
3.85
3.93
1.28
1.26
1.26
1.25
1.22
1.30
1.23
1.34
1.30
1.27
1.21
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.17
1.23
1.24
1.21
1.18
1.25
1.25
1.23
1.29
1.31
1.17
0.25
0.23
0.27
0.22
0.24
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.28
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.24
0.30
0.25
0.29
0.27
0.23
0.28
0.25
0.28
0.22
0.11
0.06
-0.04
0.07
-0.03
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.08
-0.01
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.13
0.01
-0.01
0.07
1.14
1.03
1.01
1.04
0.82
0.85
1.11
1.25
1.19
1.14
0.96
1.02
0.98
1.16
1.25
0.90
1.06
0.88
0.95
1.17
1.28
1.19
1.05
1.04
1.04
0.05
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.29
0.14
0.26
0.10
0.33
0.06
-0.09
0.12
0.22
-0.11
0.17
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.26
0.14
0.27
0.08
0.05
-0.05
98.01
96.42
97.13
97.40
97.79
97.56
98.07
97.56
97.45
97.09
97.89
98.03
97.18
97.31
96.73
97.00
97.41
96.60
96.30
96.94
96.78
96.93
97.18
96.56
96.41
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
NT08_17#1
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
3.52
2.55
3.31
3.11
3.26
3.34
3.14
3.14
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.04
12.35
12.03
12.08
12.30
12.37
12.33
12.22
12.36
76.27
75.95
76.81
76.63
76.69
76.47
76.61
76.72
3.88
4.69
3.89
4.46
3.88
4.22
4.11
4.13
0.81
0.73
0.77
0.78
0.86
0.86
0.76
0.79
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.03
-0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
-0.03
0.03
0.03
0.25
0.30
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.23
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.03
0.05
0.16
0.12
0.19
0.28
97.52
96.68
97.42
97.89
97.76
97.87
97.53
97.95
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
73
Data
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
Na2O
3.44
2.59
3.00
3.22
2.80
3.20
3.36
2.99
2.23
2.53
2.50
2.59
MgO
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.05
Al2O3
11.75
11.98
12.01
12.31
12.50
12.08
12.37
12.24
13.56
12.06
11.59
12.16
SiO2
76.20
75.05
75.65
76.32
76.02
75.16
76.67
75.49
75.25
73.74
72.99
76.11
K2O
3.92
4.52
4.28
4.39
4.44
4.08
4.16
4.35
4.85
4.29
4.25
4.72
CaO
0.77
0.77
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.81
0.77
0.81
0.78
0.70
0.79
TiO2
0.20
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.11
MnO
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
-0.01
0.04
0.13
FeO
0.30
0.21
0.25
0.27
0.30
0.19
0.34
0.30
0.17
0.21
0.29
0.27
BaO
0.26
0.14
0.29
0.12
0.19
0.06
0.44
0.14
0.11
0.29
0.17
0.09
Total
96.96
95.52
96.55
97.74
97.36
95.82
98.43
96.53
97.29
94.14
92.79
97.00
Sample
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
NT08_17#2
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
3.79
3.87
3.66
3.87
3.76
3.71
3.75
3.64
3.56
3.69
2.83
3.81
3.94
3.73
3.57
3.65
3.49
3.77
3.74
3.84
0.22
0.11
0.22
0.29
0.34
0.16
0.17
0.04
0.11
0.29
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.11
0.06
0.26
0.10
0.10
0.09
12.92
12.87
13.21
12.95
13.24
13.10
13.17
12.99
13.18
13.23
13.04
13.09
13.18
13.33
13.16
13.08
12.85
12.96
13.35
13.17
73.59
74.11
73.69
74.24
73.15
74.00
74.16
74.22
74.55
74.36
74.37
74.62
74.12
73.57
74.17
74.58
73.17
73.76
73.76
74.46
3.43
3.55
3.75
3.78
3.38
3.66
3.63
3.86
3.56
3.59
4.37
3.52
3.81
3.79
3.77
3.83
3.66
3.75
3.68
3.82
1.30
1.18
1.24
1.40
1.36
1.21
1.16
1.09
1.09
1.12
1.13
1.13
1.27
1.26
1.20
1.17
1.31
1.18
1.20
1.19
0.24
0.30
0.28
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.21
0.02
0.05
0.02
-0.02
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.01
-0.03
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.05
-0.03
0.17
0.05
0.07
0.06
-0.01
0.05
1.03
0.88
1.13
1.14
1.35
1.07
0.97
0.44
0.72
1.12
0.71
0.60
0.90
0.83
0.49
0.59
1.27
0.90
0.82
0.50
0.01
0.19
0.20
-0.05
0.11
-0.11
0.10
0.01
0.21
-0.02
0.07
0.07
-0.11
0.22
0.04
0.27
0.05
-0.05
0.14
0.12
96.54
97.11
97.41
97.90
96.95
97.22
97.37
96.51
97.21
97.67
96.92
97.26
97.66
97.11
96.95
97.50
96.37
96.75
97.06
97.46
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
NT08_19
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
3.39
3.66
3.49
3.29
3.61
3.52
3.46
3.57
3.33
3.32
3.42
3.49
3.36
3.37
3.56
3.46
3.49
3.28
3.43
3.45
0.16
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.18
12.42
12.01
12.42
12.25
12.48
12.34
12.12
11.98
11.94
11.90
12.07
12.21
12.38
12.19
12.26
12.31
12.37
12.16
12.52
12.21
75.37
75.48
75.49
74.97
74.96
74.25
75.20
75.26
74.17
74.65
75.24
74.97
75.26
74.80
75.44
75.22
75.25
74.43
76.19
75.40
3.54
3.37
3.75
3.62
3.64
3.55
3.73
3.62
3.74
3.70
3.48
3.72
3.70
3.73
3.57
3.62
3.40
3.47
3.79
3.69
0.85
0.80
0.91
0.86
0.87
0.86
0.82
0.88
0.89
0.85
0.85
0.93
0.88
0.91
0.86
0.87
0.90
0.86
0.81
0.81
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.75
0.89
0.71
0.75
0.80
0.90
0.88
0.92
0.82
0.87
0.79
0.85
0.80
0.84
0.92
0.89
0.83
0.60
0.76
0.89
0.16
0.00
0.08
0.07
0.27
0.06
0.06
0.14
0.06
0.00
0.28
0.13
0.08
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.24
0.11
0.16
0.04
96.83
96.65
97.25
96.17
97.05
95.84
96.62
96.73
95.32
95.72
96.53
96.67
96.89
96.21
97.10
96.81
96.87
95.35
98.03
96.94
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
BH08SB_2A
384
385
386
3.79
3.49
3.82
0.26
0.27
0.29
13.09
13.07
12.90
73.59
73.61
73.76
3.30
3.47
3.18
1.35
1.39
1.29
0.20
0.28
0.25
0.04
0.13
0.04
1.17
1.10
1.04
0.00
0.17
0.22
96.79
96.98
96.79
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
74
Data
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
Na2O
3.14
3.79
3.77
3.39
3.76
3.83
3.53
3.60
3.62
3.95
3.72
3.24
3.74
3.58
3.31
MgO
0.29
0.29
0.27
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.30
0.16
0.25
0.31
0.29
Al2O3
12.80
12.73
13.13
13.06
13.20
12.86
13.16
13.10
13.09
13.05
13.11
12.34
12.86
12.82
13.04
SiO2
71.16
73.71
73.37
73.27
73.10
72.53
73.59
73.35
73.75
73.96
73.02
75.56
73.88
72.91
73.48
K2O
3.30
3.16
3.35
3.58
3.20
3.31
3.42
3.40
3.33
3.16
3.26
3.53
3.11
3.47
3.37
CaO
1.27
1.34
1.31
1.36
1.25
1.34
1.33
1.26
1.32
1.26
1.34
0.86
1.24
1.42
1.34
TiO2
0.24
0.26
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.29
0.28
0.21
0.24
0.31
0.27
MnO
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.06
FeO
1.06
1.18
1.17
0.91
1.25
1.12
1.14
1.24
1.17
1.28
1.04
0.99
1.09
1.22
1.01
BaO
0.07
0.00
0.04
0.22
0.00
0.05
0.29
0.04
0.13
0.17
0.09
0.13
0.19
0.04
0.00
Total
93.37
96.55
96.71
96.33
96.33
95.62
97.05
96.58
96.99
97.45
96.18
97.05
96.67
96.16
96.16
Sample
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
BH08SB_4
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
3.40
3.46
3.48
3.23
3.43
3.37
3.44
3.45
3.52
2.84
3.46
3.48
3.36
3.51
3.27
3.36
3.39
3.41
3.24
3.45
0.19
0.15
0.22
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
12.22
12.23
12.31
12.16
12.16
12.25
12.39
12.55
12.22
12.15
12.45
12.25
12.45
12.37
12.26
12.60
12.31
12.21
12.34
12.55
74.68
75.40
74.91
73.58
75.51
75.35
75.53
74.08
75.01
74.55
75.29
74.89
75.18
75.13
75.09
75.08
75.00
75.08
75.42
75.28
3.68
3.67
3.68
3.69
3.69
3.62
3.66
3.73
3.71
3.74
3.62
3.64
3.78
3.81
3.69
3.66
3.76
3.69
3.75
3.70
0.90
0.87
0.92
0.81
0.89
0.86
0.88
0.87
0.92
0.81
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.90
0.83
0.87
0.83
0.90
0.81
0.81
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.13
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.85
0.90
0.84
1.02
0.84
0.93
0.85
0.86
0.85
0.75
0.89
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.96
0.83
0.98
0.87
0.78
0.90
0.39
0.21
0.50
0.24
0.17
0.00
0.18
0.16
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.00
96.52
97.09
97.12
95.08
97.03
96.84
97.35
96.18
96.70
95.35
97.01
96.40
97.00
97.08
96.56
96.80
96.80
96.55
96.73
97.06
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
BH08SB_6
75
APPENDIX D
Normalized Pumice X-Ray Fluorescence Data
Normalized Major Elements (Weight %):
Sample ID
SiO2
TiO2
BH07SB87-7
75.37
0.280
14.20
1.38
0.040
0.33
1.70
3.35
3.32
0.030 100.00
Al2O3
FeO*
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
Total
NT07-03
71.11
0.374
16.25
2.61
0.079
0.59
2.38
3.61
2.97
0.031 100.00
BH07SB87-2A*
72.88
0.322
14.83
1.98
0.067
0.54
2.16
3.94
3.21
0.079 100.00
BH07SB87-9A
74.30
0.282
14.81
1.63
0.055
0.43
1.67
3.24
3.53
0.055 100.00
BH07SB87-9B
74.32
0.276
14.88
1.61
0.053
0.38
1.58
3.20
3.65
0.047 100.00
(Hull and Teasdale personal communication)
76
APPENDIX E
Statistical Glass Fragment Tables
BH07SB87_2A
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.89
0.21
13.64
76.08
3.42
1.26
0.27
0.05
1.08
99.91
0.25
0.99
3.23
4.23
20.00
0.05
0.20
0.15
0.35
20.00
0.21
0.83
13.29
14.12
20.00
0.37
1.56
75.28
76.84
20.00
0.23
0.74
3.13
3.87
20.00
0.05
0.16
1.19
1.34
20.00
0.03
0.11
0.22
0.33
20.00
0.04
0.13
-0.01
0.11
20.00
0.17
0.73
0.59
1.32
20.00
0.08
0.23
99.77
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.17
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.04
Na2O
3.83
4.06
4.01
4.07
3.97
3.93
4.06
3.99
3.96
3.76
3.91
3.55
4.23
4.12
3.23
MgO
0.21
0.23
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.26
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.24
0.24
Al2O3
13.46
13.62
13.53
13.51
13.32
13.68
13.60
13.52
13.49
13.29
13.56
13.62
14.08
13.61
13.68
SiO2
76.65
76.11
76.84
76.46
76.22
75.94
75.80
75.92
76.30
76.01
76.02
76.13
75.28
76.09
76.19
K2O
3.13
3.30
3.37
3.38
3.62
3.48
3.41
3.26
3.41
3.76
3.34
3.72
3.32
3.19
3.86
CaO
1.29
1.20
1.21
1.23
1.24
1.28
1.19
1.34
1.29
1.26
1.31
1.19
1.29
1.24
1.24
TiO2
0.32
0.32
0.23
0.29
0.28
0.22
0.28
0.32
0.22
0.33
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.28
MnO
0.03
0.04
0.08
-0.01
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.11
0.07
0.07
FeO
1.08
1.11
0.59
0.89
1.09
1.06
1.29
1.27
0.99
1.09
1.14
1.14
1.06
1.17
1.11
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.97
99.94
99.77
99.95
99.87
99.90
99.82
99.78
99.80
99.84
99.98
99.90
3.45
4.01
4.12
4.04
3.60
0.19
0.26
0.24
0.35
0.19
14.12
13.70
13.72
13.81
13.91
75.87
75.90
76.19
75.34
76.42
3.87
3.29
3.13
3.40
3.21
1.26
1.20
1.25
1.33
1.30
0.24
0.25
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.94
1.32
1.01
1.32
0.91
100.00
99.97
100.00
99.96
99.80
BH07SB87_2A
Bear Creek
77
BH07SB87_8
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard Error
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.10
0.11
1.98
1.72
3.70
19.00
0.18
0.02
0.42
0.12
0.54
19.00
12.56
0.06
0.79
12.14
12.93
19.00
78.07
0.10
1.50
77.34
78.84
19.00
4.01
0.05
0.77
3.60
4.37
19.00
0.85
0.01
0.30
0.77
1.07
19.00
0.19
0.00
0.07
0.16
0.23
19.00
0.04
0.01
0.15
-0.06
0.09
19.00
0.85
0.02
0.35
0.68
1.03
19.00
99.86
0.02
0.31
99.69
100.00
19.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.23
0.04
0.12
0.22
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
2.47
2.51
0.20
0.18
12.76
12.63
78.31
78.62
3.96
3.74
0.90
0.92
0.20
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.92
0.88
99.73
99.70
3.23
0.17
12.61
77.71
4.28
0.86
0.19
0.04
0.91
100.00
3.52
2.97
3.36
3.20
2.90
3.37
3.19
1.72
3.70
2.89
3.43
3.21
3.49
3.43
3.40
2.83
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.23
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.54
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.17
12.61
12.14
12.20
12.28
12.66
12.39
12.21
12.86
12.68
12.48
12.89
12.93
12.49
12.46
12.81
12.52
78.20
78.70
78.52
78.45
78.09
77.70
78.21
78.84
77.62
77.34
77.74
77.45
77.91
78.22
77.47
78.33
3.60
4.15
3.72
3.97
4.37
4.09
4.11
4.21
3.72
4.25
3.88
4.22
4.02
3.70
4.10
4.14
0.86
0.82
0.87
0.77
0.85
0.85
0.83
0.89
0.86
1.07
0.82
0.81
0.79
0.81
0.78
0.86
0.18
0.16
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.21
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.05
-0.06
-0.02
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.75
0.78
0.90
0.75
0.78
0.97
0.85
0.94
0.92
1.03
0.79
0.78
0.68
0.81
0.72
0.89
99.96
99.92
100.00
99.81
100.00
99.81
99.86
99.83
99.90
99.73
99.87
99.84
99.77
99.89
99.69
100.00
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
BH07SB87_8
Cottonwood
Creek
BH07SB87_9A2
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.09
0.17
13.26
77.39
4.00
0.81
0.22
0.03
0.90
99.88
0.38
1.27
2.20
3.48
15.00
0.03
0.10
0.12
0.22
15.00
1.34
4.80
12.34
17.14
15.00
1.13
4.21
74.09
78.30
15.00
0.17
0.57
3.72
4.28
15.00
0.05
0.15
0.73
0.87
15.00
0.02
0.08
0.18
0.27
15.00
0.05
0.17
-0.03
0.14
15.00
0.09
0.38
0.68
1.05
15.00
0.09
0.30
99.70
100.00
15.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.21
0.02
0.74
0.63
0.10
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
2.25
3.34
3.37
2.20
3.44
3.16
3.14
3.12
3.13
3.26
3.24
3.16
3.15
2.91
3.48
0.22
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.12
0.15
0.12
17.14
12.34
12.70
15.67
12.38
13.08
12.69
13.18
13.25
12.61
12.67
12.58
12.66
13.38
12.59
74.09
77.79
77.44
75.54
78.30
77.75
77.71
77.33
77.20
78.11
77.90
78.10
78.01
77.40
78.17
3.94
4.28
4.14
4.28
3.86
3.83
4.10
3.93
4.13
3.94
3.82
4.02
3.87
4.18
3.72
0.87
0.78
0.84
0.82
0.74
0.74
0.86
0.87
0.81
0.76
0.81
0.85
0.73
0.86
0.83
0.19
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.18
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.19
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.08
0.01
-0.03
-0.01
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.11
0.02
0.03
0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.14
0.95
0.85
1.00
0.98
0.77
0.89
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.85
0.88
1.05
0.88
0.68
99.73
99.77
99.86
99.89
99.96
99.91
99.89
99.92
99.87
100.00
99.70
99.99
99.80
99.97
99.93
BH07SB87_9A2
Gas Point Lower
2
78
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.33
0.18
12.71
77.98
3.74
0.86
0.19
0.04
0.87
99.89
0.18
0.64
2.86
3.50
21.00
0.02
0.09
0.12
0.21
21.00
0.21
0.86
12.39
13.25
21.00
0.29
1.16
77.42
78.59
21.00
0.15
0.60
3.50
4.10
21.00
0.04
0.15
0.79
0.95
21.00
0.03
0.13
0.13
0.26
21.00
0.04
0.15
-0.02
0.13
21.00
0.07
0.21
0.75
0.97
21.00
0.10
0.30
99.70
100.00
21.00
0.08
0.01
0.09
0.13
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
BH07SB87_9A1
Gas Point Lower
1
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.44
3.31
3.15
3.48
3.41
3.36
3.41
3.47
3.47
3.31
2.95
3.47
3.35
3.06
3.32
3.50
2.86
3.36
3.50
3.44
3.26
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.12
12.71
12.73
12.70
12.53
12.40
12.99
12.65
13.25
12.63
12.87
13.00
12.73
12.55
12.76
12.73
12.49
12.78
12.74
12.74
12.39
12.50
77.88
77.84
77.75
78.17
78.36
77.43
77.91
77.42
77.78
77.97
78.03
77.83
78.05
77.84
78.12
77.88
78.59
77.96
78.01
78.31
78.45
3.74
3.65
4.10
3.50
3.59
3.86
3.84
3.69
3.82
3.82
3.80
3.52
3.73
4.04
3.70
3.74
3.70
3.67
3.70
3.60
3.71
0.84
0.88
0.81
0.84
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.88
0.94
0.85
0.79
0.88
0.83
0.82
0.95
0.83
0.85
0.84
0.86
0.81
0.83
0.13
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.24
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.19
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.09
0.12
0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02
0.02
0.03
-0.01
0.05
0.01
0.85
0.97
0.97
0.79
0.86
0.84
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.76
0.92
0.96
0.86
0.96
0.81
0.87
0.81
0.75
0.77
0.90
0.84
99.83
99.77
99.93
99.72
99.88
99.89
100.00
100.00
99.99
99.99
99.95
99.90
99.83
99.89
99.96
99.71
100.00
99.70
99.95
99.88
99.93
BH07SB87_9B
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.12
0.16
12.79
78.08
3.86
0.79
0.18
0.03
0.86
99.88
0.45
1.65
1.93
3.58
20.00
0.02
0.08
0.12
0.19
20.00
0.78
3.67
12.37
16.04
20.00
0.92
4.55
74.90
79.44
20.00
0.16
0.58
3.50
4.08
20.00
0.04
0.17
0.70
0.86
20.00
0.04
0.13
0.12
0.24
20.00
0.04
0.16
-0.06
0.10
20.00
0.06
0.24
0.75
1.00
20.00
0.11
0.35
99.65
100.00
20.00
0.21
0.01
0.36
0.43
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
Na2O
3.58
3.36
1.93
2.22
3.25
3.30
3.24
3.36
2.16
3.25
3.36
3.29
3.33
3.51
3.11
3.23
MgO
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.19
0.16
0.12
0.18
0.15
Al2O3
12.51
12.75
12.85
12.55
12.37
12.61
12.79
12.51
12.54
12.81
12.58
16.04
12.66
12.81
12.51
12.59
SiO2
77.78
78.24
79.44
79.37
78.08
77.83
77.60
78.04
79.36
77.88
78.39
74.90
78.28
77.89
78.11
77.88
K2O
3.75
3.71
3.76
3.68
4.05
4.00
4.05
4.00
3.81
3.87
3.50
3.82
3.65
3.71
4.08
4.06
CaO
0.75
0.76
0.79
0.84
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.76
0.83
0.82
0.70
0.79
0.79
0.75
0.77
TiO2
0.23
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.19
0.18
0.19
MnO
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.04
-0.02
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.06
0.06
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.09
FeO
0.92
0.86
0.81
0.96
0.90
1.00
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.93
0.82
0.89
0.92
0.89
0.78
0.82
Total
99.81
100.00
99.97
99.96
99.81
99.92
99.65
99.94
99.89
99.86
99.85
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.77
99.79
BH07SB87_9A1
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
BH07SB87_9B
Gas Point Upper
79
SP09_1C#2
3.08
3.29
3.23
3.32
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.15
12.45
12.64
12.64
12.52
78.36
77.91
78.26
78.03
3.99
3.94
3.95
3.92
0.86
0.84
0.77
0.82
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.03
0.75
0.79
0.85
0.82
99.77
99.77
99.98
99.76
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.66
0.27
13.69
75.82
3.70
1.34
0.27
0.04
1.11
99.90
0.26
1.07
2.94
4.01
20.00
0.03
0.11
0.23
0.34
20.00
0.41
1.91
13.29
15.20
20.00
0.37
1.73
74.54
76.27
20.00
0.28
0.98
3.36
4.34
20.00
0.06
0.22
1.25
1.46
20.00
0.02
0.09
0.23
0.32
20.00
0.05
0.16
-0.05
0.11
20.00
0.13
0.54
0.81
1.35
20.00
0.10
0.33
99.68
100.01
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.12
0.01
0.19
0.18
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.05
SP09_1C#2
Mud Creek 1C#2
Na2O
3.17
3.71
3.80
3.49
3.71
4.01
3.62
3.74
3.72
3.49
3.97
3.76
3.80
3.88
2.94
3.72
3.57
3.45
3.94
3.66
MgO
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.34
0.29
0.23
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.28
0.32
0.29
Al2O3
13.98
13.83
13.44
13.71
15.20
13.44
13.81
13.69
13.43
13.48
13.39
13.40
13.63
13.60
13.29
13.66
13.54
13.71
13.49
14.02
SiO2
75.75
75.60
76.19
76.06
74.54
76.04
76.11
75.64
75.91
76.23
75.71
75.56
75.82
75.74
76.27
75.78
76.15
75.71
75.73
75.91
K2O
4.32
3.69
3.49
3.78
3.55
3.36
3.57
3.63
3.86
3.74
3.50
3.80
3.62
3.45
4.34
3.80
3.58
4.07
3.54
3.36
CaO
1.29
1.31
1.34
1.39
1.30
1.36
1.35
1.35
1.25
1.34
1.36
1.46
1.39
1.28
1.41
1.29
1.42
1.32
1.40
1.25
TiO2
0.29
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.32
0.27
0.26
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.23
0.27
0.28
MnO
-0.01
0.06
0.03
0.07
-0.02
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.04
-0.04
0.07
0.07
0.08
-0.03
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.11
FeO
0.81
1.28
1.19
0.87
1.07
1.14
1.08
1.19
1.07
1.14
1.22
1.35
1.11
1.20
0.95
1.03
1.08
1.02
1.24
1.10
Total
99.85
99.98
100.00
99.86
99.95
99.84
100.01
99.84
99.82
100.00
99.68
99.99
99.97
99.76
99.73
99.90
99.90
99.88
99.99
99.98
SP09_1C#1
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.92
0.29
13.52
75.94
3.31
1.31
0.27
0.06
1.27
99.89
0.10
0.41
3.72
4.12
20.00
0.02
0.05
0.26
0.31
20.00
0.16
0.66
13.23
13.89
20.00
0.30
1.20
75.43
76.63
20.00
0.13
0.51
3.09
3.60
20.00
0.04
0.18
1.24
1.41
20.00
0.03
0.09
0.23
0.32
20.00
0.03
0.11
0.00
0.11
20.00
0.09
0.41
1.07
1.48
20.00
0.11
0.38
99.64
100.02
20.00
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.14
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Na2O
3.86
3.93
3.93
3.91
3.88
3.97
3.84
3.90
4.05
3.72
3.83
MgO
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.31
0.31
Al2O3
13.39
13.31
13.70
13.59
13.67
13.89
13.23
13.81
13.60
13.55
13.47
SiO2
76.00
76.26
75.93
75.89
75.82
75.75
76.63
75.67
75.43
75.54
75.95
K2O
3.60
3.24
3.13
3.09
3.31
3.22
3.27
3.22
3.42
3.48
3.27
CaO
1.28
1.28
1.27
1.29
1.30
1.39
1.33
1.31
1.30
1.38
1.31
TiO2
0.28
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.26
0.23
0.24
0.27
MnO
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.08
FeO
1.31
1.24
1.27
1.36
1.33
1.20
1.07
1.31
1.40
1.35
1.48
Total
100.02
99.92
99.89
99.73
99.91
100.01
99.98
99.83
99.81
99.64
99.97
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
SP09_1C#1
Mud Creek 1C#1
80
SP09_1A#1
3.97
3.81
3.79
4.01
3.97
4.12
4.00
4.06
3.81
0.29
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.26
13.60
13.53
13.37
13.54
13.36
13.57
13.44
13.41
13.46
75.70
76.02
76.41
75.80
75.78
75.68
76.09
76.19
76.33
3.32
3.38
3.37
3.25
3.57
3.33
3.13
3.27
3.27
1.34
1.35
1.29
1.27
1.30
1.41
1.24
1.31
1.32
0.24
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.24
0.30
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.00
0.06
1.26
1.29
1.15
1.20
1.22
1.31
1.32
1.23
1.19
99.82
99.95
100.00
99.71
99.77
100.00
99.88
100.00
100.00
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.81
0.22
12.94
76.97
3.52
1.07
0.24
0.03
1.09
99.89
0.25
1.13
3.17
4.30
20.00
0.06
0.18
0.16
0.33
20.00
0.44
1.48
12.19
13.67
20.00
0.89
2.85
75.61
78.46
20.00
0.32
1.23
3.07
4.30
20.00
0.23
0.73
0.78
1.51
20.00
0.06
0.19
0.16
0.34
20.00
0.04
0.18
-0.06
0.11
20.00
0.19
0.67
0.79
1.46
20.00
0.12
0.41
99.59
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.12
0.03
0.21
0.42
0.15
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.05
SP09_1A#1
Na2O
4.00
3.93
3.17
3.99
3.71
4.08
4.09
3.54
3.79
3.75
3.90
3.74
3.67
3.47
3.77
4.30
3.88
3.71
3.70
4.09
MgO
0.25
0.26
0.17
0.33
0.24
0.31
0.28
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.17
0.25
0.30
0.21
0.16
0.30
Al2O3
12.90
13.39
12.76
13.67
12.85
13.49
13.55
12.62
12.52
12.19
12.93
12.28
12.76
12.43
12.76
13.23
13.28
13.16
12.50
13.46
SiO2
76.73
76.13
77.67
75.85
77.01
75.83
75.61
77.54
77.79
78.46
77.16
77.96
77.20
77.60
77.70
76.09
76.01
77.07
78.06
75.87
K2O
3.33
3.34
4.30
3.30
3.75
3.22
3.07
3.68
3.43
3.41
3.27
3.67
3.94
4.06
3.72
3.15
3.45
3.66
3.51
3.20
CaO
1.13
1.42
0.78
1.30
1.07
1.29
1.51
0.82
0.94
0.82
1.10
0.89
0.78
0.89
0.82
1.22
1.25
1.10
0.86
1.33
TiO2
0.20
0.30
0.18
0.34
0.24
0.26
0.32
0.16
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.18
0.22
0.21
0.24
0.33
0.28
0.16
0.20
0.29
MnO
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
-0.03
0.03
0.05
0.06
-0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.00
0.11
0.09
0.00
0.07
0.04
FeO
1.14
1.22
0.84
1.11
1.12
1.30
1.46
0.97
0.99
0.92
1.08
1.00
0.97
1.01
0.79
1.31
1.28
0.91
0.91
1.39
Total
99.74
100.00
99.91
99.91
99.96
99.80
99.93
99.59
99.74
99.99
99.93
99.89
99.70
99.97
99.96
100.00
99.81
99.98
99.97
99.98
BH05SB04A
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.58
0.26
13.24
76.30
3.96
1.15
0.24
0.05
1.10
99.87
0.36
1.31
2.72
4.03
20.00
0.02
0.07
0.23
0.30
20.00
0.25
0.91
12.79
13.70
20.00
0.33
1.12
75.73
76.85
20.00
0.30
1.04
3.51
4.54
20.00
0.03
0.10
1.11
1.21
20.00
0.02
0.10
0.20
0.30
20.00
0.04
0.18
-0.05
0.13
20.00
0.08
0.30
0.96
1.26
20.00
0.11
0.32
99.68
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.17
0.01
0.12
0.15
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
Na2O
3.29
3.38
3.76
3.91
3.80
3.81
MgO
0.25
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.26
Al2O3
13.70
13.30
13.32
13.15
13.12
13.56
SiO2
75.73
76.52
76.05
76.47
76.35
76.08
K2O
4.19
4.01
3.93
3.61
3.71
3.51
CaO
1.14
1.13
1.18
1.11
1.11
1.16
TiO2
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.25
MnO
0.05
-0.01
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.08
FeO
1.11
1.08
1.24
1.08
1.10
1.04
Total
99.70
99.89
100.00
99.86
99.78
99.75
BH05SB04A
Red Bluff
81
BH07SB87_7#1
2.72
3.72
4.03
3.58
3.97
3.52
3.41
3.77
3.60
3.05
3.04
3.90
3.26
3.99
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.29
0.25
0.26
0.30
0.27
13.04
12.79
13.19
13.51
13.57
13.60
13.33
13.21
13.01
13.04
13.25
12.90
13.08
13.16
76.70
76.85
76.29
76.07
76.06
75.75
75.94
76.11
76.76
76.71
76.27
76.63
76.40
76.17
4.54
3.84
3.74
3.95
3.64
4.20
4.21
3.74
3.83
4.22
4.45
3.77
4.42
3.72
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.15
1.17
1.13
1.16
1.18
1.15
1.15
1.21
1.14
1.18
1.16
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.22
0.30
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.01
-0.05
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.08
1.09
0.96
1.04
1.00
0.96
1.14
1.18
1.20
1.11
1.11
1.26
1.14
1.05
1.20
99.70
99.68
99.96
99.81
99.96
100.00
99.83
99.78
100.00
99.88
100.00
100.00
99.93
100.00
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.65
0.11
12.78
78.06
3.64
0.86
0.19
0.03
0.56
99.89
0.23
0.89
3.00
3.90
20.00
0.02
0.09
0.07
0.16
20.00
0.12
0.43
12.54
12.97
20.00
0.23
0.99
77.64
78.63
20.00
0.12
0.59
3.32
3.91
20.00
0.03
0.10
0.82
0.92
20.00
0.02
0.07
0.15
0.22
20.00
0.04
0.16
-0.03
0.13
20.00
0.08
0.36
0.44
0.80
20.00
0.08
0.24
99.76
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.11
0.01
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
BH07SB87_7#1
Horsetown 1
Na2O
3.59
3.73
3.72
3.62
3.77
3.90
3.44
3.73
3.79
3.78
3.72
3.85
3.72
3.78
3.75
3.46
3.00
3.73
3.83
3.14
MgO
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.15
0.07
Al2O3
12.86
12.54
12.71
12.93
12.87
12.90
12.95
12.86
12.69
12.59
12.75
12.80
12.75
12.72
12.73
12.97
12.73
12.65
12.84
12.76
SiO2
78.02
78.29
78.17
78.00
77.78
77.98
78.09
77.64
77.87
78.25
77.95
77.86
78.07
77.80
78.18
78.08
78.32
78.20
77.94
78.63
K2O
3.73
3.74
3.69
3.69
3.59
3.32
3.65
3.59
3.69
3.49
3.51
3.74
3.57
3.74
3.63
3.67
3.91
3.68
3.57
3.68
CaO
0.82
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.90
0.88
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.90
0.84
0.91
0.89
0.92
0.85
0.82
0.89
0.84
0.85
0.84
TiO2
0.20
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.22
MnO
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.03
-0.01
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.00
-0.03
0.01
0.13
-0.02
-0.02
0.07
FeO
0.54
0.57
0.53
0.52
0.60
0.60
0.52
0.80
0.53
0.61
0.63
0.54
0.47
0.66
0.45
0.52
0.59
0.57
0.58
0.44
Total
99.91
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.88
99.90
99.80
99.89
99.85
99.96
99.77
100.00
99.76
99.88
99.87
99.81
99.86
99.95
99.92
99.85
BH07SB87_7#2
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.78
0.17
12.65
77.72
3.58
0.89
0.19
0.05
0.82
99.86
0.12
0.44
3.48
3.92
20.00
0.02
0.08
0.14
0.22
20.00
0.15
0.57
12.33
12.90
20.00
0.17
0.63
77.41
78.05
20.00
0.13
0.36
3.40
3.76
20.00
0.04
0.17
0.81
0.98
20.00
0.02
0.09
0.15
0.24
20.00
0.03
0.11
0.00
0.11
20.00
0.12
0.53
0.56
1.10
20.00
0.10
0.37
99.63
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.05
Na2O
3.70
MgO
0.18
Al2O3
12.33
SiO2
77.95
K2O
3.47
CaO
0.87
TiO2
0.20
MnO
0.08
FeO
1.05
Total
99.83
BH07SB87_7#2
Horsetown 2
82
BH07SB87_7#3
3.85
3.92
3.74
3.83
3.92
3.83
3.69
3.79
3.76
3.48
3.86
3.89
3.80
3.78
3.75
3.67
3.90
3.55
0.15
0.18
0.15
0.17
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.14
12.90
12.39
12.75
12.66
12.46
12.73
12.82
12.59
12.86
12.71
12.78
12.53
12.56
12.71
12.63
12.65
12.64
12.67
77.41
77.88
77.56
77.58
77.67
77.69
77.77
77.87
77.59
78.05
77.68
77.67
77.53
77.63
77.76
77.60
77.73
77.88
3.74
3.43
3.74
3.42
3.40
3.52
3.52
3.66
3.47
3.59
3.61
3.57
3.74
3.44
3.75
3.75
3.54
3.76
0.90
0.96
0.89
0.98
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.85
0.93
0.91
0.84
0.87
0.81
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.23
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.22
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.82
0.81
0.75
0.94
1.10
0.73
0.89
0.82
0.89
0.56
0.79
0.91
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.75
0.77
0.68
100.00
99.87
99.81
99.82
99.94
99.88
99.92
99.98
99.84
99.72
99.97
99.88
99.78
99.79
100.00
99.63
99.84
99.76
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.66
0.15
12.70
77.89
3.58
0.85
0.19
0.03
0.84
99.89
0.32
1.28
2.77
4.05
20.00
0.05
0.17
0.07
0.24
20.00
0.30
1.01
12.21
13.21
20.00
0.72
2.46
76.82
79.28
20.00
0.14
0.47
3.36
3.83
20.00
0.11
0.39
0.67
1.06
20.00
0.02
0.08
0.16
0.23
20.00
0.05
0.19
-0.08
0.11
20.00
0.17
0.62
0.52
1.14
20.00
0.09
0.25
99.75
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.15
0.02
0.14
0.34
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.04
BH07SB87_7#3
Horsetown 3
Na2O
3.62
3.86
3.77
2.77
3.43
3.64
3.36
3.10
3.85
3.88
3.79
3.78
3.94
3.99
3.73
3.85
3.72
3.26
3.85
4.05
MgO
0.13
0.15
0.24
0.07
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.12
0.20
0.15
0.16
Al2O3
12.65
12.50
12.98
12.69
12.29
12.61
12.37
12.31
12.57
12.36
12.74
13.08
13.06
13.11
12.21
13.03
12.74
13.21
12.75
12.69
SiO2
78.26
77.83
77.10
79.21
78.78
78.46
78.42
79.28
77.66
77.97
77.62
77.40
77.03
76.82
78.39
76.96
78.15
77.30
77.77
77.44
K2O
3.55
3.77
3.49
3.76
3.62
3.67
3.83
3.74
3.44
3.36
3.70
3.49
3.38
3.47
3.58
3.49
3.54
3.56
3.44
3.62
CaO
0.82
0.79
1.02
0.69
0.78
0.69
0.81
0.76
0.91
0.87
0.84
0.90
0.94
1.06
0.76
1.02
0.84
0.95
0.82
0.67
TiO2
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.23
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.21
MnO
-0.03
-0.02
0.01
0.04
-0.08
-0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.11
-0.02
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.03
-0.02
0.01
0.10
0.08
FeO
0.71
0.87
1.08
0.60
0.68
0.65
0.66
0.52
0.94
0.91
0.81
0.91
1.03
1.01
0.78
1.14
0.73
1.05
0.89
0.83
Total
99.90
99.92
99.88
100.00
99.82
99.95
99.76
100.00
99.77
99.77
99.83
100.00
99.85
99.93
99.90
99.95
99.98
99.76
99.97
99.75
CAES1
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.86
0.23
12.86
77.05
3.47
1.06
0.24
0.05
1.04
99.85
0.19
0.61
3.50
4.11
20.00
0.04
0.17
0.15
0.31
20.00
0.31
1.15
12.18
13.33
20.00
0.79
2.77
75.93
78.69
20.00
0.28
1.04
3.00
4.05
20.00
0.16
0.67
0.68
1.35
20.00
0.04
0.14
0.17
0.32
20.00
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.09
20.00
0.15
0.56
0.77
1.33
20.00
0.15
0.49
99.51
100.00
20.00
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
83
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.09
0.02
0.14
0.37
0.13
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.07
CAES1
Na2O
4.04
4.03
3.78
3.87
3.64
3.53
4.06
4.08
3.85
3.80
3.87
3.70
3.87
4.05
3.95
4.05
3.50
3.67
3.71
4.11
MgO
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.17
0.31
0.25
0.29
0.18
0.24
0.17
0.23
0.27
0.26
0.20
0.22
0.15
0.16
0.26
Al2O3
12.75
13.08
13.03
12.96
12.72
12.51
13.33
13.14
13.31
12.51
13.20
12.54
12.88
12.99
12.85
12.81
12.77
12.18
12.45
13.10
SiO2
77.07
76.54
76.71
76.73
77.27
77.84
76.29
76.73
75.93
78.08
76.20
78.22
76.96
76.69
76.66
77.18
76.92
78.69
78.29
76.08
K2O
3.37
3.38
3.65
3.61
3.79
3.97
3.00
3.15
3.73
3.45
3.44
3.43
3.40
3.26
3.40
3.11
4.05
3.62
3.48
3.05
CaO
1.09
1.12
1.11
1.03
1.07
0.87
1.24
1.07
1.35
0.87
1.23
0.83
1.09
1.16
1.14
1.10
1.10
0.68
0.89
1.25
TiO2
0.27
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.17
0.32
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.25
0.20
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.26
MnO
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.07
FeO
1.12
1.10
1.06
1.10
1.01
0.82
1.23
1.26
1.19
0.90
1.05
0.88
0.97
1.00
1.15
1.08
1.03
0.79
0.77
1.33
Total
99.97
99.73
99.92
99.81
100.00
99.92
99.81
99.94
100.00
100.00
99.58
100.00
99.71
99.76
99.70
99.81
99.85
100.00
100.00
99.51
CAES1
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.86
0.23
12.86
77.05
3.47
1.06
0.24
0.05
1.04
99.85
0.19
0.61
3.50
4.11
20.00
0.04
0.17
0.15
0.31
20.00
0.31
1.15
12.18
13.33
20.00
0.79
2.77
75.93
78.69
20.00
0.28
1.04
3.00
4.05
20.00
0.16
0.67
0.68
1.35
20.00
0.04
0.14
0.17
0.32
20.00
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.09
20.00
0.15
0.56
0.77
1.33
20.00
0.15
0.49
99.51
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.09
0.02
0.14
0.37
0.13
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.07
Na2O
4.04
4.03
3.78
3.87
3.64
3.53
4.06
4.08
3.85
3.80
3.87
3.70
3.87
4.05
3.95
4.05
3.50
3.67
3.71
4.11
MgO
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.17
0.31
0.25
0.29
0.18
0.24
0.17
0.23
0.27
0.26
0.20
0.22
0.15
0.16
0.26
Al2O3
12.75
13.08
13.03
12.96
12.72
12.51
13.33
13.14
13.31
12.51
13.20
12.54
12.88
12.99
12.85
12.81
12.77
12.18
12.45
13.10
SiO2
77.07
76.54
76.71
76.73
77.27
77.84
76.29
76.73
75.93
78.08
76.20
78.22
76.96
76.69
76.66
77.18
76.92
78.69
78.29
76.08
K2O
3.37
3.38
3.65
3.61
3.79
3.97
3.00
3.15
3.73
3.45
3.44
3.43
3.40
3.26
3.40
3.11
4.05
3.62
3.48
3.05
CaO
1.09
1.12
1.11
1.03
1.07
0.87
1.24
1.07
1.35
0.87
1.23
0.83
1.09
1.16
1.14
1.10
1.10
0.68
0.89
1.25
TiO2
0.27
0.22
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.17
0.32
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.25
0.20
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.26
MnO
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.07
FeO
1.12
1.10
1.06
1.10
1.01
0.82
1.23
1.26
1.19
0.90
1.05
0.88
0.97
1.00
1.15
1.08
1.03
0.79
0.77
1.33
Total
99.97
99.73
99.92
99.81
100.00
99.92
99.81
99.94
100.00
100.00
99.58
100.00
99.71
99.76
99.70
99.81
99.85
100.00
100.00
99.51
CAES1
Bristol Dry Lake
84
BH00SB_18A
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.93
0.19
12.76
77.35
3.55
0.91
0.20
0.04
0.96
99.88
0.13
0.59
3.62
4.20
23.00
0.04
0.20
0.08
0.28
23.00
0.31
1.38
12.23
13.61
23.00
0.66
2.93
75.30
78.23
23.00
0.22
0.89
3.34
4.23
23.00
0.17
0.83
0.61
1.43
23.00
0.03
0.11
0.16
0.27
23.00
0.04
0.14
-0.03
0.11
23.00
0.19
0.83
0.70
1.53
23.00
0.10
0.27
99.74
100.00
23.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.06
0.02
0.13
0.28
0.10
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.04
BH00SB_18A
Sutter Buttes
Na2O
3.95
4.07
3.88
3.87
4.03
4.10
3.91
3.89
4.02
3.96
3.87
3.88
3.86
3.62
3.87
3.98
3.90
3.89
3.94
3.98
4.20
4.05
3.62
MgO
0.22
0.21
0.17
0.18
0.28
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.26
0.20
0.18
0.08
0.22
0.18
0.13
Al2O3
13.14
13.24
12.46
12.93
13.61
13.08
12.70
12.50
12.76
12.81
12.70
12.23
12.44
12.56
12.62
12.82
13.03
12.73
12.68
12.73
12.43
12.51
12.72
SiO2
76.86
76.48
77.74
77.15
75.30
76.64
77.62
77.58
77.68
77.38
78.09
77.75
77.76
78.23
77.68
77.60
76.70
77.38
77.66
76.65
77.30
77.86
77.90
K2O
3.36
3.36
3.54
3.58
3.47
3.44
3.49
3.68
3.40
3.42
3.38
3.70
3.53
3.39
3.64
3.41
3.39
3.64
3.54
4.23
3.66
3.34
4.09
CaO
1.08
1.10
0.84
0.96
1.43
1.14
0.89
0.88
0.84
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.86
1.08
0.85
0.87
0.61
0.87
0.85
0.66
TiO2
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.25
0.19
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.19
0.16
MnO
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.00
-0.03
0.03
-0.01
0.06
0.11
-0.01
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.07
-0.02
0.01
FeO
0.99
1.02
0.85
1.06
1.40
1.03
0.97
0.87
0.81
0.87
0.77
1.00
0.96
0.78
0.90
0.90
1.12
0.93
0.84
1.53
0.87
0.85
0.70
Total
99.89
99.80
99.74
100.00
99.89
99.98
99.99
99.74
99.86
99.74
99.99
99.82
99.88
99.79
100.00
99.95
99.76
99.92
99.96
100.00
99.82
99.81
100.00
NT08_17#1
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.62
0.24
13.45
75.86
3.99
1.28
0.26
0.05
1.09
99.86
0.17
0.91
2.92
3.83
25.00
0.04
0.13
0.17
0.30
25.00
0.13
0.50
13.20
13.69
25.00
0.28
1.05
75.36
76.42
25.00
0.16
0.83
3.67
4.50
25.00
0.04
0.16
1.21
1.37
25.00
0.02
0.08
0.23
0.30
25.00
0.05
0.18
-0.04
0.14
25.00
0.13
0.49
0.83
1.32
25.00
0.10
0.34
99.66
100.00
25.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.04
Na2O
3.68
3.62
2.92
3.55
3.76
3.49
3.52
3.64
3.68
3.64
3.62
3.68
3.67
3.52
MgO
0.29
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.25
0.29
0.29
0.17
0.26
0.24
0.27
Al2O3
13.48
13.25
13.51
13.41
13.63
13.53
13.31
13.46
13.39
13.69
13.51
13.28
13.20
13.52
SiO2
75.70
76.05
76.04
75.97
75.75
76.15
76.24
75.36
75.56
75.55
76.17
76.16
76.07
75.92
K2O
3.97
4.05
4.50
4.03
4.06
3.99
3.67
4.25
3.82
3.98
3.99
3.81
3.91
3.90
CaO
1.30
1.31
1.30
1.28
1.25
1.33
1.26
1.37
1.33
1.30
1.24
1.28
1.30
1.29
TiO2
0.26
0.24
0.28
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.30
MnO
0.11
0.06
-0.04
0.07
-0.03
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.09
FeO
1.16
1.07
1.04
1.07
0.83
0.87
1.13
1.28
1.22
1.17
0.98
1.04
1.01
1.19
Total
99.95
99.87
99.76
99.81
99.68
99.86
99.73
99.90
99.66
99.94
100.00
99.88
99.77
100.00
NT08_17#1
Bonnie Craggs 17
85
NT08_17#2
3.64
3.58
3.65
3.59
3.83
3.73
3.66
3.66
3.80
3.73
3.62
0.30
0.25
0.27
0.22
0.20
0.30
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.21
0.23
13.57
13.27
13.67
13.38
13.61
13.33
13.43
13.45
13.46
13.52
13.43
75.54
76.42
75.58
76.09
75.71
75.80
75.54
75.57
75.74
75.76
76.04
3.89
3.99
4.02
4.12
4.10
3.81
4.06
3.86
3.96
3.99
4.08
1.21
1.26
1.27
1.25
1.23
1.29
1.29
1.27
1.33
1.36
1.22
0.28
0.24
0.30
0.26
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.23
0.08
-0.01
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.14
0.01
-0.01
0.07
1.30
0.93
1.09
0.91
0.99
1.20
1.32
1.22
1.08
1.08
1.08
99.82
99.94
99.91
99.85
99.97
99.73
99.85
99.72
99.92
99.94
100.00
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.09
0.06
12.63
78.32
4.42
0.81
0.18
0.04
0.28
99.81
0.36
1.32
2.29
3.61
20.00
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.11
20.00
0.34
1.81
12.12
13.93
20.00
0.32
1.50
77.35
78.85
20.00
0.31
1.02
3.96
4.99
20.00
0.03
0.12
0.76
0.88
20.00
0.02
0.10
0.11
0.21
20.00
0.03
0.16
-0.03
0.13
20.00
0.04
0.17
0.18
0.35
20.00
0.10
0.42
99.55
99.97
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.17
0.01
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
NT08_17#2
Bonnie Craggs
Na2O
3.61
2.64
3.40
3.17
3.33
3.42
3.22
3.21
3.55
2.71
3.11
3.29
2.87
3.34
3.41
3.10
2.29
2.69
2.69
2.67
MgO
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.11
0.05
Al2O3
12.66
12.44
12.40
12.57
12.65
12.60
12.53
12.62
12.12
12.55
12.43
12.59
12.83
12.61
12.57
12.68
13.93
12.81
12.49
12.53
SiO2
78.21
78.56
78.85
78.28
78.44
78.13
78.55
78.33
78.59
78.57
78.36
78.08
78.07
78.44
77.89
78.20
77.35
78.33
78.66
78.46
K2O
3.98
4.85
3.99
4.55
3.96
4.32
4.21
4.22
4.04
4.73
4.44
4.49
4.56
4.26
4.22
4.51
4.99
4.56
4.58
4.86
CaO
0.83
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.88
0.88
0.78
0.81
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.80
0.83
0.83
0.76
0.82
TiO2
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.21
0.16
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.15
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.11
MnO
0.03
-0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
-0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
-0.01
0.04
0.13
FeO
0.25
0.31
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.24
0.29
0.31
0.22
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.20
0.35
0.31
0.18
0.22
0.31
0.28
Total
99.78
99.78
99.97
99.95
99.84
99.85
99.81
99.71
99.73
99.85
99.70
99.88
99.81
99.94
99.55
99.86
99.88
99.69
99.82
99.91
NT08_19
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.79
0.16
13.49
76.21
3.82
1.24
0.26
0.04
0.90
99.90
0.23
1.11
2.92
4.03
20.00
0.09
0.30
0.04
0.35
20.00
0.14
0.52
13.23
13.75
20.00
0.39
1.45
75.46
76.90
20.00
0.21
1.02
3.49
4.51
20.00
0.09
0.31
1.12
1.43
20.00
0.02
0.09
0.22
0.31
20.00
0.05
0.21
-0.03
0.17
20.00
0.27
0.94
0.46
1.40
20.00
0.10
0.27
99.73
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.11
0.04
0.06
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.04
Na2O
3.93
3.98
3.76
3.95
MgO
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.30
Al2O3
13.38
13.26
13.56
13.23
SiO2
76.23
76.32
75.65
75.83
K2O
3.55
3.66
3.85
3.86
CaO
1.34
1.21
1.27
1.43
TiO2
0.25
0.31
0.29
0.24
MnO
0.02
0.05
0.02
-0.02
FeO
1.06
0.91
1.16
1.17
Total
99.99
99.81
99.79
99.99
NT08_19
Bonnie Craggs 19
86
BH08SB_2A
3.88
3.81
3.86
3.77
3.66
3.78
2.92
3.91
4.03
3.84
3.68
3.74
3.63
3.90
3.85
3.94
0.35
0.16
0.18
0.04
0.12
0.29
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.06
0.27
0.10
0.11
0.09
13.65
13.47
13.52
13.46
13.56
13.55
13.45
13.46
13.50
13.73
13.57
13.41
13.34
13.39
13.75
13.51
75.46
76.12
76.16
76.90
76.69
76.14
76.73
76.72
75.90
75.76
76.51
76.49
75.93
76.23
75.99
76.40
3.49
3.77
3.72
4.00
3.66
3.68
4.51
3.62
3.90
3.90
3.89
3.93
3.80
3.88
3.79
3.92
1.40
1.24
1.19
1.12
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.16
1.30
1.30
1.24
1.20
1.36
1.22
1.23
1.23
0.25
0.26
0.24
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.27
0.24
0.25
0.29
0.28
0.22
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.01
-0.03
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.05
-0.03
0.17
0.05
0.07
0.07
-0.01
0.05
1.40
1.10
0.99
0.46
0.74
1.15
0.73
0.62
0.92
0.86
0.51
0.60
1.31
0.93
0.84
0.52
99.89
100.00
99.90
99.99
99.75
100.00
99.93
99.93
100.00
99.74
99.96
99.73
99.95
100.00
99.84
99.88
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.57
0.17
12.66
77.76
3.75
0.89
0.19
0.04
0.85
99.89
0.10
0.36
3.43
3.79
20.00
0.02
0.07
0.14
0.22
20.00
0.15
0.49
12.39
12.88
20.00
0.20
0.86
77.23
78.09
20.00
0.12
0.43
3.49
3.92
20.00
0.04
0.14
0.82
0.97
20.00
0.02
0.08
0.14
0.22
20.00
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.10
20.00
0.08
0.32
0.63
0.95
20.00
0.09
0.29
99.71
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.04
BH08SB_2A
Tuscan Springs
Lower
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.50
3.79
3.59
3.43
3.71
3.68
3.58
3.69
3.49
3.47
3.54
3.61
3.47
3.50
3.66
3.58
3.60
3.43
3.50
3.56
0.16
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.16
0.22
0.16
0.19
12.83
12.43
12.77
12.73
12.86
12.88
12.54
12.39
12.53
12.43
12.50
12.63
12.78
12.67
12.63
12.72
12.77
12.75
12.77
12.60
77.84
78.09
77.63
77.96
77.23
77.47
77.83
77.81
77.81
77.98
77.95
77.56
77.68
77.75
77.69
77.70
77.69
78.06
77.72
77.78
3.65
3.49
3.86
3.77
3.75
3.70
3.86
3.74
3.92
3.86
3.61
3.85
3.82
3.88
3.67
3.74
3.51
3.64
3.87
3.81
0.88
0.83
0.94
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.85
0.91
0.94
0.89
0.88
0.97
0.91
0.94
0.89
0.90
0.93
0.90
0.82
0.83
0.18
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.77
0.92
0.73
0.78
0.82
0.94
0.91
0.95
0.86
0.90
0.82
0.88
0.82
0.87
0.95
0.92
0.86
0.63
0.77
0.92
99.84
100.00
99.91
99.93
99.73
99.94
99.93
99.86
99.93
100.00
99.71
99.86
99.92
99.99
99.86
99.99
99.75
99.88
99.83
99.96
BH08SB_4
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.75
0.29
13.45
76.14
3.45
1.34
0.26
0.05
1.16
99.89
0.22
0.72
3.33
4.05
18.00
0.04
0.16
0.16
0.32
18.00
0.23
0.99
12.72
13.71
18.00
0.47
2.03
75.82
77.85
18.00
0.14
0.49
3.22
3.71
18.00
0.12
0.59
0.89
1.48
18.00
0.03
0.12
0.20
0.32
18.00
0.03
0.12
0.01
0.13
18.00
0.10
0.37
0.94
1.31
18.00
0.09
0.30
99.70
100.00
18.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.11
0.02
0.11
0.24
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.05
87
BH08SB_4
Tuscan Springs
Middle
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.92
3.59
3.95
3.36
3.92
3.89
3.52
3.90
4.01
3.63
3.72
3.74
4.05
3.87
3.33
3.87
3.72
3.44
0.27
0.28
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.31
0.16
0.26
0.32
0.30
13.52
13.47
13.32
13.71
13.18
13.58
13.55
13.70
13.45
13.56
13.57
13.50
13.39
13.63
12.72
13.30
13.33
13.56
76.03
75.90
76.20
76.21
76.35
75.87
76.07
75.88
75.85
75.82
75.95
76.05
75.89
75.92
77.85
76.42
75.83
76.42
3.41
3.58
3.29
3.53
3.27
3.47
3.71
3.32
3.46
3.52
3.52
3.43
3.25
3.39
3.63
3.22
3.60
3.51
1.40
1.43
1.34
1.36
1.39
1.35
1.41
1.29
1.41
1.37
1.31
1.36
1.30
1.39
0.89
1.28
1.48
1.39
0.20
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.30
0.29
0.21
0.25
0.32
0.28
0.04
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.06
1.21
1.13
1.08
1.14
1.22
1.21
0.94
1.30
1.17
1.18
1.29
1.21
1.31
1.08
1.02
1.13
1.27
1.05
100.00
99.82
99.77
99.93
100.00
99.96
99.78
100.00
99.94
99.70
99.96
99.87
99.83
99.91
99.86
99.81
99.95
100.00
BH08SB_6
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Count
3.49
0.18
12.75
77.59
3.83
0.90
0.20
0.04
0.90
99.87
0.14
0.67
2.98
3.64
20.00
0.02
0.07
0.15
0.22
20.00
0.13
0.52
12.53
13.05
20.00
0.27
1.16
77.02
78.18
20.00
0.06
0.19
3.73
3.93
20.00
0.04
0.11
0.83
0.95
20.00
0.03
0.12
0.13
0.25
20.00
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.08
20.00
0.07
0.28
0.79
1.07
20.00
0.14
0.52
99.48
100.00
20.00
Confidence
Level(95.0%)
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.06
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
FeO
Total
3.52
3.56
3.58
3.40
3.53
3.48
3.53
3.59
3.64
2.98
3.57
3.61
3.46
3.62
3.39
3.47
3.50
3.54
3.35
3.55
0.20
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
12.66
12.60
12.68
12.79
12.53
12.65
12.73
13.05
12.63
12.74
12.83
12.70
12.84
12.74
12.70
13.01
12.72
12.65
12.75
12.93
77.38
77.66
77.14
77.39
77.82
77.82
77.59
77.02
77.57
78.18
77.61
77.69
77.51
77.40
77.77
77.56
77.49
77.77
77.97
77.55
3.81
3.78
3.79
3.88
3.80
3.74
3.76
3.88
3.84
3.93
3.73
3.77
3.90
3.92
3.82
3.78
3.88
3.82
3.88
3.81
0.93
0.90
0.95
0.85
0.92
0.89
0.91
0.90
0.95
0.85
0.93
0.91
0.91
0.93
0.86
0.90
0.86
0.94
0.84
0.83
0.16
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.22
0.19
0.17
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.20
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.89
0.92
0.87
1.07
0.87
0.96
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.79
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.01
0.90
0.81
0.93
99.60
99.79
99.48
99.75
99.83
100.00
99.82
99.84
99.96
99.88
99.93
100.00
99.93
99.88
99.91
99.96
99.90
99.98
100.00
100.00
BH08SB_6
Tuscan Springs
Upper
88
APPENDIX F
An Core to Rim Data
An Core to Rim Data
SP091C_2
SP091C_1
BH08SB_2
SP091A_1
Dist from Core (µm)An Content Dist from Core (µm) An Content Dist from Core (µm) An Content Dist from Core (µm) An Content
210
53.89
207
53.36
275
40.66
252
51.57
195
48.64
184
53.08
250
41.45
231
55.50
180
52.77
161
50.53
225
41.65
210
57.11
165
52.21
138
49.26
200
49.62
189
58.53
150
45.50
115
49.70
175
53.82
168
60.25
135
44.83
92
49.52
150
56.65
147
60.31
120
45.87
69
48.27
125
65.81
126
63.45
105
44.97
46
49.25
100
65.40
105
63.90
90
59.49
23
53.50
75
64.81
84
64.29
75
59.36
0
54.03
50
64.48
63
62.44
60
56.26
25
66.72
42
63.69
45
59.45
0
68.36
21
66.63
30
48.12
0
66.86
15
47.37
0
48.03
89
APPENDIX G
Geothermometric Calculations
Chemo-type
2 (Bear
Creek)
Chemo-type 1
(Gas Point)
Mol wt.
Wt% Oxides
Magnetite
Ilmenite
Magnetite
60.0843
SiO2
0.290
0.009
0.07
0.017
79.8658
TiO2
5.850
38.749
6.634
36.917
0.289
101.961276
Ilmenite
Al2O3
1.580
0.0219
1.921
159.6882
Fe2O3(T)
0.000
0
0
0
71.8444
FeO(T)
83.690
53.74
83.959
56.459
70.937449
MnO
0.700
0.781
0.598
0.578
40.3044
MgO
1.150
2.314
1.566
2.239
56.0774
CaO
0.060
0.026
0.02
0.011
61.97894
Na2O
0
-0.007
-0.011
-0.014
K2O
0
0
0
0
151.9904
94.196
Cr2O3
0
0
0
0
153.3264
BaO
0
0
0
0
81.3894
ZnO
0
0
0
0
149.8812
V2O3
0
0
0
0
74.6928
NiO
0
0
0
0
Nb2O3
0
0
0
0
93.32
95.6339
94.757
96.496
233.81096
Sum:
Carmichael (1967)
Recalculated Iron and Total
Recalculated Iron and Total
Fe2O3 wt. %
55.0
26.5
54.8
30.9
FeO wt. %
34.2
29.9
34.7
28.6
Total:
98.8
98.3
100.2
99.6
Ulvöspinel
Ilmenite
Ulvöspinel
Ilmenite
2.2841
1.5354
2.2421
1.5177
4
3
4
3
Sum of Atomic mol
proportion:
No. of Oxygen:
Cation prop. (Carmichael
1967)
cations
Cation prop. (Carmichael
1967)
1
Si
0.0110
0.0002
0.0026
0.0004
1
Ti
0.1673
0.7450
0.1862
0.7015
2
Al
0.0708
0.0007
0.0845
0.0086
2
Fe+3
1.5725
0.5091
1.5380
0.5877
1
Fe+2
1.0882
0.6394
1.0821
0.6050
1
Mn
0.0225
0.0169
0.0189
0.0124
1
Mg
0.0652
0.0882
0.0871
0.0843
1
Ca
0.0024
0.0007
0.0008
0.0003
2
Na
0.0000
-0.0003
-0.0008
-0.0007
2
K
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
Cr
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
Ba
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
Zn
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
90
2
V
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
Ni
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
Nb
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total:
3.0000
1.9998
2.9995
1.9995
Mol % Usp
Mol % Ilm
Mol % Usp
Mol % Ilm
Carmichael (1967)
Calc. Methods:
17.83%
74.52%
18.88%
70.20%
Anderson (1968)
13.30%
71.56%
14.52%
67.30%
Lindsley & Spencer (1982)
17.35%
74.12%
19.31%
70.23%
Stormer (1983)
17.04%
73.06%
18.87%
68.92%
Geothermometer by:
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Temp (°C)
Temp (°C)
Carmichael (1967)
861
908
Anderson (1968)
831
878
Lindsley & Spencer (1982)
859
912
Stormer (1983)
864
918
91
Chemo-type
2 (Mud
Creek 1C)
Chemo-type 1
(Tuscan
Springs)
Mol wt.
Wt% Oxides
Magnetite
Ilmenite
60.0843
SiO2
0.1715
0.02025
0.0605
0.005
79.8658
TiO2
10.74775
38.007
5.7285
39.056
Al2O3
1.63725
0.23375
1.509
0.2055
101.961276
Magnetite
159.6882
Fe2O3(T)
0
0
71.8444
FeO(T)
77.3475
54.66575
84.0545
54.4265
70.937449
MnO
0.58375
0.518
0.6975
0.682
40.3044
MgO
1.33975
1.8885
1.3275
56.0774
CaO
0
0
0
0
61.97894
Na2O
0
0
0
0
K2O
0
0
0
0
0.029
0.0045
0.018
0.0395
0
94.196
0
Ilmenite
0
2.216
151.9904
Cr2O3
153.3264
BaO
0
0
0
81.3894
ZnO
0
0
0
0
149.8812
V2O3
0.583
0.17275
0.3545
0.198
74.6928
NiO
0
0
0
0
233.81096
Nb2O3
Sum:
Carmichael (1967)
0
0
0
0
92.4395
95.5105
93.75
96.8285
Recalculated Iron and Total
Recalculated Iron and Total
Fe2O3 wt. %
43.8
27.1
55.9
26.6
FeO wt. %
37.9
30.3
33.8
30.5
Total:
96.8
98.2
99.3
99.5
Ulvöspinel
Ilmenite
Ulvöspinel
Ilmenite
2.3152
1.5406
2.2727
1.5169
4
3
4
3
Sum of Atomic mol
proportion:
No. of Oxygen:
cations
Cation prop. (Carmichael 1967)
Cation prop. (Carmichael
1967)
1
Si
0.0066
0.0005
0.0023
0.0001
1
Ti
0.3116
0.7331
0.1630
0.7418
2
Al
0.0744
0.0071
0.0673
0.0061
2
Fe+3
1.2704
0.5220
1.5908
0.5052
1
Fe+2
1.2222
0.6502
1.0681
0.6439
1
Mn
0.0191
0.0112
0.0223
0.0146
1
Mg
0.0770
0.0722
0.0749
0.0834
1
Ca
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
Na
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
K
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
Cr
0.0009
0.0001
0.0005
0.0008
1
Ba
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
Zn
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
V
0.0180
0.0036
0.0108
0.0040
92
1
Ni
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
Nb
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total:
3.0000
2.0000
3.0000
2.0000
Mol % Usp
Mol % Ilm
Mol % Usp
Mol % Ilm
Carmichael (1967)
Calc. Methods:
31.82%
73.37%
16.53%
74.19%
Anderson (1968)
Lindsley & Spencer
(1982)
28.69%
71.32%
12.38%
71.82%
32.44%
73.52%
16.88%
74.29%
Stormer (1983)
32.51%
72.57%
16.38%
73.23%
Geothermometer by:
X'Usp & X'Ilm from:
Temp (°C)
Temp (°C)
Carmichael (1967)
1008
849
Anderson (1968)
Lindsley & Spencer
(1982)
999
817
1012
852
Stormer (1983)
1023
855
93
REFERENCES
Anderson, C.A., 1933, The Tuscan Formation of northern California with a discussion
concerning the origin of volcanic breccias: University of California Publications Bulletin,
Department of Geological Sciences, v. 23, p. 215-276.
Anderson, C.A., and Russell, R. D., 1939, Tertiary formations of northern Sacramento Valley,
California. California. Journal of Mines and Geology, v. 35, p. 219-253.
Anderson, A.T., 1968, Oxidation of the La Blanche Lake Titaniferous Magnetite Deposit,
Quebec, Journal of Geology, v. 76, p. 528-547.
Belkin, H., 2008, Personal Communication
Borchardt, G. A., Harward, M.E., and Schmitt, R.A., 1971, Correlation of volcanic ash
deposits by activation analysis of glass separates: Quaternary Research, v. 1, p. 247-260.
Borchardt, G,A., Aruscavage, P.J., and Millard Jr, H.T., 1972, Correlation of the Bishop Ash, a
Pleistocene marker bed, using instrumental neutron activation analysis: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 42, p. 301–306.
Borrelli, N., Osterrieth, M., and Marcovecchio, J., 2008, Catena Interrelations of vegetative
cover, silicophytolith content and pedogenesis of typical Argiudolls of the Pampean lain,
Argentina, Giessen, v.75, p. 146-153.
Brown, W.J., and Rosen, M.R., 1995, Pliocene-Pleistocene Fluvial Lacustrine Connection
between Death Valley and the Colorado River: Quaternary Research, v. 43, p.286-296.
Buddington, A.F., and Lindsley, D.H., 1964, Iron-Titanium Oxide Minerals and Synthetic
Equivalents, Journal of Petrology, v. 5, p. 310-357.
Burnett, J.L., and Jennings, C W., 1963, Chico sheet: California Division. Mines and Geology
Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins, ed., scale 1:250,000
Carey, A., and Samson, S.D., 2009, Utility and Limitations of Apatite Phenocrst Chemistry for
Continent-Scale Correlation of Ordovician K-Bentonites: The Journal of Geology, v.
117, p.1-14.
Carmichael, I.S., 1967, The Iron-Titanium Oxides of Salic Volcanic Rocks and Their Associated
Ferromagnesian Silicates, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 14,p. 36-64.
Conrey, R.M., 2001, Trace element and isotopic evidence for two types of crustal melting beneath
a High Cascade volcanic center, Mt. Jefferson, Oregon: Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, v. 141, p. 710-732.
Clynne, M.A., 1990, Stratigraphic, Lithologic, and Major Element Geochemical Constraints on
Magmatic Evolution at Lassen Volcanic Center, California: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 95, p. 19651-19669.
94
Clynne, M.A., 1999, A Complex Magma Mixing Origin for Rocks Erupted in 1915, Lassen Peak,
California: Journal of Petrology, v. 40, p. 105-132.
Christensen, J.N., and DePaolo, D.J., 1993, Time scales of large volume silicic magma systems:
Sr isotopic systematics of phenocrysts and glass from the Bishop Tuff, Long Valley,
California: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 113, p. 100-114.
Creeley, R.S., 1965, Geology of the Oroville quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology Bulletin 184, p. 86.
Deer A.W., Howie, R.A., and Zussman, J., 1975, An Introduction to the Rock Forming Minerals:
London, Longman Group Limited, 318 p.
Evernden, J.F., Savage, D.E., Curtis, G.H., and James, G.J., 1964, Potassium-argon dates and the
Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America: American Journal of Science, v.
262, p.145-198
Franke, C., 2007, Efficiency of heavy liquid separation to concentrate magnetic particles:
Geophysical Journal International, v. 170, p. 1053-1066.
Froggatt, P.C., 1992, Standardization of the chemical analysis of tephra deposits. Report of the
ICCT working Group: Quaternary International, v. 13/14, p. 93-96.
Freeley,T..C., 2008, Distribution and compositions of magmatic inclusions in the Mount Helen
dome, Lassen Volcanic Center, California: Insights into magma chamber processes:
Lithos, v. 106, p. 173-189.
Hahn, G.A., Rose, W.I., Jr., and Meyers, T., 1979, Geochemical correlation of genetically related
rhyolitic ash-flow and air-fall ashes, central and western Guatemala and the equatorial
Pacific: Geological Society of America Special Paper 180, p. 101-112.
Hanson, B.J., Delano, J.W., and Lindstrom, D.J., 1996, High-precision analysis of hydrous
rhyolitic glass inclusions in quartz phenocrysts using the electron microprobe and
INAA: American Mineralogist, v. 81, p 1249-1262.
Harwood, D.W., and Helley, F.J., 1985, Geologic Map of Late Cenozoic Deposits of the
Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierran Foothills, California: United States Geologic
Survey Open File Report MF-1790, 2 p.
Harwood, D. W., and Helley, E.J., 1987, Late Cenozoic tectonism of the Sacramento Valley,
California: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1359, p. 46.
Hildreth, W., 1979, The Bishop Tuff: evidence for the origin of compositional zonation in silicic
magma chambers: Geological Society of America Special Paper 180, p. 43-75
95
Hildreth, W., and Wilson, C.J.N., 2005, Compositional Zoning of the Bishop Tuff: Journal of
Petrology, v. 48, p. 951-999.
Hull, R., and Teasdale, R., 2008 Personal Communication
Johnson, C.M., Lipman, P.W., and Czamanske, G.K., 1990, H, O, Sr, Nd, and Pb isotope
geochemistry of the Latir volcanic field and cogenetic intrusions, New Mexico, and
relations between evolution of a continental magmatic center and modifications of the
lithosphere: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 104, p. 99-124.
Knott, J. R., 2006, The Nomlaki and Lower Nomlaki Tuffs: Marker Beds of the Western
United States. Unpublished manuscript
Knott, J.R., and Sarna-Wojcicki, A.R., 2001, Field trip guide for Day C, central Death Valley;
Stop C3, Late Pliocene tephrostratigraphy and geomorphic development of the Artist
Drive structural block: Open-file report, C105-C111.
Knott, J.R., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Machette, M.N., and Klinger, R.E., 2005, Upper Neogene
Stratigraphy and Tectonics of Death Valley-A Review, Earth-Science Reviews v. 73, p.
245–270.
Kuehn, S.C., and Foit, F..F., 2006, Correlation of widespread Holocene and Pleistocene
tephra layers from Newberry Volcano, Oregon, using glass compositions and
statistical methods: Quaternary International, v. 148, p. 113-137.
Lepage, L.D., 2003, ILMAT: an Excel Worksheet for Ilmenite-Magnetite Geothermometry and
Geobarometry, Journal of Computers and Geosciences, v.29, p. 673-678.
Lindsley, D.H., and Spencer, K.J., 1982, A Solution model for Coexisting Iron-Titanium Oxides,
American Mineralogist, v. 66, p. 1189-1201.
Lydon, P.A., 1967, The origin of Tuscan Buttes and the volume of the Tuscan Formation in
northern California. Special report, v. 91, p. 17-26.
Lydon, P.A., 1968, Geology and Lahars of the Tuscan Formation, Northern California:
Geological Society of America , v. 116, p. 441-475.
Lydon, P.A., 1979, Geology of the Butt Mountain Area, a source of the Tuscan formation in
Northern California, California Divisions of Mines, Special Report 91, p. 4-60.
Milner, D.M., Cole, J.W., and Wood, C.P., 2003, Mamaku Ignimbrite: a caldera-forming
ignimbrite erupted from a compositionally zoned magma chamber in Taupo Volcanic
Zone, New Zealand: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 122, p. 243264.
96
Myers, A.T., Havens, R.G., Connor, J.J., Conklin, N.M., and Rose, H. J., Jr., 1976, Glass
reference standards for the trace-element analysis of geological materials; compilation of
interlaboratory data, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1013, p. 29.
Powell, R., Powell, M., 1977, Geothermometry and oxygen barometry using coexisting iron
-titanium oxides: A Reappraisal, Mineralogical Magazine 41, v. 318, p. 257263.
Powell, R., Holland, T., 1994, Optimal Geothermometry and Geobarometry, American
Mineralogist, v. 79, p. 120-133
Rosen, M.R., 1991, Sedimentologic and geochemical constraints on the evolution of Bristol Dry
Lake Bssin, Ca, U.S.A.: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Paloecology, v. 84, p. 229257.
Russell, R. D., and VanderHoof, V.L., 1931, A vertebrate fauna from a new Pliocene Formation
in northern California: University of California Publications Bulletin, Department of
Geological Sciences, v. 20, p. 11-21.
Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., 1976, Correlation of late Cenozoic tuffs in the central Coast Ranges of
California by means of trace and minor element chemistry: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 972, 30 p.
Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., and Davis, J.O., 1991, Quaternary Tephrochronology. In Morrison, R.B.,
ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology; Conterminous U.S., Boulder, Colorado, Geological
Socity of America, The Geology of North America, v. K-2, p. 93-116.
Stormer Jr, J.C., 1983, The Effects of Recalculation on Estimates of Temperature and Oxygen
fugacity from Analyses of Multicomponent Iron-Titanium Oxides, American
Mineralogist, v.68, p. 586-594.
Sumner, J.M., and Wolff, J., 2003, Petrogenesis of mixed-magma, high-grade, peralkaline
ignimbrite ‘TL’ (Gran Canaria): diverse styles of mixing in a replenished, zoned magma
chamber: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 126, p. 109-126.
Williams, C.,1978, Geology of the Nomlaki Tuff and other silicic ashflows of the Tuscan
Formation, Northern California [Masters Thesis]: Santa Barbara, University of
California.
Williams, S.K., 1994, Late Cenozoic tephrostratigraphy of deep sediment cores from the
Bonneville Basin, northwest Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p.
1517-1530.