Application of the Ti-in-quartz thermobarometer to rutile-free systems. Reply to: A comment on: 'TitaniQ under pressure: The effect of pressure and temperature on the solubility of Ti in quartz' by Thomas et al

Jay Thomas, E. Bruce Watson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The premise of the Wilson et al. comment is that the Ti-in-quartz solubility calibration (Thomas et al. in Contrib Mineral Petrol 160:743-759, 2010) is fundamentally flawed. They reach this conclusion because P-T estimates using the Ti-in-quartz calibration differ from their previous interpretations for crystallization conditions of the Bishop and Oruanui rhyolites. If correct, this assertion has far-reaching implications, so a careful assessment of the Wilson et al. reasoning is warranted. Application of the Ti-in-quartz calibration as a thermobarometer in rutile-free rocks requires an estimation of TiO 2 activity in the liquid (a TiO2 (liquid-rutile); referenced to rutile saturation) and an independent constraint on either P or T to obtain the crystallization temperature or pressure, respectively. The foundation of Wilson et al.'s argument is that temperature estimates obtained from Fe-Ti oxide thermometry accurately reflect crystallization conditions of quartz in the two rhyolites discussed. We maintain that our experimental approach is sound, the thermodynamic basis of the Ti-in-quartz calibration is fundamentally correct, and our experimental results are robust and reproducible. We suggest that the reason Wilson et al. obtain implausible pressure estimates is because estimates for T and a TiO2 they used as input values for the Ti-in-quartz calibration are demonstrably too high. Numerous studies show that Fe-Ti oxide temperature estimates of some rhyolites are substantially higher than those predicted by well-constrained phase equilibria. In this reply, we show that when reasonable input values for T and a TiO2 (liquid-rutile) are used, pressure estimates obtained from the Ti-in-quartz calibration are well aligned with phase equilibria and essentially identical to melt inclusion volatile saturation pressures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)369-374
Number of pages6
JournalContributions to Mineralogy and Petrology
Volume164
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quartz
rutile
solubility
quartz
Solubility
Calibration
calibration
estimates
Crystallization
temperature
crystallization
Temperature
phase equilibrium
Phase equilibria
Oxides
liquid
Liquids
liquids
oxide
saturation

Keywords

  • Quartz
  • Thermobarometry
  • Thermometry
  • Ti-in-quartz
  • Trace elements

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Geophysics

Cite this

@article{e6af96b59dfb4690b46b1bfbe992e7cd,
title = "Application of the Ti-in-quartz thermobarometer to rutile-free systems. Reply to: A comment on: 'TitaniQ under pressure: The effect of pressure and temperature on the solubility of Ti in quartz' by Thomas et al",
abstract = "The premise of the Wilson et al. comment is that the Ti-in-quartz solubility calibration (Thomas et al. in Contrib Mineral Petrol 160:743-759, 2010) is fundamentally flawed. They reach this conclusion because P-T estimates using the Ti-in-quartz calibration differ from their previous interpretations for crystallization conditions of the Bishop and Oruanui rhyolites. If correct, this assertion has far-reaching implications, so a careful assessment of the Wilson et al. reasoning is warranted. Application of the Ti-in-quartz calibration as a thermobarometer in rutile-free rocks requires an estimation of TiO 2 activity in the liquid (a TiO2 (liquid-rutile); referenced to rutile saturation) and an independent constraint on either P or T to obtain the crystallization temperature or pressure, respectively. The foundation of Wilson et al.'s argument is that temperature estimates obtained from Fe-Ti oxide thermometry accurately reflect crystallization conditions of quartz in the two rhyolites discussed. We maintain that our experimental approach is sound, the thermodynamic basis of the Ti-in-quartz calibration is fundamentally correct, and our experimental results are robust and reproducible. We suggest that the reason Wilson et al. obtain implausible pressure estimates is because estimates for T and a TiO2 they used as input values for the Ti-in-quartz calibration are demonstrably too high. Numerous studies show that Fe-Ti oxide temperature estimates of some rhyolites are substantially higher than those predicted by well-constrained phase equilibria. In this reply, we show that when reasonable input values for T and a TiO2 (liquid-rutile) are used, pressure estimates obtained from the Ti-in-quartz calibration are well aligned with phase equilibria and essentially identical to melt inclusion volatile saturation pressures.",
keywords = "Quartz, Thermobarometry, Thermometry, Ti-in-quartz, Trace elements",
author = "Jay Thomas and Watson, {E. Bruce}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s00410-012-0761-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "164",
pages = "369--374",
journal = "Contributions of Mineralogy and Petrology",
issn = "0010-7999",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of the Ti-in-quartz thermobarometer to rutile-free systems. Reply to

T2 - A comment on: 'TitaniQ under pressure: The effect of pressure and temperature on the solubility of Ti in quartz' by Thomas et al

AU - Thomas, Jay

AU - Watson, E. Bruce

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - The premise of the Wilson et al. comment is that the Ti-in-quartz solubility calibration (Thomas et al. in Contrib Mineral Petrol 160:743-759, 2010) is fundamentally flawed. They reach this conclusion because P-T estimates using the Ti-in-quartz calibration differ from their previous interpretations for crystallization conditions of the Bishop and Oruanui rhyolites. If correct, this assertion has far-reaching implications, so a careful assessment of the Wilson et al. reasoning is warranted. Application of the Ti-in-quartz calibration as a thermobarometer in rutile-free rocks requires an estimation of TiO 2 activity in the liquid (a TiO2 (liquid-rutile); referenced to rutile saturation) and an independent constraint on either P or T to obtain the crystallization temperature or pressure, respectively. The foundation of Wilson et al.'s argument is that temperature estimates obtained from Fe-Ti oxide thermometry accurately reflect crystallization conditions of quartz in the two rhyolites discussed. We maintain that our experimental approach is sound, the thermodynamic basis of the Ti-in-quartz calibration is fundamentally correct, and our experimental results are robust and reproducible. We suggest that the reason Wilson et al. obtain implausible pressure estimates is because estimates for T and a TiO2 they used as input values for the Ti-in-quartz calibration are demonstrably too high. Numerous studies show that Fe-Ti oxide temperature estimates of some rhyolites are substantially higher than those predicted by well-constrained phase equilibria. In this reply, we show that when reasonable input values for T and a TiO2 (liquid-rutile) are used, pressure estimates obtained from the Ti-in-quartz calibration are well aligned with phase equilibria and essentially identical to melt inclusion volatile saturation pressures.

AB - The premise of the Wilson et al. comment is that the Ti-in-quartz solubility calibration (Thomas et al. in Contrib Mineral Petrol 160:743-759, 2010) is fundamentally flawed. They reach this conclusion because P-T estimates using the Ti-in-quartz calibration differ from their previous interpretations for crystallization conditions of the Bishop and Oruanui rhyolites. If correct, this assertion has far-reaching implications, so a careful assessment of the Wilson et al. reasoning is warranted. Application of the Ti-in-quartz calibration as a thermobarometer in rutile-free rocks requires an estimation of TiO 2 activity in the liquid (a TiO2 (liquid-rutile); referenced to rutile saturation) and an independent constraint on either P or T to obtain the crystallization temperature or pressure, respectively. The foundation of Wilson et al.'s argument is that temperature estimates obtained from Fe-Ti oxide thermometry accurately reflect crystallization conditions of quartz in the two rhyolites discussed. We maintain that our experimental approach is sound, the thermodynamic basis of the Ti-in-quartz calibration is fundamentally correct, and our experimental results are robust and reproducible. We suggest that the reason Wilson et al. obtain implausible pressure estimates is because estimates for T and a TiO2 they used as input values for the Ti-in-quartz calibration are demonstrably too high. Numerous studies show that Fe-Ti oxide temperature estimates of some rhyolites are substantially higher than those predicted by well-constrained phase equilibria. In this reply, we show that when reasonable input values for T and a TiO2 (liquid-rutile) are used, pressure estimates obtained from the Ti-in-quartz calibration are well aligned with phase equilibria and essentially identical to melt inclusion volatile saturation pressures.

KW - Quartz

KW - Thermobarometry

KW - Thermometry

KW - Ti-in-quartz

KW - Trace elements

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864345628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864345628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00410-012-0761-5

DO - 10.1007/s00410-012-0761-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84864345628

VL - 164

SP - 369

EP - 374

JO - Contributions of Mineralogy and Petrology

JF - Contributions of Mineralogy and Petrology

SN - 0010-7999

IS - 2

ER -