Open Access Published by De Gruyter February 9, 2017

Revisiting the electron microprobe method of spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene oxybarometry applied to spinel peridotites

Fred A. Davis, Elizabeth Cottrell, Suzanne K. Birner, Jessica M. Warren and Oscar G. Lopez
From the journal American Mineralogist

Abstract

Natural peridotite samples containing olivine, orthopyroxene, and spinel can be used to assess the oxygen fugacity (fO2) of the upper mantle. The calculation requires accurate and precise quantification of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios. Wood and Virgo (1989) presented a correction procedure for electron microprobe (EPMA) measurements of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that relies on a reported correlation between the difference in Fe3+/∑Fe ratio by Mössbauer spectroscopy and by electron microprobe (ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA) and the Cr# [Cr/(Al+Cr)] of spinel. This procedure has not been universally adopted, in part, because of debate as to the necessity and effectiveness of the correction. We have performed a series of replicate EPMA analyses of several spinels, previously characterized by Mössbauer spectroscopy, to test the accuracy and precision of the Wood and Virgo correction. While we do not consistently observe a correlation between Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA in measurements of the correction standards, we nonetheless find that accuracy of Fe3+/ZFe ratios determined for spinel samples treated as unknowns improves when the correction is applied. Uncorrected measurements have a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA = 0.031 and corrected measurements have a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA = −0.004. We explain how the reliance of the correction on a global correlation between Cr# and MgO concentration in peridotitic spinels improves the accuracy of Fe3+/ZFe ratios despite the absence of a correlation between ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and Cr# in some analytical sessions.

Precision of corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios depends on the total concentration of Fe, and varies from ±0.012 to ±0.032 (1σ) in the samples analyzed; precision of uncorrected analyses is poorer by approximately a factor of two. We also present an examination of the uncertainties in the calculation contributed by the other variables used to derive fO2. Because there is a logarithmic relationship between the activity of magnetite and logfO2, the uncertainty in fO2 relative to the QFM buffer contributed by the electron microprobe analysis of spinel is asymmetrical and larger at low ferric Fe concentrations (+0.3/−0.4 log units, 1σ, at Fe3+/∑Fe = 0.10) than at higher ferric Fe concentrations (±0.1 log units, 1σ, at Fe3+/EFe = 0.40). Electron microprobe analysis of olivine and orthopyroxene together contribute another ±0.1 to ±0.2 log units of uncertainty (1σ). Uncertainty in the temperature and pressure of equilibration introduce additional errors on the order of tenths of log units to the calculation of relative fO2. We also document and correct errors that appear in the literature when formulating fO2 that, combined, could yield errors in absolute fO2 of greater than 0.75 log units—even with perfectly accurate Fe3+/∑Fe ratios. Finally, we propose a strategy for calculating the activity of magnetite in spinel that preserves information gained during analysis about the ferric iron content of the spinel. This study demonstrates the superior accuracy and precision of corrected EPMA measurements of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios compared to uncorrected measurements. It also provides an objective method for quantifying uncertainties in the calculation of fO2 from spinel peridotite mineral compositions.

Introduction

Estimates of mantle oxygen fugacity (fO2) are necessary to predict stable phase assemblages in the mantle, particularly C- and S-bearing phases. Records of mantle fO2 include mineral oxybarometers (e.g., Buddington and Lindsley 1964; O’Neill and Wall 1987; Gudmundsson and Wood 1995), Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of basaltic glasses (e.g., Christie et al. 1986; Bézos and Humler 2005; Cottrell et al. 2009), and abundances and ratios of redox-sensitive trace elements in basalts and peridotites (e.g.,Shervais 1982; Canil 1999; Li and Lee 2004). Mineral oxybarometers that can be applied to peridotite samples provide direct estimates of fO2 in the upper mantle and play a key role in deciphering past and present mantle fO2 conditions.

We can determine upper mantle fO2 directly from peridotites containing the assemblage olivine+orthopyroxene+spinel if we know or assume the pressure-temperature conditions following the reaction:

6Fe2SiO4+O23Fe2Si2O6+2Fe3O4.OlOpxSpl(1)

Several studies have parameterized fO2 based on this equilibrium (O’Neill and Wall 1987; Mattioli and Wood 1988; Wood 1991), and Wood (1990) tested this equilibrium experimentally. An accurate measurement of the oxidation state of Fe in the spinel phase is required to apply these parameterizations. The ratio of ferric iron to total iron (Fe3+/∑Fe = Fe3+/[Fe3+ + Fe2+]) in spinel can be measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy (e.g., Wood and Virgo 1989); however, traditional Mössbauer analysis is restricted to large volumes of sample. Removing spinel from its host rock for bulk Mössbauer analysis is labor intensive, can lead to averaging of spinels that are chemically heterogeneous on the hand-sample scale, and may lead to contamination of the Mössbauer spectra by other phases (Wood and Virgo 1989; Ballhaus et al. 1991; Woodland et al. 1992). In addition, Mössbauer analysis requires equipment that is expensive to run and expertise that may not be readily available. Thus, Wood and Virgo (1989) developed the electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) technique for determining Fe3+/∑Fe ratios in spinel by in situ analysis.

Spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios can be determined from an EPMA measurement by assuming ideal stoichiometry of the spinel phase and assigning cations of Fe as ferric in a proportion that balances the negative charge that arises from the initial assumption that all the iron is ferrous (Stormer 1983). This method can lead to large uncertainties on calculated Fe3+/∑Fe ratios because the analytical errors for each oxide propagate through the calculation (e.g., Dyar et al. 1989; Wood and Virgo 1989). Wood and Virgo (1989) lessened this uncertainty by correcting their analyses using a set of spinel standards with Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that they determined by Mössbauer spectroscopy. Their correction, hereafter referred to as “W&V89” used a reported correlation between the difference in Fe3+/∑Fe ratio by Mössbauer and by EPMA (ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA) and the Cr# (Cr/[Al+Cr]) of the spinels.

subsequent studies of spinel peridotite oxybarometry have disagreed over the value and effectiveness of the W&V89 correction. The W&V89 correction has been applied as originally described in many studies (e.g., Woodland et al. 1992; Parkinson and Pearce 1998; Dareet al. 2009). Others have challenged the premise of the correction or modified its application. Ballhaus et al. (1991) questioned the need to apply any correction to Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by EPMA, noting in particular a close agreement between logfO2 calculated from both EPMA and Mössbauer analyses of the same spinel samples. Luhr and Aranda-Gómez (1997) required a correction to their spinel analyses to reproduce the Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios oftheir spinel standards, but did not observe the correlation between ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and the Cr# described by Wood and Virgo (1989). They chose to apply a single, constant-offset correction to their spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios rather than apply the W&V89 correction in the absence of an underlying correlation.

Below we demonstrate that the W&V89 correction substantially improves both accuracy and precision of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA. Biases in uncorrected EPMA determinations of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios do not result from any inherent bias in the EPMA analysis or the applied matrix corrections, but instead result from session-to-session variations in analyses of primary standards. We present replicate analyses by EPMA of several spinels previously characterized by Mössbauer spectroscopy, which demonstrate the effectiveness of the W&V89 correction and elucidate the underlying mechanisms that drive the W&V89 correction. In particular, we focus on the relationship between ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and Cr# described by Wood andVirgo (1989) and how the W&V89 correction functions when this correlation is weak or absent. We also demonstrate that a global correlation between Cr# and MgO concentration in natural peridotite-hosted spinels allows the W&V89 correction to improve accuracy and precision of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios,even when elements other than Al and Cr are responsible for the analytical bias.

Our replicate analyses of Mössbauer-characterized spinels allow us to estimate the precision of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA and corrected following the W&V89 method. We also discuss the propagation of uncertainties in the measurements of spinel, olivine, and orthopyroxene and in the estimates of pressure and temperature of equilibration through the fO2 calculation.We present new analyses of several spinel peridotites from Hawaii to demonstrate the effect of precision in the analysis of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe concentration on calculated fO2. We present analyses of spinels from a peridotite from Tonga to demonstrate the diminished precision of theFe3+/∑Fe measurement of unknown spinels with compositions that depart from the Cr#-MgO trend of the correction standards.

Samples and methods

Samples analyzed

We analyzed 32 spinel samples, kindly provided by B. Wood, for major and minor elements by electron microprobe with the goal of determining Fe3+/∑Fe ratios. These spinels, which we refer to collectively as the “Wood spinels,” were previously examined by Wood and Virgo (1989), Bryndzia and Wood (1990), and Ionov and Wood (1992). Each has been previously analyzed by Mössbauer spectroscopy, which provides an independent estimate of the Fe3+/∑Fe ratio. The Wood spinels are separates from peridotites representing a diversity of major element compositions (Cr# = 0.04−0.57), Fe oxidation states (Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe = 0.058−0.32), and geological environments (continental and arc peridotite xenoliths, abyssal peridotites).

Four spinel peridotite samples from Hawaii were analyzed to test the individual contributions of each mineral phase (e.g., olivine and orthopyroxene in addition to spinel) to the total uncertainty in the fO2 calculation. The Hawaiian samples are spinel lherzolite xenoliths from Salt Lake Crater, Oahu, originally collected by E. Dale Jackson and now part of the National Rock and Ore Collection at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History. We also analyzed spinels from a harzburgite (BMRG08-98-2-2) dredged from the Tonga trench during the 1996 Boomerang cruise (Bloomer et al. 1996; Wright et al. 2000); the spinel in this sample has Cr# and MgO concentrations that depart significantly from the trend of the spinels used to correct Fe3+/∑Fe ratios.

Analytical methods

We analyzed spinel, olivine, and orthopyroxene at the Smithsonian Institution using a JEOL 8900 superprobe with five wavelength-dispersive spectrometers (WDS). Table 1 provides information on our primary standards, count times, and detector crystals, and additional information about the electron microprobe analyses is given in the supplementary Material[1].

Table 1

Elements, detector crystals, count times, and primary standards used in EPMA analysis

ElementDetector crystalPeak count time (s)Background time (s)Primary standard (Smithsonian catalog number)
Spinel analysis
SiTAP3015San Carlos olivine (NMNH 11131244)
TiPETJ4020Kakanui hornblende(NMNH 143965)
AlTAP4020Spinel[a](NMNH 136804)
CrLiFH3015Tiebaghi Mine chromite (NMNH 117075)
FeLiFH3015San Carlos olivine
MnLiF3015Manganitea(NMNH 157972)
MgTAP3015San Carlos olivine
CaPETJ3015Wollastonite[a] (synthetic, F.R.Boyd, nocatalogno.)
NaTAP3015Kakanui hornblende
NiLiF4020San Carlos olivine
Olivine and orthopyroxene analysis
SiTAP2010Olivine (S.C. olivine, orthopyroxene); Johnstown Meteorite hypersthene (USNM 746)
TiPETJ2010Kakanui hornblende
AlTAP2010Spinel[a]
CrLiFH2010Tiebaghi Mine chromite
FeLiFH2010San Carlos olivine
MnLiF2010Manganite[a]
MgTAP2010San Carlos olivine
CaPETJ2010Wollastonite[a]
NaTAP2010Roberts Victor Mine omphacite (NMNH 110607)
KPETJ2010Asbestos microcline[b] (NMNH143966)
NiLiF2010San Carlos olivine

Note:All standards from Jarosewich et al.(1980), except as noted below.

We analyzed spinels in two different types of analytical sessions. First, we analyzed the 32 Wood spinels without correcting Fe3+/∑Fe ratios (sessions S1-S3, Table[1]. 2 and supplementary[1]. Table S1) to determine the range of compositions present, to reveal compositional systematics, and to check for intra- and intergranular heterogeneity of the samples. Out of the 32 Wood spinels, we chose 7 as correction standards (hereafter, the correction set; selection criteria given in Results). The correction set spinels are the standards that we use to determine the Fe3+/∑Fe correction to be applied to a given analytical session. In this second type of analytical session the correction set was analyzed along with another subset of the Wood spinels treated as unknowns (hereafter, the validation set) and the Tongan and Hawaiian spinels (sessions A1–A4 and B1–B4, supplementary[1]. Table S2).

In sessions S1–S3, we analyzed one to six individual grains of each of the Wood spinels. From each grain, we analyzed 3–10 points, depending upon the total number of grains analyzed (supplementary[1]. Table S1), except for the samples made from crushed Mössbauer powders. We collected only one analytical point on each grain of these powdered samples. We analyzed secondary standards of chromite, Cr-augite, and hypersthene (Jarosewich et al. 1980, 1987) every 2–4 h during the session to monitor instrumental drift.

In sessions A1–A4 and B1–B4, we collected three analytical points on each sample in the correction set both before and after analyzing unknowns, corresponding to re-analysis of the correction standards after 12–14 h. We analyzed secondary standards at regular intervals as described above. In these sessions, individual analyses were discarded when totals fell outside the range 97–101%; this range is asymmetrical around 100% because we expect samples with high Fe3+ to give relatively low totals when total Fe is calculated as FeO. We also excluded individual analyses that contained SiO2 > 0.3 wt% to avoid analyses that may have sampled surrounding silicate material. To ensure that each session could be considered separately in terms of intersession reproducibility, the filament was turned down and allowed to cool for at least 12 h and then saturated again at the start of each new session, even when these sessions occurred on consecutive days.

We analyzed the major-element compositions of olivine and orthopyroxene from the four Hawaiian xenoliths in a single analytical session by analyzing the core compositions of 10 different grains of each mineral in each sample (Table 3).

Table 3

Compositions of Hawaiian xenolith olivine and orthopyroxene by EPMA

Sample68-551-2069-SAL-4169-SAL-5669-SAL-57
NMNH catalog no.114885-3114923-41114923-56114923-57
PhaseOlivineOrthopyroxeneOlivineOrthopyroxeneOlivineOrthopyroxeneOlivineOrthopyroxene
n10101010891010
SiO240.6(4)55.40(28)40.3(4)54.5(5)40.03(24)54.0(4)40.74(29)55.6(4)
TiO2n.d.0.025(11)n.d.0.112(14)n.d.0.160(14)n.d.0.056(19)
Al2O3n.d.2.66(11)n.d.4.77(18)n.d.5.3(4)n.d.3.31(14)
Cr2O3n.d.0.74(5)n.d.0.42(4)0.013(12)0.41(6)n.d.0.66(4)
FeO*8.89(7)5.70(7)9.75(5)6.20(5)10.12(6)6.499(17)8.53(4)5.50(4)
MnO0.136(19)0.141(15)0.149(15)0.148(23)0.134(12)0.162(29)0.131(18)0.149(16)
MgO50.0(3)33.07(25)49.38(20)32.66(25)48.78(24)31.95(5)50.9(4)34.01(18)
CaO0.033(8)2.0(4)0.040(5)0.70(9)0.059(8)0.85(18)0.042(9)0.73(6)
Na2On.d.n.d.n.d.0.135(22)n.d.0.133(18)n.d.0.088(10)
K2On.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.
NiO0.39(4)0.103(25)0.360(27)0.096(14)0.35(4)0.107(29)0.39(3)0.082(23)
Total100.0100.099.999.799.4999.5100.7100.2

Note:FeO* is total Fe calculated as FeO.

The spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio correction method

We applied the W&V89 correction to spinels analyzed in sessions A1–A4 and B1–B4. We calculated Fe3+/∑Fe ratio and Cr# of each of the correction set spinels measured both at the beginning and end of the analytical session. We calculated the Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the spinels by normalizing the spinel cation proportions to 3 total cations, treating all Fe as Fe2+, and then adjusting the Fe3+/Fe2+ ratio to balance the charge deficiency or excess (Stormer 1983). Occasionally, spinels with low Fe3+/∑Fe ratios gave a small positive charge excess, which was balanced by allowing negative contributions to Fe3+.

We calculated ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA for each measurement and determined the best fit line through all measurements of the correction set to determine slope and intercept (Wood and Virgo 1989):

ΔFe3+/FeMoss - EPMA=ACr#+B.(2)

We used the resulting slope and intercept to correct the calculated Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of all other spinels measured during that session. To maintain consistency in data processing, we applied this correction irrespective of whether AFe3+/∑FeMoss-EPMA and Cr# were strongly correlated. We explain the rationale for this procedure in the discussion.

Results

Compositions of the wood spinels and selection of correction and validation standards

We present the uncorrected EPMA analyses of the 32 Wood spinels in Table 2[1]. We used these measurements to look for compositional systematics in the entire set of Wood spinels and to select the samples for the correction and validation sets. Figure 1 shows uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA compared to Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by Mössbauer (Wood and Virgo 1989; Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Ionov and Wood 1992). The uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA analysis correlate with the Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by Mössbauer spectroscopy (r2 = 0.86). The whole data set fits the 1:1 line well; however, closer inspection reveals that agreement between the two methods varies from session to session. For example, analyses from session S1 plot consistently above the 1:1 line, and analyses from session S3 plot below. This underscores the assessment of Wood and Virgo (1989) that EPMA is sufficiently precise, but insufficiently accurate to be used without correction. Among the Wood spinels, we find no systematic relationship in the sample average compositions between the Cr# of the spinels and their Fe3+/∑Fe ratio, but Cr# and MgO (r2 = 0.93) are negatively correlated (Fig. 2).

Figure 1 Uncorrected electron microprobe analyses of Wood spinels from sessions S1–S3. Sample-average uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA in sessions S1–S3 (Table 2) plotted against Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by Mössbauer spectroscopy. Vertical bars show the range of compositions for a given sample across all grains measured (supplementaryDeposit item AM-17-25823, Table 2, Supplemental material, and Supplementary Tables. Deposit items are free to all readers and found on the MSA web site, via the specific issue’s Table of Contents (go to http://wwwminsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/2017/Feb2017_data/Feb2017_data.html).. Table S1), indicating the degree of intergranular heterogeneity exhibited by a sample. Circles represent samples chosen for the correction set, and triangles represent samples chosen for the validation set. All other Wood spinels are represented with diamonds.

Figure 1

Uncorrected electron microprobe analyses of Wood spinels from sessions S1–S3. Sample-average uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA in sessions S1–S3 (Table 2) plotted against Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by Mössbauer spectroscopy. Vertical bars show the range of compositions for a given sample across all grains measured (supplementary[1]. Table S1), indicating the degree of intergranular heterogeneity exhibited by a sample. Circles represent samples chosen for the correction set, and triangles represent samples chosen for the validation set. All other Wood spinels are represented with diamonds.

Figure 2 Compositional range of spinels included in the correction and validation sets. Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by Mössbauer are from Wood and Virgo (1989), Bryndzia and Wood (1990), and Ionov and Wood (1992). MgO and Cr# of the correction set and validation set are EPMA measurements from this study (Table 2), while values for the correction standards used by Wood and Virgo (1989) are as reported in that study. The correction set used in this study spans a similar range of Cr# and MgO (b) as the correction standards used by Wood and Virgo (1989), and Fe3+/∑Fe ratios span a larger range (a). Taking all of these data together, Fe3+/∑Fe ratio is not correlated with Cr# (r2 = 0.003) or MgO (not shown, r2 < 0.001), and MgO and Cr# are highly correlated (r2 = 0.93).

Figure 2

Compositional range of spinels included in the correction and validation sets. Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by Mössbauer are from Wood and Virgo (1989), Bryndzia and Wood (1990), and Ionov and Wood (1992). MgO and Cr# of the correction set and validation set are EPMA measurements from this study (Table 2), while values for the correction standards used by Wood and Virgo (1989) are as reported in that study. The correction set used in this study spans a similar range of Cr# and MgO (b) as the correction standards used by Wood and Virgo (1989), and Fe3+/∑Fe ratios span a larger range (a). Taking all of these data together, Fe3+/∑Fe ratio is not correlated with Cr# (r2 = 0.003) or MgO (not shown, r2 < 0.001), and MgO and Cr# are highly correlated (r2 = 0.93).

From the Wood spinels, we selected seven samples for the cor-rection set and six samples for the validation set. These samples are indicated in Table 2[1]. The selection criteria for the correction and validation sets are given in the supplementary[1] Material.

Uncorrected and corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the validation set spinels

Compositions of the validation set spinels were determined by averaging the replicate analyses from analytical sessions A1–A4 and B1–B4 (Table 4[1]). Full results of all analytical sessions are presented in the supplementary[1] Material (supplementary[1] Table S2). Figure 3 shows several illustrative examples of uncorrected and corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the correction and validation set spinels compared with Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by Mössbauer, and Figure 4 shows the relationship between ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and Cr# from these sessions. Below, we discuss the implications of these results for the accuracy and precision of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA.

Figure 3 Examples of the W&V89 correction applied to spinels from several independent analytical sessions. The first column (a, c, and e) shows uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by EPMA of the correction set spinels measured at the start of each session and at the end of each session, along with validation set spinels analyzed in between. These are plotted against their published Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by Mössbauer. The second column (b, d, and f) shows the same measurements after correction of the EPMA data using the Wood and Virgo (1989) method. Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session A1 plot around the 1:1 line (a), and the W&V89 correction causes only imperceptible changes to the corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios (b). Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session B3 (c and d) are offset from the 1:1 line and display a relatively high degree of scatter around the trend with Mössbauer data (c). The W&V89 correction decreases scatter in the data and shifts it upward so that the corrected data lie on the 1:1 line (d). Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session B4 (e and f) are offset from the 1:1 line but are relatively tightly clustered along a linear trend with the Mössbauer data (e). The W&V89 correction shifts Fe3+/∑Fe ratios onto the 1:1 line (f).

Figure 3

Examples of the W&V89 correction applied to spinels from several independent analytical sessions. The first column (a, c, and e) shows uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by EPMA of the correction set spinels measured at the start of each session and at the end of each session, along with validation set spinels analyzed in between. These are plotted against their published Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by Mössbauer. The second column (b, d, and f) shows the same measurements after correction of the EPMA data using the Wood and Virgo (1989) method. Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session A1 plot around the 1:1 line (a), and the W&V89 correction causes only imperceptible changes to the corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios (b). Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session B3 (c and d) are offset from the 1:1 line and display a relatively high degree of scatter around the trend with Mössbauer data (c). The W&V89 correction decreases scatter in the data and shifts it upward so that the corrected data lie on the 1:1 line (d). Uncorrected EPMA analyses from session B4 (e and f) are offset from the 1:1 line but are relatively tightly clustered along a linear trend with the Mössbauer data (e). The W&V89 correction shifts Fe3+/∑Fe ratios onto the 1:1 line (f).

Discussion

Accuracy and precision of the correction method

Since the Wood group presented their correction method and measurements of spinel peridotite fO2 (Wood and Virgo 1989; Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Ionov and Wood 1992), the application of this correction method to spinel peridotite fO2 studies has been sporadic. Some groups adopted the Wood and Virgo (1989) approach (e.g., Ionov and Wood 1992; Woodland et al. 1992; Luhr and Aranda-Gómez 1997; Parkinson and Pearce 1998; Parkinson and Arculus 1999; Bryant et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2007, 2008; Dare et al. 2009), while others presented data with no correction (e.g., Ballhaus 1993; Qi et al. 1995; Fedortchouk et al. 2005; Canil et al. 2006; Foley et al. 2006; Nasir et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2012).

Ballhaus et al. (1991) questioned whether Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined from EPMA require correction, and additionally suggested that such a correction may introduce additional error. Their argument was based in part on a compilation of logfO2 calculated from analyses of spinels in peridotites and basalts, including spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that had been measured both by Mössbauer spectroscopy and EPMA. They found that differences in calculated fO2 seldom varied by greater than 0.4 log units and concluded that correcting EPMA data was unnecessary; however, plotting calculated logfO2 rather than spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios disguises the true effects of the uncertainty in the EPMA measurements. Uncertainty in spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratio has a decreasing influence on calculated fO2 as Fe3+/∑Fe ratio increases (Ballhaus et al. 1991; Parkinson and Arculus 1999). Plotting Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA and Mössbauer across several studies of natural spinels (Fig. 5) shows that disagreement between the two methods can be substantial. In aggregate, the uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios from previous studies (Fig. 5a) are offset to low Fe3+/∑Fe ratios compared to Mössbauer (ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA = 0.022 ± 0.049, 1σ). This may indicate a common analytical bias between laboratories. Bias to low values of uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios could be caused by an overestimate of cations with valence ≥3 or an underestimate of cations with valence ≤2. Possible sources of this bias include treating all Cr as trivalent when a significant fraction may be divalent (Lucas et al. 1988) and omission of divalent minor cations, such as Zn, from the analysis. Corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios from these same studies are in closer agreement with Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios and are more evenly distributed around the linear trend between the two measurements (ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA = −0.007 ± 0.021, 1σ; Fig. 5b).

Figure 4 
Relationship between Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA in uncorrected analyses of the correction set spinels. Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are the measured parameters that contribute directly to the W&V89 correction and the same analytical sessions are shown as in Figure 3. In session A1 (a), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are uncorrelated (r2 = 0.01) and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA is near zero, so the W&V89 correction makes negligible adjustments to the Fe3+/∑Fe ratio, as expected given that the uncorrected data already overlapped the Mössbauer values. In session B3 (b), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are correlated (r2 = 0.81), with slope and intercept both significantly different from zero. The W&V89 correction shifts Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of all samples upward and Cr-poor spinels are adjusted more than Cnrich spinels. In session B4 (c), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are poorly correlated (r2 = 0.10) with slope near zero but an intercept significantly different from zero; consequently, the W&V89 correction shifts all Fe3+/∑Fe ratios upward by a nearly constant correction factor.

Figure 4

Relationship between Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA in uncorrected analyses of the correction set spinels. Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are the measured parameters that contribute directly to the W&V89 correction and the same analytical sessions are shown as in Figure 3. In session A1 (a), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are uncorrelated (r2 = 0.01) and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA is near zero, so the W&V89 correction makes negligible adjustments to the Fe3+/∑Fe ratio, as expected given that the uncorrected data already overlapped the Mössbauer values. In session B3 (b), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are correlated (r2 = 0.81), with slope and intercept both significantly different from zero. The W&V89 correction shifts Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of all samples upward and Cr-poor spinels are adjusted more than Cnrich spinels. In session B4 (c), Cr# and ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA are poorly correlated (r2 = 0.10) with slope near zero but an intercept significantly different from zero; consequently, the W&V89 correction shifts all Fe3+/∑Fe ratios upward by a nearly constant correction factor.

Figure 5 Literature compilation of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy and calculated from EPMA. Uncorrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios calculated from EPMA analyses of natural peridotite- and basalt-hosted spinels plotted against Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the same spinels analyzed by Mössbauer spectroscopy (a). Uncorrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by EPMA are biased to low Fe3+/∑Fe, with a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA of 0.022 ± 0.049 (1σ). After correction by the W&V89 method, Fe3+/LFe ratios deviate less from the 1:1 line and are more evenly distributed around it (b), with a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMAof −0.007 ± 0.021 (1σ).

Figure 5

Literature compilation of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy and calculated from EPMA. Uncorrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios calculated from EPMA analyses of natural peridotite- and basalt-hosted spinels plotted against Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the same spinels analyzed by Mössbauer spectroscopy (a). Uncorrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by EPMA are biased to low Fe3+/∑Fe, with a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA of 0.022 ± 0.049 (1σ). After correction by the W&V89 method, Fe3+/LFe ratios deviate less from the 1:1 line and are more evenly distributed around it (b), with a mean ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMAof −0.007 ± 0.021 (1σ).

Ballhaus et al. (1991) also argued that EPMA analyses of spinel should be corrected only if non-stoichiometry is suspected. But the Wood and Virgo (1989) correction does not imply nonstoichiometry of the spinel sample; it corrects for error in the determination of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that results from forcing an imperfectly analyzed composition into a perfect stoichiometric calculation. The corrected compositions in this study are still stoichiometric (supplementary[1] Table S2) with total cations between 2.99 and 3.01 when calculated on a four oxygen basis.

We tested the accuracy and precision of the W&V89 correction using our replicate analyses of spinels from the validation set, BMRG08-98-2-2, and Hawaiian xenoliths analyzed in sessions A1–A4 and B1–B4 (supplementary[1]. Table S2, Figs. 3 and 4). If we assume that the Mössbauer analyses of the Wood spinels accurately represent their Fe3+/∑Fe ratios, then we can use the validation set to demonstrate that the W&V89 correction improves the accuracy of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios determined by EPMA. Figure 6 shows the averages and 1σ ranges of both corrected and uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of the validation set spinels measured across all analytical sessions (Table 4). Corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios are distributed closely around the 1:1 line with an average offset of +0.004 from the Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios. The uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of these spinels are offset below the 1:1 line by an average of −0.031 from the Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios. Similar to the offset in the literature data described above (Fig. 5a).

Figure 6 Mean Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of the validation set spinels measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy and calculated from EPMA. Mean uncorrected (a) and corrected (b) Fe3+/ΣFe ratios by EPMA (Table 4) were calculated by taking the unweighted average of the mean Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of all analytical sessions (A1–A4 and B1–B4; Supplementary1 Table S2). Error bars are 2 st.dev.

Figure 6

Mean Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of the validation set spinels measured by Mössbauer spectroscopy and calculated from EPMA. Mean uncorrected (a) and corrected (b) Fe3+/ΣFe ratios by EPMA (Table 4) were calculated by taking the unweighted average of the mean Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of all analytical sessions (A1–A4 and B1–B4; Supplementary1 Table S2). Error bars are 2 st.dev.

Table 4

Multi-session average compositions[a] of validation set spinels

Validation set
Sample namePS211PS212OC231350KLB8304MBR8313Vi314-58IO5650
n75763666706731
SiO2n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.
TiO20.070(4)0.022(3)0.067(10)0.103(5)0.213(11)0.076(3)0.051(8)
Al2O332.8(8)37.4(10)50.9(16)60.7(12)49.1(10)59.2(12)56.3(12)
Cr2O335.8(4)32.0(4)17.1(6)6.17(6)17.13(16)8.54(6)13.35(11)
FeO*15.0(4)13.16(23)11.57(21)11.09(14)12.88(15)10.84(11)10.7(3)
MnO0.190(7)0.170(8)0.122(5)0.101(8)0.126(7)0.108(6)0.111(10)
MgO15.28(19)16.28(11)18.78(17)21.05(27)19.33(21)20.41(19)19.51(20)
CaO0.002(2)0.002(2)n.d.n.d.0.019(7)0.010(5)n.d.
Na2On.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.
NiO0.145(5)0.157(7)0.283(12)0.357(13)0.345(7)0.381(11)0.305(14)
Total99.199.198.799.699.199.5100.2
Cr#0.423(6)0.365(7)0.184(7)0.064(1)0.190(4)0.088(2)0.137(3)
Fe3+/∑Fe (EPMA, corrected)0.133(12)0.079(15)0.12(2)0.24(3)0.28(2)0.16(2)0.04(3)
Fe3+/∑Fe (EPMA, uncorrected)0.111(31)0.054(29)0.08(5)0.19(6)0.25(5)0.12(6)0.00(7)
Fe3+/∑Fe (Möss.)[b]0.1310.0920.0940.220.290.140.054

Note: FeO* is total Fe calculated as FeO.

We can assess the improvement in precision of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios achieved by using the W&V89 correction by quantifying the intersession variability of Fe3+∑Fe ratios that we calculated for the validation set spinels. Values of 1σ around mean uncorrected Fe3+∑Fe ratios of the validation set spinels vary from ±0.029 to ±0.065 (Table 4) with a mean of ±0.049. Values of 1σ around mean corrected Fe3+∑Fe ratios of the validation set spinels vary from ±0.012 to ±0.032 (Table 4) with a mean of ±0.023, which suggests greater than a factor of two increase in precision when using the W&V89 correction. The variations in 1σ around these averages are not random. Intersession variability in corrected and uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios is greater in samples with lower total Fe. The stoichiometric calculation produces a concentration of Fe3+ with uncertainty resulting from the accumulated analytical errors from each element propagated through the stoichiometric calculation. When this error is propagated through the calculation of the Fe3+/∑Fe ratio, it scales with the total concentration of Fe. We approximate errors on corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by dividing the error on Fe3+ by the amount of total Fe. We demonstrate this relationship by plotting the magnitude of 1σ variations in corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios from validation set and Hawaiian spinels as a function of the inverse of total Fe per 3 formula cations (Fig. 7a). A line fit through the origin gives the following relationship:

1σ3=0.006/XΣFe(3)

where 1σ3 describes the magnitude of 1 st.dev. around a corrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratio, 0.006 is the magnitude of 1σ variation around the mean molar Fe3+ concentration per 3 formula cations, and X∑Fe is the molar concentration of total Fe per 3 formula cations. This relationship describes an error envelope for corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that depends on the total concentration of Fe in the spinel. Figure 7b shows the error envelope with measurements of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios from the validation set, Hawaiian, and Tongan spinels presented as deviations from the mean. Equation 3 describes the precision of the EPMA method of determining Fe3+/∑Fe ratios when using the W&V89 correction.

Figure 7 Relationship between analytical precision of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios and total concentration of Fe for spinels from the validation set, Hawaiian xenoliths and Tonga. Magnitude of 1 st.dev. in corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios measured across all sessions (A1–A4 and B1–B4, Supplementary1 Table S2) for validation set and Hawaiian spinels as a function of the inverse of the multi-session average total Fe concentration on a 3 cation basis (a). In black is the best fit line through the origin (r2 = 0.57). Tonga sample BMRG08-98-2-2 was not included in this fit because it does not plot near the global trend in Cr#-MgO (Fig. 8). The equation for this line is given in the text (Eq. 3), and we use it to calculate precision in our corrected measurements of Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of unknown spinel samples. Deviations of each session average (Supplementary1 Table S2) from their respective multisession means (Table 4) plotted as a function of total Fe concentration on a 3 cation basis (b). The 1σ error envelope is calculated using Equation 3.

Figure 7

Relationship between analytical precision of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios and total concentration of Fe for spinels from the validation set, Hawaiian xenoliths and Tonga. Magnitude of 1 st.dev. in corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios measured across all sessions (A1–A4 and B1–B4, Supplementary1 Table S2) for validation set and Hawaiian spinels as a function of the inverse of the multi-session average total Fe concentration on a 3 cation basis (a). In black is the best fit line through the origin (r2 = 0.57). Tonga sample BMRG08-98-2-2 was not included in this fit because it does not plot near the global trend in Cr#-MgO (Fig. 8). The equation for this line is given in the text (Eq. 3), and we use it to calculate precision in our corrected measurements of Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of unknown spinel samples. Deviations of each session average (Supplementary1 Table S2) from their respective multisession means (Table 4) plotted as a function of total Fe concentration on a 3 cation basis (b). The 1σ error envelope is calculated using Equation 3.

It is likely that the accuracy of uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios and the precision of Fe3+/∑Fe ratios corrected using the W&V89 method can be improved further by analyzing additional minor elements. As we described above, our uncorrected spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios measured by EPMA and those in previous studies skew low compared to Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios, consistent with under-sampling of divalent cations. We examined the spinel data set hosted in the GEOROC database (http://georoc.mpch-mainz.gwdg.de/georoc/, accessed 30 June 2016). In 139 peridotite-hosted spinels (those with host rock listed as peridotite, lherzolite, harzburgite, or dunite) with both major and trace firstrow transition elements given, only three transition elements have average concentrations in excess of 100 ppm: V (620 ± 390), Co (270 ± 220), and Zn (960 ± 690). Forty-two of these samples have measured V, Co, and Zn, and in that subset V is positively correlated with both Co (r2 = 0.54) and Zn (r2 = 0.33; supplementary[1]. Fig. S1). In all but 4 of these spinel samples (Co+Zn) is greater than V; therefore, it is likely that by excluding these elements from the analysis, we have introduced a bias that could lead to uncorrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios that are underestimated by 0.003 to 0.013 (see supplementary[1]. Materials for calculations). The W&V89 correction accounts for the systematic underestimation of Fe3+/∑Fe, but variations in V, Co, and Zn in standard and unknown spinels may lead to diminished precision of the corrected Fe3+/∑Fe ratios on the order of 0.01 if these elements are not analyzed.

Underlying mechanics of the wood and virgo correction

Although the W&V89 correction demonstrably improves agreement between measurements of spinel Fe3+/∑Fe ratios by Mössbauer and EPMA, no studies by the Wood group nor any subsequent studies have explained how the method works in detail. Wood and Virgo (1989) report that ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA is generally linearly related to Cr#; they suggest a simple linear relationship can be determined in each EPMA analytical session by comparing EPMA analyses of a set of spinel standards that have been characterized by Mössbauer. We explore two complications in this section: (1) How should correction proceed when this linear relationship is not observed, even when agreement between EPMA and Mössbauer measurements of the standards is poor? (2) How does this correction, based only on two measured elements, work to correct a multi-element analysis? The first question was raised by Luhr and Aranda-Gómez (1997), who reported that their EPMA measurments of spinel ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and Cr# were not correlated. We also do not observe a correlation between ΔFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA and Cr# in some of our analytical sessions (e.g., session B4, Fig. 4). The second question was addressed briefly by Wood and Virgo (1989), who suggested that Al was subject to greater systematic errors than other elements, at least in their own data set; therefore a correction relying on Cr# addressed the greatest source of uncertainty. As we demonstrate below, systematic error of any element in the EPMA analysis can lead to increases in the magnitude of AFe3+/∑FeMöss-EPMA, but the W&V89 correction can still correct for these biases. That is, the correction works, even when bias is introduced by elements other than Cr or Al, largely because of a correlation between Cr# and MgO in the global spinel peridotite data set (Fig. 8); however, this means that the correction may be less effective for samples that fall off the MgO-Cr# trend. This aspect of the W&V89 correction needs to be accounted for by workers analyzing off-trend spinels, either by adjusting estimates of uncertainty or by choosing correction standards that are compositionally relevant to their particular sample set.

Biases in EPMA can lead to two different effects on calculated Fe3+/∑Fe ratios of a group of spinels for which independent Mössbauer Fe3+/∑Fe ratios are available. The whole set of EPMA-derived Fe3+/∑Fe ratios may be offset from the EPMA-Mössbauer 1:1 line. Alternatively, scatter around the linear trend between Mössbauer and EPMA Fe3+/∑Fe ratios may increase as spinels with different compositions are variably affected by measurement bias. These two effects are not mutually exclusive.

When the correction set yields a constant offset (e.g., sessions B1 and B4, Fig. 3e), uncorrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of the correction and validation set spinels plot mostly below the 1:1 line and ΔFe3+/ΣFeMöss-EPMA and Cr# are also uncorrelated (r2 ≤ 0.10; Fig. 4c). In such instances, EPMA-derived Fe3+/ΣFe ratios display systematic bias, but it is not clear that a correction scheme that relies on a correlation between ΔFe3+/ΣFeMöss-EPMA and Cr# should be applied when those parameters are uncorrelated. Luhr and Arranda-G ómez (1997) observed just such a scenario when they attempted to apply the W&V89 correction to their own spinel peridotite xenolith suite. They chose not to apply the W&V89 correction and instead determined the average value of ΔFe3+/ΣFeMöss-EPMA for all their correction standards, which did not vary with Cr#. They then made a single, constant-value adjustment to the calculated Fe3+/ΣFe ratio of all samples run during that session. This method of correction can improve Fe3+/ΣFe ratio accuracy in the case where the offset between EPMA and Mössbauer is roughly constant for all samples; however, devising a separate correction for such a case is unnecessary. The W&V89 correction contains this same functionality: when ΔFe3+/ΣFeMöss-EPMA and Cr# are uncorrelated, the slope of the best-fit line will be approximately zero, and the W&V89 correction functions as a constant Fe3+/ΣFe ratio offset correction. The two correction methods are, in effect, equivalent.

The W&V89 correction is valuable because it addresses the differential effects of measurement bias on spinels of variable composition. Hence, the correction can also decrease scatter in EPMA measurements of Fe3+/ΣFe ratios when these data show large deviations from the linear trend with Fe3+/ΣFe ratios by Mössbauer. Sessions A3 (Figs. 3a and 3b) and B3 are examples of this effect. The initial analyzed. Wood and Virgo (1989) explain their choice of Cr# as the compositional parameter for correcting Fe3+ΣFe ratios because, among the major elements, Al2O3 concentrations determined by EPMA were the most affected by the choice of matrix correction schemes. This explanation does not account for systematic biases of elements other than Al and Cr that may result from imperfect analysis of primary standards.

MgO is a major element in peridotitic spinels and is just as likely as Al or Cr to be the root of systematic offsets of calculated Fe3+ΣFe ratios from ideality. Interestingly, the W&V89 correction is able to correct for bias in the MgO analysis because MgO and Cr# are correlated in the spinels studied by the Wood group (Wood and Virgo 1989; Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Ionov and Wood 1992) and in peridotitic spinels globally (Figs. 2 and 8). The correlation between MgO and Cr# in peridotitic spinels is an expected consequence of the dependence of the Fe2+-Mg exchange coefficient between olivine and spinel on the Cr concentration in the spinel (Irvine 1965; Wood and Nicholls 1978). This relationship in the spinel data increases the effectiveness of the W&V89 correction when unknown spinel samples overlap with the compositional range of the correction standards, but the correction may not be as effective for samples that fall significantly off that compositional trend. In the Supplementary [1] Materials, we present calculations that demonstrate how the W&V89 correction improves the accuracy of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios when elements other than Cr and Al are biased during the analysis. These calculations also demonstrate that corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios from spinels that depart from the MgO-Cr# trend of the correction set, such as Tonga sample BMRG08-98-2-2, are subject to degraded precision.

In summary, the W&V89 correction can effectively correct for systematic biases in EPMA derived Fe3+/ΣFe ratios, even when the correlation between ΔFe3+/ΣFeMöss-EPMA and Cr# is weak or absent. The W&V89 method also corrects for bias in measured elements other than Al2O3 and Cr2O3, due predominantly to the correlation of spinel Cr# with MgO. Precision of corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios decreases for samples that fall outside the compositional range of the correction standards used, but accuracy is no worse than if the correction had not been applied. This effect could be mitigated by choosing a different set of correction standards that are compositionally similar to the unknowns being analyzed.

Effect of the matrix correction scheme

Wood and Virgo (1989) investigated the effect of the choice of matrix correction schemes on EPMA measurements of spinels. They found that different matrix correction schemes led to systematic differences in the calculated magnetite activity in spinel compositions before applying the W&V89 Fe3+/ΣFe correction. We have reprocessed the analyses from analytical sessions A1-A4 using the PAP matrix correction (Pouchou and Pichoir 1986; Supplementary[1] Table S3), also considered by Wood and Virgo (1989). We find that, compared to the ZAF correction we have used throughout our study, the PAP correction results in systematically lower Al2O3 (averaging 1.4 rel%), FeO (0.4%), and MgO (0.6%) and systematically higher Cr2O3 (0.7%). Uncorrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios determined using the PAP procedure are 0.001 to 0.015 lower than those ratios determined using the ZAF procedure, and the difference in Fe3+/ΣFe ratio by these two matrix corrections is correlated with Cr# (r2 = 0.975). Despite this systematic offset, the magnitude of the difference in uncorrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios is small, even in Al-rich samples, compared to the variation caused by session-to-session differences in the primary standardization. After correcting the Fe3+/ΣFe ratios using the W&V89 method, the PAP and ZAF procedures yield differences in Fe3+/ΣFe (ZAF-PAP) between -0.002 and 0.001. When the W&V89 correction is used, effects of the matrix correction on the Fe3+/ΣFe ratio are negligible.

Calculation of fO2 from the analyses of spinel, olivine, and orthopyroxene

Ultimately, the goal of determining the Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of spinels from peridotites is to estimate the fO2 of equilibration. We calculate fO2 following Mattioli and Wood (1988) and Wood and Virgo (1989) using the following equation for logfO2:

log(fo2)PT=24222T+8.64+0.0567PT12log(1Mg#O1)2620T(Mg#O1)2+3log(XFeM1XFeM2)Opx+2log(aFe3O4Sp1)

where P is pressure in bars, T is temperature in K, Mg#=XMg0l/(XMg0l,XFe01);andXMg0l,XFe01 are the mole fractions of Mg and Fe in olivine; XFeM1,XFeM2XM1, XMe2 are the mole fractions of Fe in the two orthopyroxene octahedral sites calculated following Wood and Banno (1973); and aFe3O4Sp1 is the activity of the magnetite component in spinel. We discuss the calculation of aFe3O4Sp1 in the following section. Temperature and pressure are required to calculate fO2. We calculate temperature using the spinel-olivine Fe-Mg exchange thermometer of Li et al. (1995) and, unless otherwise specified, we follow Bryndzia and Wood (1990) and Wood et al. (1990) in assuming a pressure of 1.5 GPa.

Equation 4 does not appear in the above form in any of the Wood group papers, and there is some confusion in the literature about how different versions of the formula arose. Commonly, the version given in Wood et al. (1990) and Wood (1991) is cited, which includes a term for thefO2 of the quartz-fayalite-magnetite (QFM) buffer:

log(fo2)PT=log(fo2)PTQFM+220T+03500369PT12log(1Mg#o1)2620T(Mg#o1)2+3log(XFeM1XFeM2)Opx+2logaFe3Sp1o4

As discussed by Herd (2008), this version of the fO2 equation requires the QFM formulation of Myers and Eugster (1983):

logfo2(QFM)1barT=24441.9T+8.29.

(Subtracting Eq. 6 from the first two terms in Eq. 4 yields the second two terms in Eq. 5.) Herd (2008) also suggests that the proper way to calculate absolute fO2 from Equation 5 is to use Equation 6 as written, without a pressure term, to calculate log fO2(QFM)P,T. This is incorrect because the pressure term in Equation 5 is derived from the difference between the pressure dependences of the spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene buffer and QFM. Mattioli and Wood (1988) describe a method by which the pressure dependence of the spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene buffer can be approximated from standard state molar volumes of the phases by assuming Mg# = 0.90 in each of the silicates and a magnetite proportion of 0.02 in spinel. The resulting coefficient [ΔV/(2.303 ·R) = 0.0567] appears in both Wood and Virgo (1989) and Bryndzia and Wood (1990). From this, we can determine the P/T coefficient in Equation 5 by subtracting the pressure dependence of the QFM buffer [ΔV/(2.303 ·R) = 0.0936, using the standard state molar volumes given in Robie et al. (1995)] from Equation 4.

Using Equation 6 to calculate logfO2(QFM)P,T for use in Equation 5 with no pressure term leads to a 0.6 log unit underestimation of absolute fO2 at 1150 °C and 1 GPa. Substituting a parameterization of QFM into Equation 5 other than that of Myers and Eugster (1983) leads to systematic errors in fO2. For example, replacement with O’Neill (1987) results in a 0.15 log unit underestimation of absolute fO2 at 1150 °C and 1 GPa. We avoid this confusion by using Equation 4 to calculate log(fO2)P,T before calculating fO2 relative to the QFM reference buffer. Except where otherwise indicated, we report oxygen fugacity relative to QFM using the parameterization of Frost (1991):

logfo2(QFM)T=25096.3T+8.735+0.11(P1)T.(7)

We calculate magnetite activity in spinel, aFe3O4Sp1 using the MELTS Supplemental Calculator (Sack and Ghiorso 1991a, 1991b; http://melts.ofm-research.org/CalcForms/index.html) with a slight modification to the calculation of spinel components. We describe this modification and justify our choice of the MELTS Supplemental Calculator for calculating aFe3O4Sp1 in the Supplementary Materials[1].

Uncertainty in the fO2 calculation contributed by the EPMA analysis

Uncertainty in fO2 calculated from spinel peridotite oxybarometry depends on the accuracy and precision of the three compositional variables in Equation 4, Mg#O1, (XFeM1XFeM2)Opx,andaFe3O4Sp1, resulting from analysis by EPMA as well as on the uncertainty in the temperature and pressure of equilibration. We estimated uncertainty contributed by the compositional terms from repeated analysis of secondary standards. The uncertainty in fO2 from the olivine analysis increases with Mg#O1 from ±0.04 log units at Mg#O1 = 0.85 to ±0.14 log units at Mg#O1 = 0.95, and the orthopyroxene analysis contributes an additional ±0.04 log units. We provide a complete description of how these uncertainties were calculated in the Supplementary Materialy[1].

We are able to relate uncertainty in the calculation of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios to uncertainty in log(aFe3O4Sp1) calculated from the MELTS Supplemental Calculator through a logarithmic relationship described in the Supplementary Material (Supplementary[1]Fig. S4). Following Parkinson and Arculus (1999) and Ballhaus et al. (1991), Figure 9a shows the relationship between logaFe3O4Sp1 and relative fO2, and Figure 9b shows how relative fO2 varies with spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio. The uncertainty in relative fO2 contributed by the spinel analysis is asymmetrical and increases with decreasing Fe3+/ΣFe ratio. At Fe3+/ΣFe = 0.10 the error in fO2 is (+0.3/–0.4) log units (1a), while at Fe3+/ΣFe = 0.35 the error is ±0.1 log units (Fig. 9b). Figure 9 also shows an error envelope for the precision of the Fe3+/ΣFe ratio measurement with no correction (dotted lines). Uncertainty in log(aFe3O4Sp1) approximately doubles for spinel analyses that have not been corrected using the W&V89 method. This is particularly important for spinels with Fe3+/ΣFe ratios <0.10, which may have uncertainties in fO2 in excess of a log unit when uncorrected.

Figure 8 Relationship between MgO concentration and Cr# of natural peridotite spinels. Samples are separated by tectonic setting: abyssal peridotites (n = 743) from the compilation of Warren (2016): (Prinz et al. 1976; Hamlyn and Bonatti 1980; Dick and Bullen 1984; Michael and Bonatti 1985; Shibata and Thompson 1986; Dick 1989; Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Johnson et al. 1990; Juteau et al. 1990; Komor et al. 1990; Bonatti et al. 1992, 1993; Cannat et al. 1992; Johnson and Dick 1992; Snow 1993; Constantin et al. 1995; Arai and Matsukage 1996; Dick and Natland 1996; Ghose et al. 1996; Jaroslow et al. 1996; Niida 1997; Ross and Elthon 1997; Stephens 1997; Hellebrand et al. 2002a, 2002b; Brunelli et al. 2003; Hellebrand and Snow 2003; Seyler et al. 2003, 2007; Coogan et al. 2004; Workman and Hart 2005; Morishita et al. 2007; Cipriani et al. 2009; Warren et al. 2009; Brunelli and Seyler 2010; Dick et al. 2010; Warren and Shimizu 2010; Zhou and Dick 2013; Lassiter et al. 2014; Mallick et al. 2014; D’Errico et al. 2016), continental xenoliths not associated with subduction (n = 154): (Wood and Virgo 1989; Ionov and Wood 1992; Woodland et al. 1992), and supra-subduction zone for xenoliths and seafloor drilled samples from subduction-related settings (n = 85): (Wood and Virgo 1989; Canil et al. 1990; Luhr and Aranda-Gomez 1997; Parkinson and Pearce 1998). MgO and Cr# are correlated in the global data set (solid line, r2 = 0.82, slope = .15.0 ± 0.2, intercept = 21.46 ± 0.07, 1σ). The slope defined by the correction set used in this study (dashed line, r2 = 0.94, n = 7, slope = .11.6 ± 1.4, intercept = 21.5 ± 0.4, 1σ) is shallower, as is the line defined by the Wood spinels (not shown, r2 = 0.92, n = 32, slope = .12.7 ± 0.7, intercept = 21.80 ± 0.17, 1σ). Also shown are Hawaiian xenoliths and Tonga peridotite BMRG08-98-2-2 from this study.

Figure 8

Relationship between MgO concentration and Cr# of natural peridotite spinels. Samples are separated by tectonic setting: abyssal peridotites (n = 743) from the compilation of Warren (2016): (Prinz et al. 1976; Hamlyn and Bonatti 1980; Dick and Bullen 1984; Michael and Bonatti 1985; Shibata and Thompson 1986; Dick 1989; Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Johnson et al. 1990; Juteau et al. 1990; Komor et al. 1990; Bonatti et al. 1992, 1993; Cannat et al. 1992; Johnson and Dick 1992; Snow 1993; Constantin et al. 1995; Arai and Matsukage 1996; Dick and Natland 1996; Ghose et al. 1996; Jaroslow et al. 1996; Niida 1997; Ross and Elthon 1997; Stephens 1997; Hellebrand et al. 2002a, 2002b; Brunelli et al. 2003; Hellebrand and Snow 2003; Seyler et al. 2003, 2007; Coogan et al. 2004; Workman and Hart 2005; Morishita et al. 2007; Cipriani et al. 2009; Warren et al. 2009; Brunelli and Seyler 2010; Dick et al. 2010; Warren and Shimizu 2010; Zhou and Dick 2013; Lassiter et al. 2014; Mallick et al. 2014; D’Errico et al. 2016), continental xenoliths not associated with subduction (n = 154): (Wood and Virgo 1989; Ionov and Wood 1992; Woodland et al. 1992), and supra-subduction zone for xenoliths and seafloor drilled samples from subduction-related settings (n = 85): (Wood and Virgo 1989; Canil et al. 1990; Luhr and Aranda-Gomez 1997; Parkinson and Pearce 1998). MgO and Cr# are correlated in the global data set (solid line, r2 = 0.82, slope = .15.0 ± 0.2, intercept = 21.46 ± 0.07, 1σ). The slope defined by the correction set used in this study (dashed line, r2 = 0.94, n = 7, slope = .11.6 ± 1.4, intercept = 21.5 ± 0.4, 1σ) is shallower, as is the line defined by the Wood spinels (not shown, r2 = 0.92, n = 32, slope = .12.7 ± 0.7, intercept = 21.80 ± 0.17, 1σ). Also shown are Hawaiian xenoliths and Tonga peridotite BMRG08-98-2-2 from this study.

Figure 9 Effect of activity of magnetite in spinel on the calculation of relative fO2. Calculated logfO2 relative to the quartz-fayalite-magnetite buffer (AQFM, Frost 1991 calibration) using all input parameters from sample 114923-57 at 1038 °C and 1.5 GPa and varying the value of log⁡aFe3O4Sp1 $\log a_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}_3\mathrm{O_4}}^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{p}1}$  while holding Mg#O1 and (XFeM1⋅XFeM2)Opx $(X_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{M}1}\cdot X_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{M}2})^{\mathrm{O}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{x}}$  constant (a). The dashed lines show ±1α error on the corrected EPMA measurement of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio calculated using Equation 3. Dotted lines show ±1α error on the uncorrected EMP measurement of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio assuming a twofold increase in uncertainty for uncorrected measurements (see text). The increased uncertainty in fO2 at low activities of magnetite has been demonstrated previously by Ballhaus et al. (1991) and Parkinson and Arculus (1999). The dependence of logfO2 (ΔQFM) on Fe3+/ΔFe ratio rather than activity of magnetite (b).

Figure 9

Effect of activity of magnetite in spinel on the calculation of relative fO2. Calculated logfO2 relative to the quartz-fayalite-magnetite buffer (AQFM, Frost 1991 calibration) using all input parameters from sample 114923-57 at 1038 °C and 1.5 GPa and varying the value of logaFe3O4Sp1 while holding Mg#O1 and (XFeM1XFeM2)Opx constant (a). The dashed lines show ±1α error on the corrected EPMA measurement of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio calculated using Equation 3. Dotted lines show ±1α error on the uncorrected EMP measurement of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio assuming a twofold increase in uncertainty for uncorrected measurements (see text). The increased uncertainty in fO2 at low activities of magnetite has been demonstrated previously by Ballhaus et al. (1991) and Parkinson and Arculus (1999). The dependence of logfO2 (ΔQFM) on Fe3+/ΔFe ratio rather than activity of magnetite (b).

Temperature and pressure both enter into the calculation of fO2 from spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene equilibria and must be determined through thermobarometry, or some suitable temperature and pressure must be assumed. We have calculated equilibration temperatures of the Hawaiian xenoliths using the spinel-olivine Fe-Mg exchange thermometer of Li et al. (1995), and we assume a pressure of 1.5 GPa. Li et al. (1995) did not evaluate the standard error of their thermometer using an independent validation data set, so we estimated uncertainty from the standard deviation in our own measurements of the Hawaiian xenoliths. For each Hawaiian xenolith, we calculated temperatures from the average spinel composition from each analytical session (Supplementary[1] Table S2) and the sample average olivine compositions in Table 3. The standard deviation in calculated temperature for these samples varies from 25 to 82 °C. To be conservative, we used ±80 °C as our temperature uncertainty to explore the effects of temperature error on the fO2 calculation.

The effect of temperature on calculated fO2 is compositionally dependent as temperature enters into the fO2 calculation both explicitly in Equation 4 and in the calculation of aFe3O4Sp1. Increasing temperature leads to a decrease in calculated fO2 relative to QFM, but this effect is greater when spinel Cr# is lower (Supplementary[1] Fig. S5). The magnitude of uncertainty due to temperature is also a function of temperature, such that samples with colder equilibration temperatures have greater uncertainty in fO2. The temperature uncertainty of ±80 °C contributes about ±0.1 log units of uncertainty to the fO2 calculated for low-Cr# sample 114923-41 at its calculated equilibration temperature (1118 °C). Temperature uncertainty for a similar peridotite with a colder equilibration temperature of 700 °C (e.g., as appropriate for supra-subduction zone peridotites; Parkinson and Pearce 1998), would contribute >0.2 log units of uncertainty to the fO2 calculation.

Pressure is not well constrained for spinel peridotites due to the absence of a strongly pressure dependent reaction (MacGregor 2015). It is common for spinel peridotite oxybarometry studies to assume a single pressure for the fO2 calculation (e.g., Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Wood et al. 1990; Ballhaus 1993). We follow Wood et al. (1990) in choosing 1.5 GPa, which is roughly the center of the pressure range of spinel stability. LogfO2 decreases linearly with increasing pressure (Eq. 4), and each 0.25 GPa of pressure uncertainty leads to about ±0.1 log units uncertainty in fO2.

Hawaiian xenolith fO2

The replicate analyses of the Hawaiian xenoliths allow for an additional check on our estimated uncertainty in the fO2 calculation. Figure 10 shows Fe3+/ΣFe ratios, aFe3O4Sp1, and fO2 relative to QFM calculated for each individual analysis of each of the Hawaiian spinels. We calculated aFe3O4Sp1 and fO2 using the spinel-olivine exchange temperature particular to each spinel analysis. For each sample, measurements of relative fO2 from each analytical session fall well within the estimated error from all other measurements of that sample (Fig. 10a). This broad overlap is partly due to the use of only a single measurement of olivine and orthopyroxene from each sample, eliminating two sources of potential variation. Figure 10b, which shows variation in the calculated aFe3O4Sp1, shows that error bars in logaFe3O4Sp1 for all measurements of a given sample are also overlapping. This suggests that we have suitably propagated uncertainty in spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios to uncertainty in aFe3O4Sp1. Although samples with greater spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios also record greater fO2 relative to QFM, estimates of aFe3O4Sp1 based on independent measurements of any given sample can increase, decrease, or remain constant with increasing spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio (Fig. 10b). This highlights that the temperature estimation contributes significantly to the calculation of fO2.

Figure 10 Relative fO2 and activity of magnetite in each of the four Hawaiian xenoliths and comparison between Wood (1991) and Ballhaus et al. (1991) formulations of the spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene oxybarometer. LogfO2 (ΔQFM; a) and  log⁡aFe3O4Sp1 $\log a_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}_3\mathrm{O_4}}^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{p}1}$  (b), calculated from corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios, for each session in which a given spinel was analyzed (SupplementaryDeposit item AM-17-25823, Table 2, Supplemental material, and Supplementary Tables. Deposit items are free to all readers and found on the MSA web site, via the specific issue’s Table of Contents (go to http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/2017/Feb2017_data/Feb2017_data.html). Table S4 and S5). The olivine and orthopyroxene compositions in Table 3 were used for all fO2 calculations. Uncertainty in logfO2 (ΔQFM) includes contributions from analytical uncertainty on each phase (a). Uncertainty in log⁡aFe3O4Sp1 $\log a_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}_3\mathrm{O_4}}^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{p}1}$   was determined as described in the SupplementaryDeposit item AM-17-25823, Table 2, Supplemental material, and Supplementary Tables. Deposit items are free to all readers and found on the MSA web site, via the specific issue’s Table of Contents (go to http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/2017/Feb2017_data/Feb2017_data.html). material. Uncertainty in corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios was calculated using Equation 3. fO2 relative to the QFM buffer (Frost 1991), calculated for each measurement of the four Hawaiian spinel lherzolite xenoliths (c). Relative fO2 on the x-axis was calculated using the Equation 4 and the MELTS Supplemental Calculator (Sack and Ghiorso 1991a, 1991b) to calculate  aFe3O4Sp1 $a_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{e}_3\mathrm{O_4}}^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{p}1}$ .  Relative fO2 on the y-axis was calculated following the methodology of Ballhaus et al. (1991). Error using the Ballhaus et al. (1991) method was estimated by propagating through the Ballhaus et al. (1991) oxybarometer our estimates of uncertainty in spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio and olivine Mg#.

Figure 10

Relative fO2 and activity of magnetite in each of the four Hawaiian xenoliths and comparison between Wood (1991) and Ballhaus et al. (1991) formulations of the spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene oxybarometer. LogfO2 (ΔQFM; a) and logaFe3O4Sp1 (b), calculated from corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios, for each session in which a given spinel was analyzed (Supplementary[1] Table S4 and S5). The olivine and orthopyroxene compositions in Table 3 were used for all fO2 calculations. Uncertainty in logfO2 (ΔQFM) includes contributions from analytical uncertainty on each phase (a). Uncertainty in logaFe3O4Sp1 was determined as described in the Supplementary[1] material. Uncertainty in corrected Fe3+/ΣFe ratios was calculated using Equation 3. fO2 relative to the QFM buffer (Frost 1991), calculated for each measurement of the four Hawaiian spinel lherzolite xenoliths (c). Relative fO2 on the x-axis was calculated using the Equation 4 and the MELTS Supplemental Calculator (Sack and Ghiorso 1991a, 1991b) to calculate aFe3O4Sp1. Relative fO2 on the y-axis was calculated following the methodology of Ballhaus et al. (1991). Error using the Ballhaus et al. (1991) method was estimated by propagating through the Ballhaus et al. (1991) oxybarometer our estimates of uncertainty in spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio and olivine Mg#.

The four Hawaiian xenoliths analyzed in this study record relative oxygen fugacities between QFM+0.15 (+0.34/–0.37) and QFM+0.98(+0.24/–0.25) (Table 5, Fig. 10) at their equilibration temperatures and 1.5 GPa, which is slightly more oxidized than the mean fO2 recorded by abyssal peridotites from spreading centers (Bryndzia and Wood 1990; Wood et al. 1990). These relative oxygen fugacities also depend on temperature and pressure, and the quoted uncertainties do not reflect the additional uncertainties associated with our choice of pressure and temperature. Further contextualization of these results is beyond the scope of this communication, and will be discussed along with a larger data set in a future publication.

Table 5

Multi-session average compositions[a] of Hawaiian and Tongan spinels

Hawaiian xenolithsTonga Peridotite
68-551-2069-SAL-4169-SAL-5669-SAL-57BMRG08-98-2-2
Sample name[b]114885-3114923-41114923-56114923-57
n3074753937
SiO2n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.
TiO20.040(3)0.093(3)0.194(4)0.266(4)0.045(4)
Al2O332.0(10)55.7(10)57.1(11)38.3(12)16.33(19)
Cr2O335.2(5)11.55(12)9.00(9)28.30(12)50.9(9)
FeO*16.83(15)11.16(14)11.87(13)14.78(6)21.6(7)
MnO0.202(14)0.114(6)0.110(6)0.163(4)0.353(18)
MgO14.4(4)20.2(4)20.5(3)17.5(4)9.1(4)
CaO0.011(1)n.d.0.003(2)n.d.n.d.
Na2On.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.
NiO0.144(5)0.348(10)0.392(10)0.253(8)0.048(2)
Total98.799.199.099.598.3
Cr#0.424(8)0.122(2)0.096(2)0.332(7)0.676(4)
Fe3+/∑Fe (EPMA, corrected)0.172(18)0.204(20)0.270(23)0.283(20)0.086(15)
Fe3+/∑Fe (EPMA, uncorrected)0.149(34)0.163(62)0.227(62)0.253(57)0.081(14)
T (°C)[c]902(25)1118(56)1196(82)1038(40)
Activity of magnetite[d]0.01140.01000.01600.0183
logfO2(ΔQFM)[e]0.240.29+0.280.150.37+0.340.560.29+0.270.980.25+0.24

Note:FeO* is total Fe calculated as FeO.

Comparison of the Wood (1991) and Ballhaus et al. (1991) parameterizations of the spinel peridotite oxybaromater

Although we have chosen to use the Wood (1991) version of the spinel-olivine-orthopyroxene oxybarometer to calculate fO2(Eq. 4), numerous other studies use the Ballhaus et al. (1991) version of the oxybarometer. These two parameterizations are commonly considered to be interchangeable (e.g., Woodland et al. 1992; Ballhaus 1993; Canil et al. 2006). Herd (2008) demonstrated that relative fO2 calculated using the Ballhaus et al. (1991) method is systematically lower than relative fO2 calculated with the Wood (1991) method. Luhr and Arranda-Gómez (1997) similarly found that fO2 calculated using Ballhaus et al. (1991) was on average 0.8 log units below those calculated using Wood (1991). We compare the two parameterizations in Figure 10c using the Hawaiian xenolith data. Results from the two methods are correlated (r2 = 0.82). Consistent with Herd (1008), relative fO2 calculated using the Ballhaus et al. (1991) method is 0.7 to 1.3 log units lower than results from the Wood (1991) method. The two methods cannot be considered directly comparable, and comparisons of peridotite fO2 data between studies using different fO2 parameterizations requires that sufficient analytical data be provided to allow for recalculation using either method.

Implications

The precision offO2 calculated from spinel peridotite oxybarometry is chiefly limited by the precision of the measurement of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios. We have shown that flaws in the primary standardization are the greatest source of imprecision in spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios determined by EPMA and that maximizing the precision of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios requires the use of correction standards with independently measured Fe3+/ΣFe ratios. The W&V89 correction leads to a twofold improvement in precision of Fe3+/ΣFe ratios for most spinels measured by EPMA, and further improvements are possible if common minor elements such as V, Co, and Zn are also analyzed.

The fO2 recorded by peridotites offers insight into fO2 conditions prevalent in Earth’s upper mantle. If spinel peridotite oxybarometry is used to detect fO2 variations between different tectonic environments (e.g., Ballhaus 1993) or between different samples from a local environment, then measurements that allow the fO2 recorded by peridotites to be calculated must be more precise than the range of fO2 recorded by these samples. Uncertainty in calculated fO2 contributed by uncorrected EPMA analyses of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios may be greater than ±1 log units (1a) at fO2 less than about QFM-1 (Fig. 9). For comparison, the entire abyssal peridotite suite of Bryndzia and Wood (1990) varies in fO2 by only ±0.7 log units (1a). We recommend that future studies that present EPMA measurements of spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratio use the W&V89 method, or at least include analyses of spinel standards with independently measured Fe3+/ΣFe ratios so that precision may be estimated. Publication of complete EPMA data sets collected on unknowns and standards should become standard practice for spinel oxybarometry studies.

We have also provided methods for quantifying the contributions to total uncertainty in calculated fO2 from each parameter in the oxybarometer. For spinels with relatively low Fe3+/ΣFe ratios, the greatest contribution to this uncertainty comes from the calculation of aFe3O4Sp1 which is directly tied precision of measured Fe3+/ΣFe ratios in spinel. This precision depends on the total concentration of Fe in the spinel and on the Fe3+/ΣFe ratio itself. The difference in uncertainty in calculated fO2 from corrected spinel analyses compared to uncorrected analyses is lower by >0.5 log units for spinels with Fe3+/ΣFe ratios < 0.10.

Several studies have found evidence for differences in fO2 recorded by peridotites from different tectonic environments.Wood et al. (1990) found that the average fO2 recorded by continental xenoliths was about one order of magnitude greater than the average of abyssal peridotites (QFM-1; Bryndzia and Wood 1990). Ballhaus (1993) found that xenoliths from OIB localities were also on average about one log unit more oxidized than abyssal peridotites. Parkinson and Arculus (1999) showed that subduction-related peridotites record average fO2 of approximately QFM+1, about 2 log units more oxidized than abyssal peridotites. These differences of 1–2 log units are small enough that uncorrected EPMA data or calculations of fO2 using different formulations, may be too imprecise to resolve them.

Analysis of peridotite fO2 provides an alternative perspective on the fO2 prevalent in different upper mantle settings that complements the variations in fO2 revealed by analyses of basaltic glasses (Kelley and Cottrell 2012). In tectonic settings where fO2 has been estimated from both peridotites and glasses the results can be incongruent, which may indicate that, in addition to inherent differences between tectonic settings, fO2 records are subject to petrological processes in the upper mantle (e.g., Birner et al. 2016). For example, abyssal peridotites suggest a MORB source region with average fO2 of QFM-1 (Bryndzia and Wood 1990), but MORB glasses suggest a more oxidized MORB source with average fO2 of QFM (Cottrell and Kelley 2011). Future measurements of fO2 of mid-ocean ridge peridotites will need to use the W&V89 correction to achieve sufficient precision to allow an investigation of the potential petrological causes for this incongruence.

Finally, the greatest advantage that EPMA holds over Mössbauer analysis is that it allows spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios to be easily measured at the micrometer scale. As we try to connect fO2 measurements in peridotites to petrological processes, it may become necessary to investigate variations in spinel Fe3+/ΣFe ratios at the grain scale. Changes in the Fe3+/ΣFe ratio between spinel cores and rims, for example, can be observed by accurate and precise EPMA measurements.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bernard Wood for providing spinel samples. We thank Leslie Hale for assisting with access to the Hawaiian xenolith samples from the National Rock and Ore Collection at the National Museum on Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C. Chris MacLeod and Sherm Bloomer are thanked for providing access to the Tonga sample. We also wish to thank Tim Gooding and Tim Rose for assistance with sample preparation and for providing expertise and maintaining the electron microprobe lab at NMNH. This paper was improved by constructive reviews from B. Wood and an anonymous reviewer. F.D. received support from the Smithsonian Peter Buck Fellowship. S.B. received support from the Stanford Graduate Fellowship and McGee Grant. O.L. received support from the Natural History Research Experiences NSF REU program (EAR-1062692). We gratefully acknowledge funding from NSF award OCE-1433212 (to E.C.) and OCE-1434199 (to J.W.).

References cited

Arai, S., and Matsukage, K. (1996) Petrology of gabbro-troctolite-peridotite complex from Hess Deep, equatorial Pacific: Implications for mantle-melt interaction within the oceanic lithosphere. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results, p. 135–156. National Science Foundation. Search in Google Scholar

Ballhaus, C. (1993) Redox states of lithospheric and asthenospheric upper mantle.Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 114, 331–348. Search in Google Scholar

Ballhaus, C., Berry, R., and Green, D. (1991) High pressure experimental calibration of the olivine-orthopyroxene-spinel oxygen geobarometer: Implications for the oxidation state of the upper mantle. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 107, 27–40. Search in Google Scholar

Bézos, A., and Humler, E. (2005) The Fe3+/ΣFe ratios of MORB glasses and their implications for mantle melting. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 69, 711–725. Search in Google Scholar

Birner, S.K., Warren, J.M., Cottrell, E., and Davis, F.A. (2016) Hydrothermal alteration of seafloor peridotites does not influence oxygen fugacity recorded by spinel oxybarometry. Geology, 44, 535–538. Search in Google Scholar

Bloomer, S., Wright, D., MacLeod, C., Tappin, D., Clift, P., Falloon, T., Fisher, R., Gillis, K., Ishii, T., Kelman, M., and others. (1996) Geology of the Tonga forearc: a supra-subduction zone ophiolite. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 77, 325. Search in Google Scholar

Bonatti, E., Peyve, A., Kepezhinskas, P., Kurentsova, N., Seyler, M., Skolotnev, S., and Udintsev, G. (1992) Upper mantle heterogeneity below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 0–15 N. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 97, 4461–4476. Search in Google Scholar

Bonatti, E., Seyler, M., and Sushevskaya, N. (1993) A cold suboceanic mantle belt at the Earth’s equator. Science, 261, 315–320. Search in Google Scholar

Brunelli, D., and Seyler, M. (2010) Asthenospheric percolation of alkaline melts beneath the St. Paul region (Central Atlantic Ocean). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 289, 393–405. Search in Google Scholar

Brunelli, D., Cipriani, A., Ottolini, L., Peyve, A., and Bonatti, E. (2003) Mantle peridotites from the Bouvet triple junction region, south Atlantic. Terra Nova, 15, 194–203. Search in Google Scholar

Bryant, J., Yogodzinski, G., and Churikova, T. (2007) Melt-mantle interactions beneath the Kamchatka arc: Evidence from ultramafic xenoliths from Shiveluch volcano. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8, Q04007. Search in Google Scholar

Bryndzia, L.T., and Wood, B.J. (1990) Oxygen thermobarometry of abyssal spinel peridotites: the redox state and C–O–H volatile composition of the Earth’s sub-oceanic upper mantle. American Journal of Science, 290, 1093–1116. Search in Google Scholar

Buddington, A., and Lindsley, D. (1964) Iron-titanium oxide minerals and synthetic equivalents. Journal of Petrology, 5, 310–357. Search in Google Scholar

Canil, D. (1999) Vanadium partitioning between orthopyroxene, spinel and silicate melt and the redox states of mantle source regions for primary magmas. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 63, 557–572. Search in Google Scholar

Canil, D., Virgo, D., and Scarfe, C.M. (1990) Oxidation state of mantle xenoliths from British Columbia, Canada. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 104, 453–462. Search in Google Scholar

Canil, D., Johnston, S.T., and Mihalynuk, M. (2006) Mantle redox in Cordilleran ophiolites as a record of oxygen fugacity during partial melting and the lifetime of mantle lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 248, 106–117. Search in Google Scholar

Cannat, M., Bideau, D., and Bougault, H. (1992) Serpentinized peridotites and gabbros in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge axial valley at 15 37′ N and 16 52′ N. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 109, 87–106. Search in Google Scholar

Christie, D.M., Carmichael, I.S., and Langmuir, C.H. (1986) Oxidation states of mid-ocean ridge basalt glasses. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 79, 397–411. Search in Google Scholar

Cipriani, A., Bonatti, E., Brunelli, D., and Ligi, M. (2009) 26 million years of mantle upwelling below a segment of the Mid Atlantic Ridge: The Vema Lithospheric Section revisited. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 285, 87–95. Search in Google Scholar

Constantin, M., Hékinian, R., Ackermand, D., and Stoffers, P. (1995) Mafic and ultramafic intrusions into upper mantle peridotites from fast spreading centers of the Easter Microplate (South East Pacific). In R.L.M. Vissers and A. Nicolas, Eds., Mantle and Lower Crust Exposed in Oceanic Ridges and in Ophiolites, pp. 71–120. Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Coogan, L.A., Thompson, G., MacLeod, C.J., Dick, H., Edwards, S., Scheirer, A.H., and Barry, T.L. (2004) A combined basalt and peridotite perspective on 14 million years of melt generation at the Atlantis Bank segment of the Southwest Indian Ridge: Evidence for temporal changes in mantle dynamics? Chemical Geology, 207, 13–30. Search in Google Scholar

Cottrell E. and Kelley, K.A. (2011) The oxidation state of Fe in MORB glasses and the oxygen fugacity of the upper mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 305, 270–282. Search in Google Scholar

Cottrell E. Kelley, K.A., Lanzirotti, A., and Fischer, R.A. (2009) High-precision determination of iron oxidation state in silicate glasses using XANES. Chemical Geology, 268, 167-179. Search in Google Scholar

Dare, S.A., Pearce, J.A., McDonald, I., and Styles, M.T. (2009) Tectonic discrimination of peridotites using fo2–Cr# and Ga-Ti-Fe III systematics in chrome—spinel. Chemical Geology, 261, 199–216. Search in Google Scholar

D’Errico, M.E., Warren, J.M., and Godard, M. (2016) Evidence for chemically heterogeneous Arctic mantle beneath the Gakkel Ridge. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 174, 291–312. Search in Google Scholar

Dick, H. (1989) Abyssal peridotites, very slow spreading ridges and ocean ridge magmatism. Magmatism in the Ocean Basins, 42, 71–105. Search in Google Scholar

Dick, H.J., and Bullen, T. (1984) Chromian spinel as a petrogenetic indicator in abyssal and alpine-type peridotites and spatially associated lavas. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 86, 54–76. Search in Google Scholar

Dick, H.J., and Natland, J.H. (1996) Late-stage melt evolution and transport in the shallow mantle beneath the East Pacific Rise. In Proceedings-Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results, pp. 103–134. National Science Foundation. Search in Google Scholar

Dick, H.J., Lissenberg, C.J., and Warren, J.M. (2010) Mantle melting, melt transport, and delivery beneath a slow-spreading ridge: The paleo-MAR from 23 15′ N to 23 45′ N. Journal of Petrology, 51, 425–467. Search in Google Scholar

Dyar, M.D., McGuire, A.V., and Ziegler, R.D. (1989) Redox equilibria and crystal chemistry of coexisting minerals from spinel lherzolite mantle xenoliths. American Mineralogist, 74, 969–980. Search in Google Scholar

Fedortchouk, Y., Canil, D., and Carlson, J.A. (2005) Dissolution forms in Lac de Gras diamonds and their relationship to the temperature and redox state of kimberlite magma. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 150, 54–69. Search in Google Scholar

Foley, S., Andronikov, A., Jacob, D., and Melzer, S. (2006) Evidence from Antarctic mantle peridotite xenoliths for changes in mineralogy, geochemistry and geothermal gradients beneath a developing rift. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 70, 3096–3120. Search in Google Scholar

Frost, B.R. (1991) Introduction to oxygen fugacity and its petrologic importance. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 25, 1–9. Search in Google Scholar

Ghose, I., Cannat, M., and Seyler, M. (1996) Transform fault effect on mantle melting in the MARK area (Mid-Atlantic Ridge south of the Kane transform). Geology, 24, 1139–1142. Search in Google Scholar

Gudmundsson, G., and Wood, B. (1995) Experimental tests of garnet peridotite oxygen barometry. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 119, 56–67. Search in Google Scholar

Hamlyn, P.R., and Bonatti, E. (1980) Petrology of mantle-derived ultramafics from the Owen Fracture Zone, northwest Indian Ocean: Implications for the nature of the oceanic upper mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 48, 65–79. Search in Google Scholar

Hellebrand, E., and Snow, J.E. (2003) Deep melting and sodic metasomatism underneath the highly oblique-spreading Lena Trough (Arctic Ocean). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 216, 283–299. Search in Google Scholar

Hellebrand, E., Snow, J.E., Hoppe, P., and Hofmann, A.W. (2002a) Garnet-field melting and late-stage refertilization in “residual” abyssal peridotites from the Central Indian Ridge. Journal of Petrology, 43, 2305–2338. Search in Google Scholar

Hellebrand, E., Snow, J.E., and Mühe, R. (2002b) Mantle melting beneath Gakkel Ridge (Arctic Ocean): Abyssal peridotite spinel compositions. Chemical Geology, 182, 227–235. Search in Google Scholar

Herd, C.D. (2008) Basalts as probes of planetary interior redox state. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 68, 527–553. Search in Google Scholar

Ionov, D., and Wood, B. (1992) The oxidation state of subcontinental mantle: oxygen thermobarometry of mantle xenoliths from central Asia. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 111, 179–193. Search in Google Scholar

Irvine, T. (1965) Chromian spinel as a petrogenetic indicator: Part 1. Theory. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2, 648–672. Search in Google Scholar

Jarosewich, E., Nelen J. and Norberg, J.A. (1980) Reference samples for electron microprobe analysis. Geostandards Newsletter, 4, 43–47. Search in Google Scholar

Jarosewich, E., Gooley, R., and Husler, J. (1987) Chromium augite—A new microprobe reference sample. Geostandards Newsletter, 11, 197–198. Search in Google Scholar

Jaroslow, G., Hirth, G., and Dick, H. (1996) Abyssal peridotite mylonites: implications for grain-size sensitive flow and strain localization in the oceanic lithosphere. Tectonophysics, 256, 17–37. Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, K., and Dick, H.J. (1992) Open system melting and temporal and spatial variation of peridotite and basalt at the Atlantis II fracture zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 97, 9219–9241. Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, K., Dick, H.J., and Shimizu, N. (1990) Melting in the oceanic upper mantle: an ion microprobe study of diopsides in abyssal peridotites. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 95, 2661–2678. Search in Google Scholar

Juteau, T., Berger, E., and Cannat, M. (1990) Serpentinized, residual mantle peridotites from the MAR Median Valley, ODP hole 670A (21 10′ N, 45 02′ W, Leg 109): Primary mineralogy and geothermometry. In Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program. Scientific Results, 106, 109. Search in Google Scholar

Kelley, K.A., and Cottrell, E. (2012) The influence of magmatic differentiation on the oxidation state of Fe in a basaltic arc magma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 329, 109–121. Search in Google Scholar

Komor, S., Grove, T., and Hébert, R. (1990) Abyssal peridotites from ODP Hole 670A (21 10′N, 45 02′W): Residues of mantle melting exposed by non-constructive axial divergence. In Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 109, p. 85–101. Search in Google Scholar

Lassiter, J., Byerly, B., Snow, J., and Hellebrand, E. (2014) Constraints from Os-isotope variations on the origin of Lena Trough abyssal peridotites and implications for the composition and evolution of the depleted upper mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 403, 178–187. Search in Google Scholar

Li, Z.-X.A., and Lee, C.-T.A. (2004) The constancy of upper mantle fO2 through time inferred from V/Sc ratios in basalts. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 228, 483–493. Search in Google Scholar

Li, J., Kornprobst, J., Vielzeuf, D., and Fabriès, J. (1995) An improved experimental calibration of the olivine-spinel geothermometer. Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, 14, 68–77. Search in Google Scholar

Lucas, H., Muggeridge, M., and McConchie, D. (1988) Iron in kimberlitic ilmenites and chromian spinels: a survey of analytical techniques. In Kimberlites and Related Rocks: 4th International Kimberlite Conference, Perth, 311–320. Geological Society of Australia. Search in Google Scholar

Luhr, J.F., and Aranda-Gómez, J.J. (1997) Mexican peridotite xenoliths and tectonic terranes: correlations among vent location, texture, temperature, pressure, and oxygen fugacity. Journal of Petrology, 38, 1075–1112. Search in Google Scholar

MacGregor, I.D. (2015) Empirical geothermometers and geothermobarometers for spinel peridotite phase assemblages. International Geology Review, 57, 1940–1974. Search in Google Scholar

Mallick, S., Dick, H.J., Sachi-Kocher, A., and Salters, V.J. (2014) Isotope and trace element insights into heterogeneity of subridge mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 15, 2438–2453. Search in Google Scholar

Mattioli, G.S., and Wood, B.J. (1988) Magnetite activities across the MgAl2O4Fe3O4 spinel join, with application to thermobarometric estimates of upper mantle oxygen fugacity. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 98, 148–162. Search in Google Scholar

Michael, P., and Bonatti, E. (1985) Petrology of ultramafic rocks from site-556, site-558, and site-560 in the North-Atlantic. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 82, 523–528. Search in Google Scholar

Morishita, T., Maeda, J., Miyashita, S., Kumagai, H., Matsumoto, T., and Dick, H.J. (2007) Petrology of local concentration of chromian spinel in dunite from the slow-spreading Southwest Indian Ridge. European Journal of Mineralogy, 19, 871–882. Search in Google Scholar

Myers, J.T., and Eugster, H. (1983) The system Fe-Si-O: Oxygen buffer calibrations to 1, 500 K. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 82, 75–90. Search in Google Scholar

Nasir, S., Everard, J., McClenaghan, M., Bombardieri, D., and Worthing, M. (2010) The petrology of high pressure xenoliths and associated Cenozoic basalts from Northeastern Tasmania. Lithos, 118, 35–49. Search in Google Scholar

Niida, K. (1997) 12, Mineralogy of Mark peridotites: replacement through magma chaneling examined from Hole 920D, Mark area. In Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program, 153. Search in Google Scholar

O’Neill, H.St.C. (1987) Quartz-fayaliteiron and quartz-fayalite-magnetite equilibria and the free energy of formation of fayalite (Fe2SiO4) and magnetite (Fe3Si4). American Mineralogist, 72, 67–75. Search in Google Scholar

O’Neill, H.St.C., and Wall, V. (1987) The olivine–orthopyroxene–spinel oxygen geobarometer, the nickel precipitation curve, and the oxygen fugacity of the Earth’s upper mantle. Journal of Petrology, 28, 1169–1191. Search in Google Scholar

Parkinson, I.J., and Arculus, R.J. (1999) The redox state of subduction zones: insights from arcperidotites. Chemical Geology, 160, 409–423. Search in Google Scholar

Parkinson, I.J., and Pearce, J.A. (1998) Peridotites from the Izu–Bonin–Mariana forearc (ODP Leg 125): evidence for mantle melting and melt–mantle interaction in a supra-subduction zone setting. Journal of Petrology, 39, 1577–1618. Search in Google Scholar

Pouchou, J., and Pichoir, F. (1986) Very high elements X-ray microanalysis: recent models of quantification. Journal de Microscopie et de Spectroscopie Electroniques, 11, 229–250. Search in Google Scholar

Prinz, M., Keil, K., Green, J., Reid, A., Bonatti, E., and Honnorez, J. (1976) Ultramafic and mafic dredge samples from the equatorial Mid-Atlantic ridge and fracture zones. Journal of Geophysical Research, 81, 4087–4103. Search in Google Scholar

Qi, Q., Taylor, L.A., and Zhou, X. (1995) Petrology and geochemistry of mantle peridotite xenoliths from SE China. Journal of Petrology, 36, 55–79. Search in Google Scholar

Robie, R.A., Hemingway, B.S., and Fisher, J.R. (1995) Thermodynamic properties of minerals and related substances at 298.15 K and 1 bar (105 Pascals) pressure and at higher temperatures. U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services. Search in Google Scholar

Ross, K., and Elthon, D. (1997) Extreme incompatible trace-element depletion of diopside in residual mantle from south of the Kane fracture zone. In Proceedings of Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results, 153. Search in Google Scholar

Sack, R.O., and Ghiorso, M.S. (1991a) An internally consistent model for the thermodynamic properties of Fe-Mg-titanomagnetite-aluminate spinels. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 106, 474–505. Search in Google Scholar

Sack, R.O., and Ghiorso, M.S. (1991b) Chromian spinels as petrogenetic indicators; thermodynamics and petrological applications. American Mineralogist, 76, 827–847. Search in Google Scholar

Seyler, M., Cannat, M., and Mevel, C. (2003) Evidence for major-element heterogeneity in the mantle source of abyssal peridotites from the Southwest Indian Ridge (52 to 68 E). Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4, 9101. Search in Google Scholar

Seyler, M., Lorand, J.-P., Dick, H.J., and Drouin, M. (2007) Pervasive melt percolation reactions in ultra-depleted refractory harzburgites at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, 15 20′ N: ODP Hole 1274A. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 153, 303–319. Search in Google Scholar

Shervais, J.W. (1982) Ti-V plots and the petrogenesis of modern and ophiolitic lavas. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 59, 101–118. Search in Google Scholar

Shibata, T., and Thompson, G. (1986) Peridotites from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at 43° N and their petrogenetic relation to abyssal tholeiites. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 93, 144–159. Search in Google Scholar

Smith, J., and Ribbe, P. (1966) X-ray-emission microanalysis of rock-forming minerals III. Alkali feldspars. The Journal of Geology, 197–216. Search in Google Scholar

Snow, J.E. (1993) The isotope geochemistry of abyssal peridotites and related rocks. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Search in Google Scholar

Stephens, C. (1997) Heterogeneity of oceanic peridotite from the western canyon wall at MARK: Results from site 920. In Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 153, pp. 285–303. Ocean Drilling Program. Search in Google Scholar

Stormer, J.C. (1983) The effects of recalculation on estimates of temperature and oxygen fugacity from analyses of multicomponent iron-titanium oxides. American Mineralogist, 68, 586–594. Search in Google Scholar

Wang, J., Hattori, K.H., Kilian, R., and Stern, C.R. (2007) Metasomatism of sub-arc mantle peridotites below southernmost South America: Reduction of fO2 by slab-melt. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 153, 607–624. Search in Google Scholar

Wang, J., Hattori, K.H., Li, J., and Stern, C.R. (2008) Oxidation state of Paleozoic subcontinental lithospheric mantle below the Pali Aike volcanic field in southernmost Patagonia. Lithos, 105, 98–110. Search in Google Scholar

Wang, J., Hattori K., Xu W., Yang, Y., Xie Z. Liu, J., and Song, Y. (2012) Origin of ultramafic xenoliths in high-Mg diorites from east-central China based on their oxidation state and abundance of platinum group elements. International Geology Review, 54, 1203–1218. Search in Google Scholar

Warren, J. (2016) Global variations in abyssal peridotite compositions. Lithos, 248–251, 193–219. Search in Google Scholar

Warren, J.M., and Shimizu, N. (2010) Cryptic variations in abyssal peridotite compositions: evidence for shallow-level melt infiltration in the oceanic lithosphere. Journal of Petrology, 51, 395–423. Search in Google Scholar

Warren, J.M., Shimizu, N., Sakaguchi, C., Dick, H.J., and Nakamura, E. (2009) An assessment of upper mantle heterogeneity based on abyssal peridotite isotopic compositions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114, B12203. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J. (1990) An experimental test of the spinel peridotite oxygen barometer. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 95, 15845–15851. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J. (1991) Oxygen barometry of spinel peridotites. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 25, 417–432. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J., and Banno, S. (1973) Garnet-orthopyroxene and orthopyroxene-clinopyroxene relationships in simple and complex systems. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 42, 109–124. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J., and Nicholls, J. (1978) The thermodynamic properties of reciprocal solid solutions. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 66, 389–400. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J., and Virgo, D. (1989) Upper mantle oxidation state: Ferric iron contents of Iherzolite spinels by 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy and resultant oxygen fugacities. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 1277–1291. Search in Google Scholar

Wood, B.J., Bryndzia, L.T., and Johnson, K.E. (1990) Mantle oxidation state and its relationship to tectonic environment and fluid speciation. Science, 248, 337–345. Search in Google Scholar

Woodland, A.B., Kornprobst, J., and Wood, B.J. (1992) Oxygen thermobarometry of orogenic lherzolite massifs. Journal of Petrology, 33, 203–230. Search in Google Scholar

Workman, R.K., and Hart, S.R. (2005) Major and trace element composition of the depleted MORB mantle (DMM). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 231, 53–72. Search in Google Scholar

Wright, D.J., Bloomer, S.H., MacLeod, C.J., Taylor, B., and Goodlife, A.M. (2000) Bathymetry of the Tonga Trench and Forearc: a map series. Marine Geophysical Researches, 21, 489–512. Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, H., and Dick, H.J. (2013) Thin crust as evidence for depleted mantle supporting the Marion Rise. Nature, 494, 195–200. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-4-23
Accepted: 2016-8-29
Published Online: 2017-2-9
Published in Print: 2017-2-1

© 2017 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the MSA License.