The role of thermochemical sulfate reduction in the origin of Mississippi Valley‐type deposits. II. Carbonate–sulfide relationships
Abstract
The two‐dimensional (2D) reactive transport model of Corbella et al. [Min. Deposita 39 (2004) 344] of the classic ‘mixing hypothesis’, in which a solution containing reduced sulfur and a solution containing aqueous Zn are mixed, has been extended to the case where one brine contains sulfate rather than reduced sulfur, and H2S is produced during the mixing process by thermochemical sulfate reduction (TSR), using a possible rate law and experimentally derived rate constants. It is shown that TSR can provide sufficient reduced sulfur to form an ore body in geologically reasonable times, using rate constants in the upper part of the experimental range, in agreement with the results of a constant stirring tank reactor model ( Thom & Anderson in press ). The results of the 2D model are also compared with the results of titration (zero dimensional) and one‐dimensional models, showing that these models fail to adequately show the amount of carbonate precipitation. Although the 2D model qualitatively shows the distribution and amounts of carbonate precipitation and dissolution, these results are quantitatively inaccurate due to several factors that are intrinsically hard to define.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The organic carbon released to the pore fluid by the dolomite-for-limestone replacement would reduce the aqueous sulfate to sulfide.
“This is because the organic carbon that is released to the pore fluid by the dolomite-forlimestone replacement would reduce the aqueous sulfate to sulfide, as suggested by Thom and Anderson (2008) and Anderson and Thom (2008).”
From Self-accelerating dolomite-for-calcite replacement: Self-organized dynamics of burial dolomitization and associated mineralization (2011) · cites this paper as Anderson and Thom (2008)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Merino, E., & Canals, A. (2011) · American Journal of Science · doi:10.2475/07.2011.01 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Yuan, S., Chou, I.-M., Burruss, R. C., Wang, X., & Li, J. (2013) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2013.05.021 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- ANDERSON, G. M., & THOM, J.
- ORCID
- ANDERSON, G. M.
- Venue
- Geofluids
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11-19
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-34
- ISSN
- 1468-8115 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-8123
- OpenAlex
- W2157686614
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geofluids (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Geological Survey
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geological and Geochemical Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
- Keywords
- thermochemical sulfate reduction, Mississippi Valley-type deposits, reactive transport modeling, carbonate precipitation, zinc sulfide, reduced sulfur compounds, hydrogen sulfide, ore genesis, brine mixing, rate constants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review