Cited by 109Geochemistry and Elemental AnalysisPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsHeavy metals in environment

Comparison of metal enrichment in pyrite framboids from a metal-enriched and metal-poor estuary

Open access
Gregory, D., Meffre, S., Large, R.·2014·American Mineralogist

Abstract

The accumulation of metals and metalloids in diagenetic pyrite framboids is of interest because framboids can be a sink for heavy metal contaminants, a source of metals in ore deposits, and a tool to interpret paleo-ocean chemistry. In this study, we have used laser ablation-inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) to analyze pyrite framboids from both the contaminated Derwent Estuary and the uncontaminated Huon Estuary in Tasmania, Australia. While the enrichment of many trace metals in the Huon Estuary followed expected trends, the trends in the Derwent were quite different. In addition to the expected high contents of Pb, Zn, and Cu in the contaminated interval it was found that several elements are not as strongly incorporated into pyrite within the contaminated zone. It is suggested that this is due to over-competition for adsorption sites on the growing iron sulfides in the contaminated zone resulting in diffusion of several elements to deeper levels in the sediments. This results in an increase of these elements in pyrite below the zone of major contamination. The LAICPMS technique also provided the opportunity to obtain accurate data on gold, silver, and tellurium in pyrite, something rarely achieved in sequential leach extractions due to the low concentrations of these metals observed in nature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2138/am.2014.4545

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Assessments of pyrite versus matrix incorporation, sulfide recrystallization, and formation site, plus further studies, indicate that the pyrite record can preserve seawater signatures.

    “Large et al. (2014) also provided an assessment of the importance of pyrite versus matrix trace element incorporation, sulfide recrystallization, and the location in the water column or sediment where pyrite forms, which suggest the record is favorable to recording seawater signatures; a result further supported by several additional studies (Gregory et al., 2014;Large et al., 2015;Mukherjee and”

    From Trace elements at the intersection of marine biological and geochemical evolution (2016) · cites this paper as Gregory et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gregory, D., Meffre, S., & Large, R.
Affiliations
University of Tasmania (AU)
Corresponding author
Gregory, D.
Venue
American Mineralogist
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
633-644
ISSN
0003-004X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082740169
Cited by
109
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Mineralogist (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
Keywords
framboidal pyrite, metal enrichment, estuarine pollution, Derwent Estuary, trace metals, metalloids, competitive adsorption, gold, silver, tellurium, lead, zinc, copper, sequential leaching

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