Skip to main content

Archean to Proterozoic siliciclastic rocks display bulk silicate Earth-like µ182W and µ142Nd compositions

Short-lived isotope systems such as 182Hf-182W (t1/2 = 8.9Ma) and 146Sm-142Nd (t1/2 ≈ 100 Ma) are pivotal tools in understanding Hadean and early Archean geodynamic processes, including core formation, silicate differentiation, and crust formation. However, there is no consensus on the average crustal composition of 182W and 142Nd, because excesses, deficits, and bulk silicate Earth (BSE)-like µ182W and µ142Nd values have been interpreted as regional rather than global average crustal compositions [1, 2].

To resolve this discrepancy, we analysed the µ182W and µ142Nd composition of Archean to Proterozoic (3.2 Ga to 1.2 Ga) siliciclastic rocks from the Kaapvaal Craton (South Africa) and the Yangtze Block (South China). These sedimentary rocks, integrating isotope signals from broad source regions, best represent the average upper continental crust composition. Trace element ratios (e.g., W/Th, La/Yb, Th/Sc) and long-lived radiogenic isotope compositions (143Nd/144Nd, 176Hf/177Hf) infer a mixture of dominantly felsic, but also mafic juvenile igneous source rocks. Except for one shale with 182W deficits, all samples exhibit BSE-like µ182W and µ142Nd values. Consequently, our µ182W and µ142Nd data set represents the best current estimate for the composition of the upper continental crust between 3.2 and 1.2 Ga. The absence of resolvable µ182W and µ142Nd anomalies also constrains the corresponding mantle source compositions. This suggests that anomalous µ182W and µ142Nd compositions [1,3] likely originated from locally restricted and isolated mantle sources.

[1] Mundl et al. 2018; Chem.Geol.

[2] Boyet et al. 2021; GCA

[3] Willbold et al. 2011; Nature

Details

Author
Josua J.* Pakulla1, Niklas Kallnik1, Leander Sämann1, Mario Fischer-Gödde1, Simon Hohl2, Albertus J.B. Smith3, Sebastian Viehmann4, Guang-Yi Wei5, Frank Wombacher1, Carsten Münker1
Institutionen
1Universität zu Köln, Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Germany; 2Tongji University, School of Ocean and Earth Science, China; 3University of Johannesburg, Department of Geology, South Africa; 4Leibniz University Hannover, Institute of Earth System Sciences, Germany; 5Nanjing University, Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing, China
Veranstaltung
Geo4Göttingen 2025
Datum
2025
DOI
10.48380/5gg5-r985