Next Article in Journal
REE Minerals as Geochemical Proxies of Late-Tertiary Alkalic Silicate ± Carbonatite Intrusions Beneath Carpathian Back-Arc Basin
Previous Article in Journal
Iron Isotopes Reveal a Benthic Iron Shuttle in the Palaeoproterozoic Zaonega Formation: Basinal Restriction, Euxinia, and the Effect on Global Palaeoredox Proxies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stable Bromine Isotopic Composition of Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Produced Water, the Occurrence of Enriched 81Br, and Implications for Fluid Flow in the Midcontinent, USA
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Bromine Isotope Variations in Magmatic and Hydrothermal Sodalite and Tugtupite and the Estimation of Br Isotope Fractionation between Melt and Sodalite

Department of Geosciences, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstraße 94-96, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université de Paris, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2021, 11(4), 370;
Submission received: 9 February 2021 / Revised: 23 March 2021 / Accepted: 30 March 2021 / Published: 31 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Halogen Stable Isotope Studies in Geological Processes)


We determined the bromine isotope compositions of magmatic and hydrothermal sodalite (Na8Al6Si6O24Cl2) and tugtupite (Na8Al2Be2Si8O24Cl2) from the Ilímaussaq intrusion in South Greenland, in order to constrain the Br isotope composition of the melt and hydrothermal fluids from which these minerals were formed. Early formed magmatic sodalite has high Br contents (138 ± 10 µg/g, n = 5) and low δ81Br values (+0.23 ± 0.07‰). Late stage hydrothermal sodalite has lower Br contents (53±10 µg/g, n = 5) and higher δ81Br values (+0.36 ± 0.08‰). Tugtupite that forms at even later stages shows the lowest Br contents (26 ± 2 µg/g, n = 2) and the highest δ81Br values (+0.71 ± 0.17‰). One hydrothermal sodalite has a Br concentration of 48 ± 9 µg/g and an exceptionally high δ81Br of 0.82 ± 0.12‰, very similar to the δ81Br of tugtupites. We suggest that this may be a very late stage sodalite that possibly formed under Be deficient conditions. The data set suggests that sodalite crystallises with a negative Br isotope fractionation factor, which means that the sodalite has a more negative δ81Br than the melt, of −0.3 to −0.4‰ from the melt. This leads to a value of +0.5 to +0.6‰ relative to SMOB for the melt from which sodalite crystallises. This value is similar to a recently published δ81Br value of +0.7‰ for very deep geothermal fluids with very high R/Ra He isotope ratios, presumably derived from the mantle. During crystallisation of later stage hydrothermal sodalite and the Be mineral tugtupite, δ81Br of the residual fluids (both melt and hydrothermal fluid) increases as light 79Br crystallises in the sodalite and tugtupite. This results in increasing δ81Br values of later stage minerals that crystallise with comparable fractionation factors from a fluid with increasingly higher δ81Br values.

1. Introduction

Since the development of techniques to measure stable bromine (Br) isotopes in geological systems [1], our knowledge on Br isotope systematics has increased significantly. Our knowledge is currently mostly restricted to aqueous systems and salt deposits and to some environmentally relevant organobromine systems that are Br-rich, and where Br can easily be extracted in sufficient quantities for isotope analyses [2]. Depending on the analytical technique either about 1 mg (isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) [1,3]) or 25 μg (multi collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) [4,5]) of Br is necessary for a reliable measurement. The large amount of Br necessary for isotope analysis has, until now, prevented the measurement of Br isotopes in rock samples.
Bromine has two stable isotopes, 79Br and 81Br, which are about equally abundant. Variations in the ratio of these isotopes are reported as δ81Br which is defined as [6]:
δ = R sample R standard 1 × 1000
In this equation, δ stands for δ81Br, Rsample for the 81Br/79Br ratio of the unknown sample, and Rstandard for the 81Br/79Br ratio of the international reference standard. In the case of Br, the international reference standard is ocean bromide, abbreviated as standard mean oceanic bromide (SMOB). The oceans are a well-mixed reservoir of bromide and it has been shown [7] that isotope variations between samples taken from various locations are less than the error of measurement as is the case for Cl [8], where the international standard is ocean chloride, abbreviated as standard mean oceanic chloride (SMOC) [9].
Bromine isotope variations in groundwater and evaporite samples suggest that they are relatively small. Data published prior to 2014 showed that most δ81Br values are between −0.5 and +2.0‰ [2] and more recent studies extended that range to between −1.5 and +3.35‰ [10].
In a recent study, an attempt was made to estimate both the Cl and the Br isotope composition of the mantle [11]. Based on the 3He/4He ratios of geothermal water from Mexico, Pinti et al. [11] selected samples with a mantle origin (highest 3He/4He) and observed relatively high δ37Cl and δ81Br values in these geothermal waters. Their conclusion, based on an observed R/Ra of about 8 for the most 3He rich samples, was that both Br and Cl isotope values of the upper (depleted) mantle are relatively heavy with respect to modern ocean bromide and chloride at +0.7–+0.9‰. For Cl, this value is higher than previous estimations based on measurements of Cl isotopes in Mid Oceanic Ridge Basalt (MORB) samples. The older data suggested that δ37Cl values of the depleted mantle can vary between −3 and +0.5‰ [12,13,14,15,16,17], although the generally accepted value for the depleted mantle is −0.2 ± 0.3‰ [13]. Cl isotope data from other mantle reservoirs, for example, sampled at Ocean Island Basalts, suggest that Cl isotope values can be as high as +3‰ [16]. Overall, these observations show that δ37Cl in mantle material is highly variable and it is important to understand from what mantle source samples are taken. Based on their data, Pinti et al. [11] suggested a δ37Cl of about +3‰ in the primitive mantle, which is in line with observations by John et al. [16] from Ocean Island Basalts. Although John et al. [16] suggested that these high δ37Cl values resulted from crustal contamination by isotopically heavier halogens from subduction slab metasediments, Pinti et al. [11] suggest as alternative interpretation that the lower mantle feeding the hotspot has (partially) preserved a high-δ37Cl signature of the primitive mantle. This discrepancy in interpretation is thus open for further research. The observations from Pinti et al. [11] may be confirmed by 3He/4He and δ37Cl data from Northern Portuguese mineral waters [18,19]. Although the highest measured R/Ra (2.7) and δ37Cl (+0.31‰) values presented in studies [18,19] are considerably lower than the highest data observed by Pinti et al. [11], when the trend is extrapolated to an R/Ra of 8 indeed the predicted δ37Cl is about +0.9‰. As the geothermal water samples from Pinti et al. [11] were taken from a continental area in Mexico, they possibly represent better the δ37Cl of the lithospheric mantle, just like in the study by Marques et al. [19]. Both studies are applied to continental areas in either Mexico or Portugal and share comparable positive δ37Cl values. As the Mexican data [11] suggest that δ81Br values are of the same order of magnitude as δ37Cl values, it is suggested that, in other regions, δ81Br should also be comparable. However, as no δ81Br of any mantle derived material has ever been measured, this suggestion could not be confirmed yet.
These relatively high estimates for the mantle [11] are based on the measurement of deep geothermal waters, and not from solid material. In the present study, we present the first ever Br isotope data from Br-rich minerals that crystallised from magmas ultimately derived from the lithospheric mantle. The δ81Br values obtained from these measurements may indicate whether the value suggested earlier [11] can be a reasonable estimation of lithospheric mantle or not.
The only minerals that are known to have been analysed for their Br isotope compositions are evaporite salt minerals. This includes halite, which has very low Br contents [20]. Only in some mantle-derived alkaline rocks a magmatic to hydrothermal Cl-rich mineral (sodalite, Na8Al6Si6O24Cl2) with sufficiently high Br contents is abundant. A structurally similar mineral (tugtupite, Na8Be2Al2Si8O24Cl2) crystallises under hydrothermal conditions only. The Br contents in these minerals vary between 25 and 150 μg/g [21]. Thus, 0.15 to 1 g of mineral separate is sufficient for Br isotope analysis [5], so that these minerals are a valid target for the determination of Br isotopes in magmatic rocks and hydrothermal systems.

2. Material

Samples used in this study derive from the Ilímaussaq Intrusion (South Greenland), which is one of the most evolved peralkaline intrusions known and contains large quantities of the Cl rich minerals sodalite and eudialyte [22]. For this study, we used previously characterized magmatic and hydrothermal sodalite and hydrothermal tugtupite samples [21]. Magmatic sodalites derive from coarse-grained plutonic rocks that contain abundant euhedral sodalite (up to 70 vol.%) and interstitial alkali feldspar, nepheline, amphibole, and eudialyte. Hydrothermal sodalite and tugtupite samples derive from late-stage cm- to dm-wide veins that crosscut the magmatic rocks and contain variable amounts of sodalite, nepheline, albite, amphibole, and zeolithes [22].
For our study, we selected magmatic sodalite samples with Br concentrations between 100 and 150 μg/g, and hydrothermal sodalite and tugtupite samples with Br concentrations between 50 and 100 μg/g. This difference was made, because no more sample material than about 500 mg could be collected from magmatic sodalite. For this reason, magmatic sodalite samples with Br concentrations lower than 100 μg/g could not be measured. From hydrothermal sodalite and tugtupite, larger sample amounts were available so that 1 g of sample, necessary to measure the δ81Br value, could be collected.

3. Methods

Sodalite and tugtupite are both soluble in diluted nitric acid. For that reason, the technique developed by Eggenkamp and Louvat [5] was chosen to extract Br from the samples. An amount of mineral separate sufficient to collect enough Br for isotope analysis was ground in a mortar and subsequently weighed. The ground mineral was put in a 50-mL two-neck round-bottom flask to which 8 mL Milli-Q water (18.2 MΩ) and 2 mL concentrated nitric acid was added, as well as a few Teflon anti bumping granules to facilitate gentle boiling. The distillation set-up was assembled as described before [5] and consisted of a bridge and a 5-mL plastic vial containing 1 mL of a 0.5 M NH3 solution as ammonium trap. The sample was gently heated using a Teclu-burner until boiling. The mineral dissolved and bromide present was dissolved in and oxidised to Br2 by the nitric acid. The Br2 was distilled to the ammonia trap. In this trap, the Br2 was reduced to bromide. A small amount of nitrate was also distilled resulting in a bromide containing ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) solution that is ideal to measure δ81Br by ICP-MS [4]. The principle of the Br isotope measurements is described in detail in a prior study [4]. Samples were measured on a Thermo Neptune MC-ICP-MS instrument, which is a double-focusing high-resolution magnetic sector field instrument with an argon inductively coupled plasma and multicollection on nine mobile Faraday cups. Samples were introduced to the mass spectrometer through a small 20-mL cyclonic spray chamber with a 50-μL/min PFA nebuliser. Measurements were performed in low resolution mode. Instrumental mass bias was corrected by sample-standard bracketing. To reduce the memory effect of Br in the introduction system, all Br solutions were prepared with NH4NO3 at 0.2 M. The δ81Br measurements were carried out in triplicate for each sample (Std–Smpl–Std–Smpl–Std–Smpl–Std) and reported with an error of two standard deviations. The bracketing standard solutions are prepared to the same Br and Cl concentrations as the analysed samples, to avoid linearity bias and matrix effects. Using this set-up, the internal reproducibility (2SD) over five δ81Br determinations for each sample is usually better than ±0.15‰.
The Br contents in the original mineral separates were determined by ion-chromatography on the NH4NO3 solutions and calculated back to the amount of mineral separate used for Br extraction.

4. Results

Br concentrations and δ81Br values change systematically between the three sample types (Table 1, Figure 1). δ81Br values are lowest in magmatic sodalite samples, slightly higher in hydrothermal sodalite samples, and significantly higher in the (hydrothermal) tugtupite samples. Br concentrations are highest in the magmatic sodalite samples and are lower in hydrothermal sodalite samples, and even lower in tugtupite samples. Hydrothermal sodalite sample ILM127 has a δ81Br value that is different compared to the other hydrothermal sodalite samples and more in line with that for tugtupite. Br concentrations measured after HNO3 extraction were like those measured after WO3 combustion (Table 1), except for magmatic sodalite, where they seem to be higher by a factor of about 1.2. These differences are probably an extraction artefact. As the analytical data obtained by the two extraction methods are comparable, we use the data published in our recent study [21] in the discussions throughout, to maintain consistency between the two studies.

5. Discussion

No Br isotope values of silicate minerals had been published before. Only from evaporite minerals Br isotope measurements are available, and these reflect the Br isotope evolution of individual sedimentary basins or geological periods [20]. Based on these data, it was concluded that the Br isotope compositions of the oceans was, at most, slightly higher (probably 0 to +0.25‰ vs. SMOB) than today’s value and did not change significantly during most of the Earth’s history. This suggests that long term Br isotope fractionation between the surface reservoirs (mostly ocean water) and upper mantle reservoirs through the process of subduction is negligible.
Br isotope values and Br concentrations are summarised in Figure 1. δ81Br values of the magmatic sodalites in our sample set are between 0.15 and 0.31‰ with an average value of 0.23 ± 0.07‰. Magmatic sodalite in the Ilímaussaq intrusion crystallised from the final differentiation stage of the magma [21].
In general, Cl and Br concentrate in evolving magmatic systems as both elements are incompatible in most minerals during magmatic differentiation. Depending on the redox state of the magma, halogens either concentrate in aqueous fluids (oxidising conditions) as they are strongly soluble in water, or they concentrate in the melt (reducing conditions), when fluids mostly consist of methane, in which halogens are largely insoluble [23]. Under the latter conditions (that apply for Ilímaussaq [22]), Cl-rich silicate minerals, such as sodalite group minerals (SGM; with up to 7 wt.% Cl) and eudialyte group minerals (EGM, with up to 1.5 wt.% Cl), may form. These two mineral groups host most Cl and Br that was present in the melt, as the two elements show very similar behaviour in magmatic processes [24]. Importantly, SGMs take up Br preferentially compared to EGMs [21]. It is assumed that Br concentrates in the final melt from which SGMs (in principle sodalite proper) crystallise, as it is generally assumed that little Br is removed from the melt before sodalite crystallises. Still, changes in Br contents and isotope composition will reflect processes such as melt extraction, interaction with asthenosphere melts, interaction with subducted materials, and degassing [17,25,26,27]. The average δ81Br in the magmatic sodalite samples is +0.23‰. While this δ81Br value is representative for the parental melt, it is not the same, as, during crystallisation, isotope fractionation takes place.
In the case of Cl, sodalite–melt isotope fractionation has been estimated in experimental and theoretical studies [12,28,29,30]. Equilibrium isotope fractionation of Cl between sodalite and various other phases, such as liquid NaCl, gaseous HCl, hydrated Cl ion, and other Cl-bearing minerals invariably points to lower δ37Cl values in sodalite as compared to the other phases. Although sodalite–chloride fractionation factors determined in these studies varied significantly depending on phase and temperature they suggest that δ37Cl of sodalite is in the order of 0.3‰ lower than the phase it is in equilibrium with, and we suggest that this is also a reasonable approximation of the equilibrium fractionation between sodalite and the melt from which it is in equilibrium.
Recently, a study was published [10] that described theoretical calculations of Br isotope fractionation factors mostly for evaporite minerals. The results obtained from the calculations suggest only small fractionation factors between salt and brine and results suggest lower fractionation factors than obtained in earlier experimental studies [31]. Calculated data on Br doped Cl minerals suggest that Br isotope fractionation factors in these minerals are larger than those for pure Br minerals. This agrees with Br isotope measurements in natural evaporite systems [32,33].
Br isotope fractionation in naturally occurring evaporite minerals in equilibrium with salt-saturated aqueous solutions is similar to or slightly larger than Cl isotope fractionation [32,33]. Salt–water fractionation and silicate–melt fractionation are basically similar processes as in both processes two phases are present, one in which Cl is present as freely moving Cl ion (with or without a hydration shell) and one in which Cl is bound in a crystal lattice. Assuming that the isotope fractionation effect between saturated solution and salt can be applied (or be approximated) to sodalite in equilibrium with melt too, Br isotope fractionation between crystal and melt can be estimated as −0.3‰, which indicates that δ81Br of the melt is about +0.5 to +0.6‰, which would, if the melt is representative for the lithospheric mantle, represent a possible lithospheric mantle value. This value agrees well with the value of +0.7‰ as suggested by Pinti et al. [11].
We are cautious in suggesting that a value obtained this way is representative for the lithospheric mantle. Although the melt from which sodalite crystallised is sourced from the lithospheric mantle, the composition of the residual melt may have been changed considerable before the first sodalite crystallises from this melt. Furthermore, considering the related element Cl, it is shown [17] that not only do the δ37Cl of the various mantle reservoirs show large variations, but also that variations within individual reservoirs can be significant. As a result, a single datapoint cannot be used to define the (average) value of the (lithospheric) mantle. This is also applicable to Br isotopes. As our value is in line with that from Pinti et al. [11], it is reasonable to conclude that δ81Br values between +0.5 and +0.7 are within the lithospheric mantle range. It is clear however, that more Br isotope research on mantle material is necessary to start to understand the δ81Br distribution in the mantle.
While magmatic sodalite crystallises at temperatures between 650 and 825 °C [34], hydrothermal sodalite crystallises at temperatures down to about 400 °C and hydrothermal tugtupite at even lower temperatures, but only when Be concentrations are sufficiently high [35].
During cooling, the Ilímaussaq magma became more reducing until a temperature of about 700 °C, after which the oxygen fugacity rose again [36]. Below a temperature of about 550 °C, the oxidation stage was high enough to facilitate the exsolution of Cl-rich and water-dominated magmatic fluid [37]. Although the magma had solidified at this point, reactions between dissolved Cl and nepheline produced hydrothermal sodalite to temperatures down to about 400 °C. If Be concentrations were high enough, tugtupite also formed at temperatures below about 500 °C down to temperatures even lower than those for sodalite [36].
δ81Br of hydrothermal sodalite is higher than δ81Br of magmatic sodalite (+0.36 vs. +0.23‰, Figure 1), while the Br content is significantly less. In tugtupite, the average δ81Br is even higher at +0.71‰ and the Br concentration is lower than in hydrothermal sodalite. This suggests that more Br is preferentially incorporated in sodalite and thus removed from the fluid phase during crystallisation of sodalite. As the δ81Br of the mineral phases increase during evolution from magmatic to hydrothermal sodalite and to tugtupite, this suggests that the light isotope (79Br) is preferentially removed from the fluid by this process. As the lighter isotope is removed from the fluid, its residual δ81Br increases, so that, assuming a fractionation factor that only slowly increases towards lower temperatures, later crystallising sodalite becomes isotopically heavier. This confirms the suggestion made above that Br isotope fractionation is negative during crystallisation of sodalite and tugtupite from its coexisting fluid, something that is schematically shown in Figure 2. As isotope fractionation factors increase towards lower temperatures, the Br isotope fractionation factor also increases during this process, and we suggest that its value might increase to −0.4 to −0.5‰ in the latest stage when tugtupite crystallises. It is very important, however, that future experimental and theoretical studies will focus on the determination of the actual fractionation factors at different temperatures for both magmatic and hydrothermal processes.
Sample ILM127 is a hydrothermal sodalite and is used as internal standard in our laboratory. For that reason, this sample has been analysed three times to test the quality and integrity of the Br isotope measurements. The three measurements confirm the high δ81Br of this sample. The δ81Br of this sample compares well to the δ81Br of the tugtupite samples. This suggests that ILM127 is a highly evolved sodalite sample that crystallised from a fluid that, due to a low Be concentration, has not been crystallised as tugtupite. However, as it crystallised from the last and coolest hydrothermal stage, it has the same Br isotope characteristics as tugtupite. This scenario might exist at temperatures of around 400 °C [36].

6. Conclusions

We measured δ81Br for the first time from magmatic and hydrothermal minerals (sodalite and tugtupite). The data obtained allow us for the first time to suggest values for the Br isotope fractionation between melt and sodalite. This fractionation can be constrained based on the evolution from magmatic sodalite to hydrothermal sodalite and tugtupite. During this evolution, δ81Br of the mineral phases increases, suggesting a negative fractionation factor. δ81Br values obtained in this study and comparisons with recent studies on Cl and Br isotope fractionation suggest that fractionation factors of about −0.3‰ for fractionation between melt and magmatic sodalite, and possibly −0.4 to −0.5‰ for fractionation between fluid and hydrothermal minerals at lower temperatures can be constrained. Based on an average δ81Br of +0.23‰ for magmatic sodalite, the δ81Br of the melt is between +0.5 and +0.6‰. This value is similar to a value of +0.7‰, as obtained by Pinti et al. [10]. This suggests that δ81Br values between +0.5 and +0.7 are within the lithospheric mantle range. Just like is the case for Cl isotope variations, it must be realised that the actual Br isotope range of mantle materials can be considerable and significant further research is necessary to define the range of δ81Br variations, not only for the lithospheric mantle, but also the various other mantle reservoirs.
The evolution from magmatic to hydrothermal sodalite and to tugtupite at ever lower temperatures results in continuously decreasing Br concentrations in the subsequent minerals and continuously increasing δ81Br values. This indicates that Br is depleted in the residual fluid and that (lighter) 79Br is incorporated preferentially in the minerals. This results in increasing δ81Br values in subsequently crystallising minerals and implies that Br isotope fractionation is negative in both magmatic and hydrothermal processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: H.G.M.E. and M.A.W.M.; methodology: H.G.M.E. and M.A.W.M.; analysis: P.L.; validation: P.L.; investigation: H.G.M.E., M.A.W.M., P.L., and G.M.; resources, M.A.W.M., and G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, H.G.M.E. and M.A.W.M.; writing—review and editing, H.G.M.E., M.A.W.M., P.L., and G.M.; project administration, M.A.W.M.; funding acquisition, M.A.W.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by the German Research Council (DFG) under grant no. MA2563-13. Part of this work was supported by IPGP multidisciplinary program PARI and Region Île-de-France SESAME Grant no. 12015908.

Data Availability Statement

All data collected for and used in this study is contained within the article in Table 1 and ref. [21].


Individual sodalite and tugtupite samples were hand-picked by student assistants Aylin Polat, Laura Paskert, Isabel Antony, Sarah Fieger, Brian-Eric Friedrichsen, and Yannick Wolfhard. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the scientific editor of this special issue for their constructive reviews of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.


  1. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Coleman, M.L. Rediscovery of classical methods and their application to the measurement of stable bromine isotopes in natural samples. Chem. Geol. 2000, 167, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eggenkamp, H.G.M. The Geochemistry of Stable Chlorine and Bromine Isotopes; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; 172p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Shouakar-Stash, O.; Alexeev, S.V.; Frape, S.K.; Alexeeva, L.P.; Drimmie, R.J. Geochemistry and stable isotopic signatures, including chlorine and bromine isotopes, of the deep groundwaters of the Siberian Platform, Russia. Appl. Geochem. 2007, 22, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Louvat, P.; Bonifacie, M.; Giunta, T.; Michel, A.; Coleman, M. Determination of Bromine stable isotope ratios from saline solutions by “wet plasma” MC-ICPMS including a comparison between high- and low-resolution modes, and three introduction systems. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 3891–3898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Louvat, P. A simple distillation technique to extract bromine for MC-ICP-MS isotope analyses. Rapid Comm. Mass Spectrom. 2018, 32, 612–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McKinney, C.R.; McCrea, J.M.; Epstein, S.; Allen, H.A.; Urey, H.C. Improvements in mass spectrometers for the measurement of small differences in isotope abundance ratios. Rev. Sci. Instr. 1950, 21, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Du, Y.; Ma, T.; Yang, J.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.M.; Cai, H.S.; Liu, C.F.; Chen, L.Z. A precise analytical method for bromine stable isotopes in natural waters by GasBench II-IRMS. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2013, 338, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Godon, A.; Jendrzejewski, N.; Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Banks, D.A.; Ader, M.; Coleman, M.L.; Pineau, F. A cross calibration of chlorine isotopic measurements and suitability of seawater as the international reference material. Chem. Geol. 2004, 207, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kaufmann, R.S. Chlorine in Groundwater. Stable Isotope Distribution. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, C.H.; Liu, Y. First-principles calculations of equilibrium bromine isotope fractionations. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2021, 297, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pinti, D.L.; Shouakar-Stash, O.; Castro, M.C.; Lopez-Hernandez, A.; Hall, C.M.; Rocher, O.; Shibata, T.; Ramirez-Montez, M. The bromine and chlorine isotopic composition of the mantle as revealed by deep geothermal fluids. Geochim. Comochim. Acta 2020, 276, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sharp, Z.D.; Barnes, J.D.; Brearley, A.J.; Chaussidon, M.; Fischer, T.P.; Kamenetsky, V.S. Chlorine isotope homogeneity of the mantle, crust and carbonaceous chondrites. Nature 2007, 446, 1062–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharp, Z.D.; Mercer, J.A.; Jones, R.H.; Brearley, A.J.; Selverstone, J.; Bekker, A.; Stachel, T. The chlorine isotope composition of chondrites and Earth. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2013, 107, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bonifacie, M.; Jendrzejewski, N.; Agrinier, P.; Humler, E.; Coleman, M.; Javoy, M. The chlorine isotope composition of Earth’s mantle. Science 2008, 319, 1518–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Layne, G.D.; Kent, A.J.R.; Bach, W. δ37Cl systematics of a back-arc spreading system: The Lau Basin. Geology 2009, 37, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. John, T.; Layne, G.D.; Haase, K.M.; Barnes, J.D. Chlorine isotope evidence for crustal recycling into the mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 298, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hoare, B.C.; Tomlinson, E.L.; Barnes, J.D.; Tappe, S.; Marks, M.A.W.; Epp, T.; Caufield, J.; Riegler, T. Tracking halogen recycling and volatile loss in kimberlite magmatism from Greenland: Evidence from combined F-Cl-Br and δ37Cl systematics. Lithos 2021, 384–385, 105976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carreira, P.M.; Marques, J.M.; Carvalho, M.R.; Capasso, G.; Grassa, F. Mantle-derived carbon in Hercynian granites. Stable isotopes signatures and C/He associations in the thermomineral waters, N-Portugal. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2010, 189, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marques, J.M.; Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Carreira, P.M.; da Silva, M.A. Origin and evolution of Cl in the CO2-rich thermal and mineral waters from Northern Portugal, based on a reinterpretation of its chemical and isotope characteristics. Appl. Geochem. 2020, 116, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Louvat, P.; Agrinier, P.; Bonifacie, M.; Bekker, A.; Krupenik, V.; Griffioen, J.; Horita, J.; Brocks, J.J.; Bagheri, R. The bromine and chlorine isotope composition of primary halite deposits and their significance for the secular isotope composition of seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2019, 264, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Marks, M.A.W.; Atanasova, P.; Wenzel, T.; Markl, G. Changes in halogen (F, Cl, Br, and I) and S ratios in rock-forming minerals as monitors for magmatic differentiation, volatile loss, and hydrothermal overprint: The case for peralkaline systems. Minerals 2020, 10, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Marks, M.A.W.; Markl, G. The Ilímaussaq alkaline complex, South Greenland. In Layered Intrusions; Charlier, B., Namur, O., Latypov, R., Tegner, C., Eds.; Springer Geology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 649–691. [Google Scholar]
  23. Marks, M.A.W.; Markl, G. A global review on agpaitic rocks. Earth Sci. Rev. 2017, 173, 229–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bureau, H.; Métrich, N. An experimental study of bromine behaviour in water-saturated silicic melts. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2003, 67, 1689–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bureau, H.; Foy, E.; Raepsaet, C.; Somogyi, A.; Munsch, P.; Simon, G.; Kubsky, S. Bromine cycle in subduction zones through in situ Br monitoring in diamond anvil cells. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2010, 74, 3839–3850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cochain, B.; Sanloup, S.; de Grouchy, C.; Crépisson, C.; Bureau, H.; Leroy, C.; Kantor, I.; Irifune, T. Bromine speciation in hydrous silicate melts at high pressure. Chem. Geol. 2015, 404, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Cadoux, A.; Iacono-Marziano, G.; Scaillet, B.; Aiuppa, A.; Mather, T.A.; Pyle, D.M.; Deloule, E.; Gennaro, E.; Paonita, A. The role of melt composition on aqueous fluid vs. silicate melt partitioning of bromine in magmas. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2018, 498, 450–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Schauble, E.; Sharp, Z.D. Modeling isotopic signatures of nebular chlorine condensation. Min. Mag. 2011, 75, 1810. [Google Scholar]
  29. Balan, E.; Créon, L.; Sanloup, C.; Aléon, J.; Blanchard, M.; Paulatto, L.; Bureau, H. First-principles modeling of chlorine isotope fractionation between chloride bearing molecules and minerals. Chem. Geol. 2019, 525, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Czarnacki, M.; Hałas, S. Isotope fractionation in aqua–gas systems: Cl2–HCl–Cl, Br2–HBr–Br and H2S–S2−. Isot. Environ. Health Stud. 2012, 48, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Bonifacie, M.; Ader, M.; Agrinier, P. Experimental determination of stable chlorine and bromine isotope fractionation during precipitation of salt from a saturated solution. Chem. Geol. 2016, 433, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Louvat, P.; Agrinier, P. Halogen stable isotope evolution during experimental evaporation of seawater type brines. In Proceedings of the ESIR Workshop XV, Lublin, Poland, 23–27 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  33. Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Louvat, P.; Griffioen, J.; Agrinier, P. Chlorine and bromine isotope evolution within a fully developed Upper Permian natural salt sequence. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2019, 245, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Giehl, C.; Marks, M.A.W.; Nowak, M. An experimental study on the influence of fluorine and chlorine on phase relations in peralkaline phonolitic melts. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2014, 167, 977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Markl, G. Stability of Na-Be minerals in late-magmatic fluids of the Ilímaussaq alkaline complex, South Greenland. Geol. Greenl. Surv. Bull. 2001, 190, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Markl, G.; Marks, M.; Schwinn, G.; Sommer, H. Phase equilibrium constraints on intensive crystallization parameters of the Ilímaussaq Complex, South Greenland. J. Petrol. 2001, 42, 2231–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Graser, G.; Potter, J.; Köhler, J.; Markl, G. Isotope, major, minor and trace element geochemistry of late-magmatic fluids in the peralkaline Ilímaussaq intrusion, South Greenland. Lithos 2008, 106, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Relationship between the Br content and the δ81Br of the sodalite and tugtupite samples measured in this study. Minerals crystallised at later stages have lower Br concentrations and higher δ81Br values.
Figure 1. Relationship between the Br content and the δ81Br of the sodalite and tugtupite samples measured in this study. Minerals crystallised at later stages have lower Br concentrations and higher δ81Br values.
Minerals 11 00370 g001
Figure 2. Schematic view of Br isotope evolution from magmatic sodalite, via hydrothermal sodalite to tugtupite (and ILM127). The lithospheric mantle from which the Ilímaussaq melt was sourced has a value of +0.5 to 0.6‰, from which magmatic sodalite crystallised with a fractionation factor of about −0.3‰, giving it the average measured δ81Br of +0.23‰. Because light 79Br is preferentially removed from the fluid phases, the δ81Br of the residue increases, which leads to higher δ81Br values in sodalite that later crystallised. This evolution continues to the last stages resulting in tugtupite (and perhaps sodalite from fluids that do not contain enough Br to crystallise tugtupite from) with the highest δ81Br values.
Figure 2. Schematic view of Br isotope evolution from magmatic sodalite, via hydrothermal sodalite to tugtupite (and ILM127). The lithospheric mantle from which the Ilímaussaq melt was sourced has a value of +0.5 to 0.6‰, from which magmatic sodalite crystallised with a fractionation factor of about −0.3‰, giving it the average measured δ81Br of +0.23‰. Because light 79Br is preferentially removed from the fluid phases, the δ81Br of the residue increases, which leads to higher δ81Br values in sodalite that later crystallised. This evolution continues to the last stages resulting in tugtupite (and perhaps sodalite from fluids that do not contain enough Br to crystallise tugtupite from) with the highest δ81Br values.
Minerals 11 00370 g002
Table 1. Results of the Br determinations and δ81Br measurements of the sodalite and tugtupite samples measured in this study, based on ion-chromatography after HNO3 extraction. Data in the row after the names of the sample groups are averages ± the standard deviations of the Br and δ81Br values of all samples within each sample group.
Table 1. Results of the Br determinations and δ81Br measurements of the sodalite and tugtupite samples measured in this study, based on ion-chromatography after HNO3 extraction. Data in the row after the names of the sample groups are averages ± the standard deviations of the Br and δ81Br values of all samples within each sample group.
SampleBr (µg/g) [21]Br (µg/g),
This Study
δ81Br (‰ vs. SMOB)
Magmatic sodaliteAvg = 138 ± 10Avg = 172 ± 21Avg = 0.23 ± 0.07
2016-731221590.29 ± 0.11
2016-781461780.15 ± 0.11
2016-851351480.24 ± 0.04
2016-871481730.16 ± 0.06
2016-961402040.31 ± 0.04
Hydrothermal sodaliteAvg = 53 ± 10Avg = 49 ± 8Avg = 0.36 ± 0.08
ILM12355.353.40.32 ± 0.12
ILM13845.057.20.45 ± 0.06
ILM15844.136.20.26 ± 0.15
ILM16250.848.80.33 ± 0.08
GM124668.349.40.43 ± 0.05
Tugtupite (hydrothermal)Avg = 26 ± 2Avg = 34 ± 8Avg = 0.71 ± 0.17
KK127.739.70.59 ± 0.09
KV124.828.60.83 ± 0.03
ILM127 (hydrothermal sod.) Avg = 24 ± 2Avg = 0.82 ± 0.12
(1)47.7 ± ± 0.47
(2)22.20.85 ± 0.27
(3)24.10.92 ± 0.10
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Eggenkamp, H.G.M.; Marks, M.A.W.; Louvat, P.; Markl, G. Bromine Isotope Variations in Magmatic and Hydrothermal Sodalite and Tugtupite and the Estimation of Br Isotope Fractionation between Melt and Sodalite. Minerals 2021, 11, 370.

AMA Style

Eggenkamp HGM, Marks MAW, Louvat P, Markl G. Bromine Isotope Variations in Magmatic and Hydrothermal Sodalite and Tugtupite and the Estimation of Br Isotope Fractionation between Melt and Sodalite. Minerals. 2021; 11(4):370.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Eggenkamp, Hans G. M., Michael A. W. Marks, Pascale Louvat, and Gregor Markl. 2021. "Bromine Isotope Variations in Magmatic and Hydrothermal Sodalite and Tugtupite and the Estimation of Br Isotope Fractionation between Melt and Sodalite" Minerals 11, no. 4: 370.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop