Next Article in Journal
A New Model for Predicting Drag Coefficient and Settling Velocity of Coarse Mineral Particles in Newtonian Fluid
Previous Article in Journal
Cu and Au Mineralization of the Tolparovo Ore Occurrence: Evidence for the Formation of Redbed Copper Occurrences in Neoproterozoic Deposits of the Southern Urals
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/min14020149
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mineralogical and Geochemical Evidence for the Origin of the DL Uranium Deposit in the Songliao Basin, Northeast China

by
Jialin Liu
1,*,
Mingkuan Qin
1,*,
Shaohua Huang
1,
Zhangyue Liu
1 and
Liangliang Zhang
2
1
CNNC Key Laboratory of Uranium Resource Exploration and Evaluation Technology, Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, Beijing 100029, China
2
No. 243 Geological Party of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), Chifeng 024006, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2024, 14(2), 149; https://doi.org/10.3390/min14020149
Submission received: 17 December 2023 / Revised: 9 January 2024 / Accepted: 23 January 2024 / Published: 30 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Deposits)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The DL deposit is a typical tabular-shaped U deposit hosted in sandstones of the Upper Cretaceous Yaojia Formation in the southwestern Songliao Basin, northeast China. Owing to its recent discovery, the origin of the deposit remains unclear. In this study, mineralogical and geochemical data were used to constrain the genesis of the DL deposit. Two sources of U were recognized: (1) pre-ore U enrichment in the Yaojia Formation during diagenesis; and (2) the provenance of the Yaojia Formation, which comprises late Permian–Early Cretaceous granitic rocks from the southern Great Xing’an Range and northern margin of the North China Craton, rather than the oils and diabase dikes in the study area. Mineralogical and geochemical characteristics indicate that organic matter (OM) in the Yaojia Formation was derived mainly from plant debris and hydrocarbons. In situ S isotope data for pyrite from the ore-bearing sandstones show that most of the pyrite has similar δ34S values (−43.8‰ to −20.6‰) to those of pyrite associated with bacterial sulfate reduction (BSR). The pyrite is often typically replaced and/or overgrown by pitchblende, which has a high P2O5 content (0.07–1.64 wt.%), indicative of a genetic relationship between BSR and U mineralization. The geological, mineralogical, and geochemical features suggest that the U mineralization in the DL deposit was mainly associated with BSR.

1. Introduction

Sandstone-type U deposits are one of the most important U mineralization types [1,2,3,4]. Previous studies have shown that U mineralization in sandstone-type U deposits is spatially and genetically related to the reduction in biodetritus (e.g., animal fossils and coal) [5,6,7,8], petroleum hydrocarbons that migrate up from deep faults in basins [9,10], and dissolved reduced S species (e.g., H2S and HS–) produced by bacterial sulfate reduction (BSR) [11,12,13]. Therefore, identifying the different mineralization mechanisms in sandstone-type U deposits is key to prospecting and exploration for such deposits.
The southwestern Songliao Basin is one of the most important mineralization belts for sandstone-type U deposits in northern China, and it hosts many sandstone-type U deposits, such as the Qianjiadian, DL, Baolongshan, and Baixingtu deposits. These deposits have similar geological features, including those developed along the oxidized sandstone and primary reduced sandstone within the lower member of the Yaojia Formation, tabular-shaped orebodies, and mineralization ages ranging from the late Cretaceous to Neogene (ca. 89–20 Ma) [13,14,15]. Additionally, some diabase dikes develop within these deposits which are green in color and ophitic in texture. Whether the diabase dikes were altered or not is rarely reported, but sandstones occurring around these dikes often have a green alteration which includes chlorite, epidote, and carbonate [13,16]. Many researchers have extensively investigated these deposits, but debate remains as to whether U mineralization is associated with BSR. Lin et al. (2009) [17] and Zhang et al. (2009) [18] proposed that the U mineralization in the Yaojia Formation was related to the reduction in hydrocarbons (oil, gas, and coal gas) from the deep part of the Songliao Basin. Bonnetti et al. (2017) [13] and Ren et al. (2022) [19] suggested that the U mineralization of the Baixingtu deposit was associated with BSR, which was responsible for the formation of a secondary, H2S-rich, reducing barrier for indirect U(VI) reduction and U(IV) precipitation. Zhao et al. (2018) [14] suggested that the U mineralization in the Qianjiadian deposit was biogenic and petroleum-related and formed from low-temperature groundwater rather than diabase-related magmatic–hydrothermal fluids. Rong et al. (2021) [20] and Ding et al. (2023) [21] suggested that U mineralization in the Qianjiadian and Baolongshan deposits was related to diabasic magmatism, which played an important role in facilitating the enrichment of soluble U in fluids. The newly discovered DL deposit, located in the southwestern Songliao Basin, is a sandstone-type U deposit hosted by the Upper Cretaceous Yaojia Formation. However, it still remains unclear whether the DL deposit is associated with BSR. Thus, in this paper, we present new mineralogical and geochemical data from the DL deposit. Combined with previous published data, this paper provides important constraints on the relationship between U mineralization and BSR in the study area.

2. Geological Setting

2.1. The Songliao Basin

The Songliao Basin is bounded by the Lesser Xing’an Range to the north, the Great Xing’an Range to the west, the Zhangguangcai Range to the east, and the northern margin of the North China Block to the south (Figure 1) and covers an area of approximately 26,000 km2 [22]. The Songliao Basin is a Cretaceous rift basin and is infilled by upper Mesozoic to Cenozoic clastic deposits with a total thickness of >10,000 m and a burial depth to the basement in the center of the basin of >6000 m. The sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie Late Jurassic volcanic rocks [13]. The basement of the Songliao Basin consists mainly of Precambrian to Paleozoic metamorphic rocks [23,24,25], Paleozoic to Mesozoic granites [26,27], Paleozoic sedimentary rocks [28,29], and Late Jurassic intermediate–silicic volcanic rocks, similar to the basement of the eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt.
The stratigraphic units in the Songliao Basin comprise Cretaceous clastic sedimentary rocks, including (from bottom to top) the Doulouku (K1d), Quantou (K1q), Qingshankou (K2qn), Yaojia (K2y), and Nenjiang (K2n) formations (Figure 2). The Yaojia Formation can be divided into two members: the upper member is gray–green, brown–red, purplish-red mudstone, and green–gray whitish sandstone; the lower member is gray–green, whitish sandstone, which hosts most of the sandstone-type U deposits in the southwestern Songliao Basin. The provenance of the Yaojia and Qingshankou formations is the late Mesozoic igneous rock from the Great Xing’an Range and the northern margin of the North China Craton (i.e., limited to the southwest of the Songliao Basin) [31].

2.2. The DL Uranium Deposit

The DL deposit, located in the southwestern Songliao Basin (Figure 2 and Figure 3), has a length of 9 km and a width of 200–1200 m. The deposit is hosted by the lower member of the Yaojia Formation (Figure 4). Late Paleozoic granitoids comprise the basement rocks in the study area. The basin is cut by NE–SW-trending faults. The primary reduced sandstones of the lower member of the Yaojia Formation are dominantly grayish in color, fine- to medium-grained, and contain Fe–Ti oxide, pyrite, and organic matter (OM) (Figure 5a). Most of these sandstones in the DL deposit experienced secondary oxidization, whereby pyrites and Fe–Ti oxides were modified to hematite and Ti oxides by oxidizing groundwaters, respectively, leading to a reddish and light yellow coloration. These oxidized sandstones developed mainly along NE–SW-striking zones that are >30 km in length and 1–30 km in width. The primary reduced sandstones also exhibit secondary reduced green and white zones. The secondary green zones may be related to reduction by oil, oilfield brines, and hydrothermal fluids derived from diabasic magmatism, which formed kaolinite and chlorite (Figure 5b). These zones are locally restricted to the diabase dikes and deep faults. The secondary white zones may be related to acidic fluids produced by anaerobic bacteria, which caused the development of kaolinite and illite. X-ray diffraction results show that the clay minerals in the sandstones of the white zones are mainly composed of kaolinite and illite, comprising 45–81 wt.% and 19–30 wt.%, respectively (unpublished data).
The ore-bearing sandstones of the DL deposit are tabular-shaped, NE–SW-trending, and occur along contacts between the oxidized sandstone and primary reduced sandstone. The dominant U-bearing minerals in the ore-bearing sandstones are pitchblende, which is characterized by a coccoidal shape and microorganism-like aggregates and often replace and/or overgrow framboidal pyrite (Figure 5c) and phytoclast or as nanocrystals adsorbed on the surfaces of OM, Ti oxides, and clay minerals. Ti-oxides are highly abundant in the ore-bearing sandstone and oxidized sandstone (Figure 5d). In the ore-bearing sandstone, Ti-oxides are often replaced by pyrite (Figure 5e) and may adsorb minor U or U-bearing nanocrystals on their surface. Pyrites dominantly occur in the ore-bearing sandstones and show coccoid and framboidal aggregates (Figure 5f,g).

3. Sample Collection and Analysis

3.1. Sampling

The samples were collected mainly from drill cores. During sampling, oxidized, primary reduced, and ore-bearing sandstones were initially selected based on color, lithology, and gamma-ray testing using a gamma radiometer HD-2000.

3.2. Analytical Methods

Pitchblende, pyrite, and Ti oxides were identified using a Leica DM4 P optical microscope under reflected light in polished thin-sections. Element analyses were conducted using Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) with a JEOL JXA-8100 Electron Probe Microanalyser in the Analytical Laboratory of the Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, Beijing, China, with an accelerating voltage of 20 kV, a beam current of 20 nA, and an emergence angle of 40°. The accuracy of the results is ±1–5 wt.% depending on the elemental abundance.
The uranium, total organic carbon (TOC), and total S contents were analyzed in the Analytical Laboratory of the Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, China. Samples were milled to 200 μm in size and then analyzed using a PE Elan 6000 ICP–MS for U using the standards GBPG-1, OU-6, GSR-1, and GSR-3 and with an accuracy of <±5%. The TOC and total S contents of the samples were tested by the infrared absorption method which is in accordance with the Chinese EJ/T 20154-2018 standard, and the accuracy was better than 0.2%. The samples were treated with HCl to remove inorganic C and were then combusted to convert the TOC into CO2 which can be measured by the Leco CS-230 Carbon Analyzer. For analyses of total S, samples were crushed to less than 100 μm and heated to 1250 °C with N2 as the carrier gas after being mixed with WO3. The SO2 generated was absorbed by diluted hydrochloric acid with starch and potassium iodide. The analyses were conducted by using a Leco CS-230 Sulfur Analyzer.
In situ S isotope analysis was undertaken at the Wuhan Shangpu Analytical Technology Company Limited using a multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC–ICP–MS; Neptune Plus) and a Coherent 193 nm femtosecond laser ablation system (GeoLasPro HD). The laser spot size was 44 μm. To avoid the matrix effect, the pyrite standard PPP-1, the chalcopyrite standard GBW07268, and the synthetic Ag2S standard IAEA-S-1 were chosen as reference materials for correcting the natural pyrite, pyrrhotite, and pentlandite samples; the natural chalcopyrite samples; and the natural Ag2S samples, respectively.

4. Results

4.1. Mineral Chemistry

Representative pitchblende analyses are given in Table 1. The pitchblende has high U and low Ti, Si, Fe P, and Zr contents, with UO2, SiO2, FeO, TiO2, P2O5, and ZrO2 contents of 72.66–83.81, 0.02–1.72, 0.20–3.86, 0.48–2.40, 0.07–1.64, and 1.76–6.34 wt.%, respectively.
Representative data for pyrite are listed in Table 2. The pyrite in the oxidized sandstone has Fe contents of 46.3–46.59 wt.%, S contents of 52.68–53.09 wt.%, and low Cr, Mn, Cd, Pb, and Cu contents. Compared with the pyrite in the oxidized sandstone, the pyrite in the ore-bearing sandstones has relatively lower Fe (40.2–45.76 wt.%) and S (49.05–52.21 wt.%) and higher As (1.23–2.59 wt.%), Co (0.06–3.2 wt.%), Cr (0.02–0.06 wt.%), Ni (0.02–2.14 wt.%), and U (0.01–1.85 wt.%) contents.
Representative Ti oxide analyses are given in Table 3. The Ti oxides in the oxidized sandstones have Ti contents of 94.46–89.47 wt.%, SiO2 contents of 1.27–7.04 wt.%, FeO contents of 0.86–1.06 wt.%, and low Al2O3 and ZrO2 contents. The Ti oxides in the ore-bearing sandstones have relatively higher FeO (0.37–2.97 wt.%) and UO2 (0.09–12.32 wt.%), and lower Al2O3 contents.

4.2. Elemental Geochemistry

The U, TOC, and total S contents of sandstones in the DL deposit are listed in Table 4 and Table 5. The ore-bearing sandstones have higher contents of U (113–2412 ppm; with an average of 676.5 ppm) than the oxidized sandstones (1–4 ppm; with an average of 2 ppm) and primary reduced sandstones (7–11 ppm; with an average of 9 ppm). The oxidized sandstones have TOC and total S contents of 0.01–0.065 and 0.005–0.032 wt.%, respectively. Compared with the oxidized sandstones, the ore-bearing sandstones have relatively higher TOC (0.137–0.424 wt.%) and total S (0.061–0.233 wt.%) contents.

4.3. In Situ S Isotopes

Representative in situ S isotope data for pyrite are given in Table 6. The pyrite in the ore-bearing sandstones has δ34S values ranging from −43.8‰ to +17.2‰ (mainly ranging from −43.8‰ to −20.6‰; Figure 6).

5. Discussion

5.1. Uranium Source

The Precambrian and Paleoproterozoic basement rocks beneath the basins, as well as the Mesozoic intrusive rocks adjacent to the basins, have relatively high U contents and are important U sources for the Mesozoic sandstone-type U deposits in northern China [10,36,37,38]. Previous studies have suggested that the late Mesozoic igneous rocks of the Great Xing’an Range and the northern margin of the North China Craton (i.e., southwest of the Songliao Basin), which have relatively high U contents, such as the Huanggangliang granite (5.48–35.7 ppm) [39], the Weilasituo granite (6.16–18.60 ppm) [40], and the Baiyinchagan quartz porphyry (23.76–42.33 ppm) [41], were the main source rocks of the Yaojia Formation [31]. The primary reduced sandstones in the DL deposit have high U contents of 7–11 ppm, indicating that U enrichment occurred during the diagenetic stage. Therefore, the source area of the Yaojia Formation most likely provided U during early diagenesis.
The different average U contents of the primary reduced (8 ppm) and oxidized (2 ppm) sandstones in the DL deposit indicate that nearly 6 ppm of U was extracted by oxidizing groundwater during later diagenesis, suggesting that the primary reduced sandstone is an important source of U for mineralization. In addition, a significant uplift and erosion event occurred in the southern Great Xing’an Range during 100–50 Ma [42,43], which coincided with the mineralization ages of the Qianjiadian, Baolongshan, Baixingtu, and DL deposits (89–20 Ma) [13,14,15,44], indicating that sandstone-type U mineralization in the study area was temporally associated with Cretaceous tectonic activities. The intrusive rocks in the southern Great Xing’an Range were source rocks for the Yaojia Formation that are enriched in U, and present-day groundwater flow through these rocks is also characterized by U enrichment [45], indicating that the provenance area of the Yaojia Formation may also be an important source of U for the DL deposit. Therefore, both the primary reduced sandstones and their source rocks provided U for the DL deposit during mineralization.
Hydrocarbons often have high U contents and can be an important source for some sandstone-type U deposits in northern China [46]. However, the U contents of oils from the Kailu depression that adjoined the DL deposit have considerably low U contents (0.002–0.854 ppm; with average of 0.178 ppm; unpublished data). This indicates that hydrocarbons may not have provided significant amounts of U for the DL deposit. In addition, diabase dikes in the study area also have relatively low U contents (1.36–6.61 ppm) and could not have been an important source of U for the sandstone-type U mineralization in the Songliao Basin [47]. In summary, the two sources of U in the DL deposit were: (1) the primary reduced sandstones in the Yaojia Formation; and (2) the source rocks of the Yaojia Formation, which are late Permian–Early Cretaceous granitic rocks from the southern Great Xing’an Range and northern margin of the North China Craton.

5.2. Nature of the Organic Matter

The OM fragments disseminated in the primary reduced sandstones of the DL deposit are characterized by partly amorphous and preserved plant structures (Figure 5a,g), which are often partly or totally replaced by pyrite and pitchblende (Figure 5g). In the oxidized sandstones, the OM has been heavily altered by oxygenated groundwaters. The geochemical data show that the oxidized sandstones have much lower TOC contents (0.01–0.07 wt.%), indicating that most of the OM in the oxidized sandstones is poorly preserved.
The primary reduced sandstones have high hydrocarbon contents (11.57–24,876.9 μL/kg) [34]. Moreover, the calcite cements of the primary reduced sandstones show light blue fluorescence (Figure 5h,i), in which some fluid inclusions with liquid phases also have a light blue fluorescence [34]. This indicates that some hydrocarbons trapped in the primary reduced sandstones during calcite cementation [14]. In addition, the origin of the hydrocarbon can be identified by using the linear relationship between ln(C1/C2) and ln(C2/C3) values of hydrocarbons as an indicative index for distinguishing kerogen primary cracked gas and crude oil cracked gas [48]. Previously published hydrocarbon data of the DL deposit suggest that the hydrocarbons in the primary reduced sandstones were derived from kerogen primary and crude oil secondary cracked gases [34]. Thus, the OM in the Yaojia Formation of the DL deposit was mainly phytoclasts and hydrocarbons derived from oil during early diagenesis.
OM can act as a reducing agent for sandstone-type U mineralization by reacting with U-bearing oxidizing groundwater and can also modify the activity of anaerobic bacteria in sandstones to promote the precipitation of U [49,50]. In the ore-bearing sandstones, OM is often adsorbed or partially replaced by pitchblende. Additionally, the geochemical data show that the ore-bearing sandstones have much higher TOC (0.14–0.42 wt.%) and U (113–2412 ppm) contents than the TOC (0.01–0.07 wt.%) and U (1–4 ppm) contents of the oxidized sandstones, reflecting a positive correlation between OM and U contents in these sandstones. Therefore, this indicates that the OM may have a close genetically relationship with U mineralization in the DL deposit.

5.3. Relationship between Bacterial Sulfate Reduction and Mineralization

Pyrite is widespread in the ore-bearing sandstones and rarely occurs in the oxidized sandstones of the DL deposit. Geochemical data show that the total S contents of the oxidized sandstones are much lower than those of the ore-bearing sandstones, indicating that S in the primary reduced sandstones may have been leached by oxidized groundwaters flowing into the ore-bearing sandstones.
As shown in Figure 6, most pyrites in the ore-bearing sandstones of the DL deposit have δ34S values ranging from −43.8‰ to −20.6‰, similar to those of the pyrites in the ore-bearing sandstones from the Qianjiadian and Baixingtu deposits which are considered to have been associated with BSR [13,14]. The pyrite samples are characterized by highly variable δ34S values ranging from −43.8‰ to +17.2‰, which are also consistent with the feature of the pyrites associated with BSR [51], indicating that there is a genetic relationship between pyrites and BSR in the DL deposit. In addition, some pyrites have very low δ34S values (minimum up to −43.8‰), which are considered to be indicative of the formation in an open system [52] or multi-step reactions involving sulfate reduction and sulfide oxidation [53]. Other pyrites have relatively higher δ34S values of −0.6‰ to +17.2‰, similar to those of pyrites in the Baixingtu deposit of the Songliao Basin and the Bayanwula deposit of the Erlian Basin, northern China, which are thought to be related to chemical sedimentary precipitation [13] or BSR in a closed system [14,51,54]. However, diabase dikes intruded in the southwestern Songliao Basin, and some orebodies of the Qianjiadian, Baixingtu, and DL deposits locally developed along the contact between diabase dikes and sandstones of the Yaojia Formation. The emplacement ages (53.0 ± 2.3 to 40 ± 1 Ma) [55,56] of the diabase dikes are similar to the U mineralization ages of these deposits (89–20 Ma) [13,14,15,44]. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the minor sulfur of the pyrites might be derived from the diabase magma. Previous studies suggest that trace elements, such as As, Co, Ni, Pb, and Cr, tend to be incorporated into pyrite during BSR under reducing conditions, leading to the enrichment of these elements in biogenic pyrite [57,58]. Mineralogical analysis results show that the pyrites in the ore-bearing sandstones have relatively higher As, Co, Ni, Pb, and Cr contents than those of the pyrites in the oxidized sandstones, indicating the pyrites were formed during BSR processes. In summary, mineralogical and geochemical features indicate that the pyrite in the ore-bearing sandstones is biogenic in origin, and BSR played an important role in sulfidation during the mineralization of the DL deposit.
During BSR, sulfate-reducing bacteria are capable of utilizing local OM as a source of energy and Fe2+ from Fe-bearing detrital and diagenetic minerals within the sandstones to produce dissolved reduced S species (H2S and HS−) and pyrites which can act as reducing agents for U mineralization [12,14,59]. The aggregates of pitchblende are mainly coccoidal and cellular in shape and often partly or totally replace biogenic pyrite and OM. Moreover, some pitchblende also overgrows framboidal pyrite (Figure 5d). These features are similar to those of the sandstone-type U deposits genetically associated with BSR [13,14]. BSR can also lower the pH of groundwater, which can dissolve phosphate-rich minerals, such as apatite, leading to the release of P [60,61] and its enrichment in U-bearing minerals [62,63]. The pitchblende in the DL deposit has relatively high P2O5 contents (0.07–1.64 wt.%) which are consistent with those of the sandstone-type U deposits related to BSR in northern China [13,57]. In a H2S-rich system during BSR, Fe–Ti oxides can be altered to Ti oxides by oxidizing groundwater and the U released and then reconcentrated in these residual Ti oxides [57]. Compared with the Ti oxides in the oxidized sandstones, the Ti oxides in the ore-bearing sandstones have higher U contents (up to 12.32 wt.%). In addition, the biogenic pyrite in the ore-bearing sandstones has much higher U contents (0.01–1.85 wt.%) compared with those (0.01–0.02 wt.%) of the oxidized sandstones, indicating that the precipitation of U may have occurred under a H2S-rich condition related with BSR. Therefore, all this evidence indicates that the U precipitation in the DL deposit was biogenic and genetically associated with BSR.

6. Conclusions

(1)
The sources of U in the DL deposit were both (1) the primary reduced sandstones, and (2) the source rocks of the Yaojia Formation, rather than oils and diabase dikes in the study area;
(2)
The OM in the primary reduced sandstones was derived mainly from phytoclasts and hydrocarbon during early diagenesis;
(3)
The mineralogical and geochemical features indicate that the genesis of the U mineralization of the DL deposit was strongly related to BSR processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Q. and J.L.; investigation, S.H., Z.L. and L.Z.; writing-original draft, J.L.; writing—review and editing, M.Q. and J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Fourth Talent Project from China National Nuclear Corporation (No. QNYC2102).

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the No. 243 geology team of CNNC for assisting during field investigation.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Liangliang Zhang was employed by the company No. 243 Geological Party of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lehmann, B. Uranium ore deposits. Econ. Geol. 2008, 2, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zammit, C.M.; Brugger, J.; Southam, G.; Reith, F. In-situ recovery of uranium- the microbial influence. Hydrometallurgy 2014, 150, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hall, S.M.; Mihalasky, M.J.; Tureck, K.R.; Hammarstrom, J.M.; Hannon, M.T. Genetic and grade and tonnage models for sandstone-hosted roll-type uranium deposits, Texas Coastal Plain, USA. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 80, 716–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xing, W.; Wang, A.; Yan, Q.; Chen, S. A study of China’s uranium resources security issues: Based on analysis of China’s nuclear power development trend. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2017, 110, 1156–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Granger, H.C.; Warren, C.G. Unstable sulfur compounds and the origin of roll-type uranium deposits. Econ. Geol. 1969, 64, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Spirakis, C.S. The roles of organic matter in the formation of uranium deposits in sedimentary rocks. Ore Geol. Rev. 1996, 11, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Min, M.Z.; Luo, X.Z.; Mao, S.L.; Wang, Z.Q.; Wang, R.C.; Qin, L.F.; Tan, X.L. An excellent fossil wood cell texture with primary uranium minerals at a sandstonehosted roll-type uranium deposit. NW China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2001, 17, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Douglas, G.B.; Butt, C.R.M.; Gray, D.J. Geology, geochemistry and mineralogy of the lignite-hosted Ambassador palaeochannel uranium and multi-element deposit, Gunbarrel Basin, Western Australia. Miner. Depos. 2011, 46, 761–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jaireth, S.; McKay, A.; Lambert, I. Association of large sandstone uranium deposits with hydrocarbons. Geosci. Aust. Issue 2008, 89, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, Z.Y.; Fang, X.H.; Chen, A.P.; Sun, Y.; Chen, F.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, W.; Li, M.; Jiao, Y. Superposition metallogenic model of sandstone-type U deposit in the Northeastern Ordos basin. Uranium Geol. 2009, 25, 65–70, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  11. Hua, B.; Xu, H.; Terry, J.; Deng, B. Kinetics of uranium (VI) reduction by hydrogen sulfide in anoxic aqueous systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4666–4671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Campbell, K.M.; Kukkadapu, R.K.; Qafoku, N.P.; Peacock, A.D.; Lesher, E.; Wiliams, K.H.; Bargar, J.R.; Wilkins, M.J.; Figueroa, L.; Ranville, J.; et al. Geochemical, mineralogical and microbiological characteristics of sediment from a naturally reduced zone in a uranium-contaminated aquifer. Appl. Geochem. 2012, 27, 1499–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bonnetti, C.; Liu, X.; Zhaobin, Y.; Cuney, M.; Michels, R.; Malartre, F.; Mercadier, J.; Cai, J. Coupled uranium mineralisation and bacterial sulphate reduction for the genesis of the Baxingtu sandstone-hosted U deposit, SW Songliao Basin, NE China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 82, 108–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhao, L.; Cai, C.; Jin, R.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Wei, J.; Guo, H.; Zhang, B. Mineralogical and geochemical evidence for biogenic and petroleum-related uranium mineralization in the Qianjiadian deposit, NE China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 101, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ma, H.F.; Lou, Y.; Li, Z.Y.; Yu, Z.Q. Constrain of sedimentary characteristics on the mineralization type of sandstone hosted uranium deposits—A case study of Yaojia Formation in the southern Songliao Basin. World Nucl. Geosci. 2010, 27, 6–10, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  16. Yang, D.G.; Wu, J.H.; Nie, F.J.; Bonnetti, C.; Xia, F.; Yan, Z.B.; Cai, J.F.; Wang, C.D.; Wang, H.T. Petrogenetic constraints of early Cenozoic mafic rocks in the southwest Songliao Basin, NE China: Implications for the genesis of sandstone-hosted Qianjiadian uranium deposits. Minerals 2020, 10, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lin, J.R.; Tian, H.; Dong, W.M.; Xia, Y.L.; Zheng, J.W.; OU, G.X.; Pang, Y.Q. Characteristics of sulfur isotope during the epigenetic alteration of oil gas and coalbed methane in the southeastern Songliao Basin. World Nucl. Geosci. 2009, 26, 63–67, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhang, Z.Q.; Zhao, Z.H.; Yang, B.; Yang, F.; Li, P.F. Epigenetic-reduction of oil and gas to uranium mineralization in Yaojia formation in Baixingtu area of southern Songliao basin. Uranium Geol. 2009, 25, 290–295, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  19. Ren, Y.S.; Yang, X.Y.; Hu, X.W.; Wei, J.L.; Tang, C. Mineralogical and geochemical evidence for biogenic uranium mineralization in northern Songliao Basin, NE China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2022, 141, 104556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rong, H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Wu, L.Q.; Zhao, X.F.; Cao, M.Q.; Liu, W.H. Effects of igneous intrusions on diagenesis and reservoir quality of sandstone in the Songliao Basin, China. Marine and Petrol. Geol. 2021, 127, 104980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ding, B.; Liu, H.X.; Xu, D.R.; Qiu, L.F.; Liu, W.H. Mineralogical Evidence for Hydrothermal Uranium Mineralization: Discovery and Genesis of the Uranyl Carbonate Minerals in the BLS U Deposit, SW Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Minerals 2023, 13, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Li, H.M.; Wang, X.L. The nature of basement beneath the Songliao Basin in NE China: Geochemical and isotopic constraints. Phys. Chem. Earth Part A 2001, 26, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, F.; Zhou, X.H.; Zhang, L.C.; Ying, J.F.; Zhang, Y.T.; Wu, F.Y.; Zhu, R.X. Late Mesozoic volcanism in the Great Xing’an Range (NE China): Timing and implications for the dynamic setting of NE Asia. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 251, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pei, F.P.; Xu, W.L.; Yang, D.B.; Zhao, Q.G.; Liu, X.M.; Hu, Z.C. Zircon U-Pb geochronology of basement metamorphic rocks in the Songliao Basin. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2007, 52, 942–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, J.H.; Gao, S.; Ge, W.C.; Wu, F.Y.; Yang, J.H.; Wilde, S.A.; Li, M. Geochronology of the Mesozoic volcanic rocks in the Great Xing’an Range, northeastern China: Implications for subduction-induced delamination. Chem. Geol. 2010, 276, 144–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wu, F.Y.; Sun, D.Y.; Ge, W.C.; Zhang, Y.B.; Grant, M.L.; Wilde, S.A.; Jahn, B.M. Geochronology of the Phanerozoic granitoids in northeastern China. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 41, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, S.Q.; Chen, F.K.; Siebel, W.; Wu, J.D.; Zhu, X.Y.; Shan, X.L.; Sun, X.M. Late Mesozoic tectonic evolution of the Songliao basin, NE China: Evidence from detrital zircon ages and Sr-Nd isotopes. Gondwana Res. 2012, 22, 943–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhou, J.B.; Wilde, S.A.; Zhang, X.Z.; Liu, F.L.; Liu, J.H. Detrital zircons from phanerozoic rocks of the Songliao Block, NE China: Evidence and tectonic implications. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 47, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, Q.H.; Tan, W.; Yang, H.C. Stratigraphic succession and chronosrata of Cretaceous in Songliao Basin. Petrol. Geol. Oilfield Dev. Daqing 1999, 18, 18–28, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  30. Song, Y.; Ren, J.; Stepashko, A.A.; Li, J. Post-rift geodynamics of the Songliao Basin, NE China: Origin and significance of T11 (Coniacian) unconformity. Tectonophysics 2014, 634, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, J.L.; Qin, M.K.; Cai, Y.Q.; Liu, Z.Y.; Zhang, Z.M.; Yao, L. Late Mesozoic tectonic evolution of the southern Great Xing’an Range, northeastern China: Constraints from detrital zircon U–Pb and Hf isotopes of Late Cretaceous sandstones in the southwestern Songliao Basin. Geol. J. 2020, 55, 4415–4425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sha, J. Cretaceous stratigraphy of northeast China: Non-marine and marine correlation. Cretaceous Res. 2007, 28, 146–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, P.J.; Gao, Y.F.; Ren, Y.G. 40Ar/39Ar age and geochemical features of mugearite from the Qingshankou Formation: Significances for basin formation, hydrocarbon generation and petroleum accumulation of the Songliao Basin in Cretaceous. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2009, 25, 1178–1190, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, S.H.; Qin, M.K.; Liu, Z.Y.; Deng, F.L.; Huang, X.; Guo, Q.; Jia, L.C. Characteristics and genesis of organic matter within the lower member of Yaojia Formation and its implications for tabular-type uranium deposits in the southwest of Songliao Basin. Geol. Ore Depos. 2021, 63, 474–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cai, J.F. Geological report of in-situ leaching sandstone type uranium deposit in Baolongshan area, Tongliao City, Inner Mongolia, Chifeng. Unpublished geological report. 2014; 35–78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, J.D. Innovation and development of metallogenic theory for sandstone type uranium deposit in China. Uranium Geol. 2016, 32, 321–332. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hou, B.H.; Keeling, J.; Li, Z.Y. Paleovalley-related uranium deposits in Australia and China: A review of geological and exploration models and methods. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 88, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qin, M.Q.; He, Z.B.; Liu, Z.Y.; Guo, Q.; Song, J.Y.; Xu, Q. Study on Metallogenic Environments and Prospective Direction of Sandstone Type Uranium Deposits in Junggar Basin. Geol. Rev. 2017, 63, 1255–1269. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhou, Z.H.; Mao, J.W.; Lyckberg, P. Geochronology and isotopic geochemistry of the A–type granites from the Huanggang Sn–Fe deposit, southern Great Hinggan Range, NE China: Implication for their origin and tectonic setting. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 49, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, F.X.; Bagas, L.; Jiang, S.H.; Liu, Y.F. Geological, geochemical, and geochronological characteristics of Weilasituo Sn-polymetal deposit, Inner Mongolia, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 80, 1206–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yao, L.; Lü, Z.C.; Pang, Z.S.; Jia, H.X.; Zhang, Z.H.; Jia, R.Y.; Wu, Y.F. Geological and Sr-Nd-S-Pb isotopic constraints on the genesis of the Baiyinchagan tin polymetallic deposit, southern Great Xing’an Range, China. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2021, 37, 1731–1748, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, X.M.; Yang, X.Y.; Xia, B.; Gong, G.L.; Shan, Y.H.; Zeng, Q.S.; Li, W.; Sun, W.D. Exhumation of the Dahinggan Mountains, NE China from the Late Mesozoic to the Cenozoic: New evidence from fission-track thermochronology. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2011, 42, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nie, F.J.; Zhang, J.; Yan, Z.B.; Wang, Y.N.; Li, M.E.; Xia, F.; Zhu, C.H.; Wang, S.L.; Hu, J. Apatite fission track chronology of the Weijing granite and denudation event in the northern margin of North China during the Late Cretaceous and their implications to uranium mineralization. Acta Geol. Sin. 2017, 92, 313–329, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  44. Huang, S.H.; Qin, M.K.; Liu, Z.Y.; Zhang, L.L.; Guo, Q.; Jia, L.C.; Jiang, W.J.; Liu, J.L.; Dong, Y. Uranium occurrence and metallogenic age for the DL uranium mineralized belt in Qianjiadian Sag, southwestern Songliao Basin. Uranium Geol. 2022, 68, 817–830, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  45. Ma, H.F.; Luo, Y.; Li, Z.Y.; He, Z.B.; Xia, Y.L.; Wang, M.T. Sedimentary features and uranium metallogenic conditions of Yaojia formation in southern Songliao Basin. Uranium Geol. 2009, 25, 144–149, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, Z.Y.; Chen, A.P.; Fang, X.H.; Ou, G.X.; Xia, Y.L.; Sun, Y. Origin and superposition metallogenic model of the sandstone-type uranium deposit in the northeastern Ordos Basin, China. Acta Geol. Sin. 2008, 82, 745–749. [Google Scholar]
  47. Feng, Z.B.; Nie, F.J.; Jiang, L.; Xia, F.; Cai, J.F.; Zhang, B.C.; Lu, Y.Y.; Zhang, L.L. Roles of Multi-sourced Fluids in the Formation of Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposits in the SW Songliao Basin, NE China. J. Earth Sci. 2023, 34, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prinzhofer, A.A.; Huc, A.Y. Genetic and post-genetic molecular and isotopic fractionations in natural gases. Chem. Geol. 1995, 126, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Michaelsen, B.H.; Fabris, A.J.; Keeling, J.L.; McKirdy, D.M.; Katona, L.F.; Tucker, L.R. Organic facies of the Frome Embayment and Callabonna Sub-basin: What and where are the uranium reductants? MESA J. 2016, 81, 35–65. [Google Scholar]
  50. Jaireth, S.; Roach, I.C.; Bastrakov, E.; Liu, S. Basin-related uranium mineral systems in Australia: A review of critical features. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 76, 360–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ohomoto, H.; Rye, R. Isotopes of sulfur and carbon. In Geochemistry of Hydrothermal Ore Deposits; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1979; pp. 505–567. [Google Scholar]
  52. Neretin, L.N.; Böttcher, M.E.; Grinenko, V.A. Sulfur isotope geochemistry of the Black Sea water column. Chem. Geol. 2003, 200, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rullkötter, J.; Wendisch, D. Microbial alteration of 17α(H)-hopanes in Madagascar asphalts: Removal of C-10 methyl group and ring opening. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1982, 46, 1545–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hoefs, J. Stable Isotope Geochemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yang, D.G.; Nie, F.J.; Xia, F.; Wu, J.H.; Yan, Z.B.; Chen, M.Y.; Liu, X.B.; Wang, H.T.; Wang, C.D. Age and Petrogenesis of Early Cenozoic Dolerites in the Qianjiadian Sag, Southwest Songliao Basin, NE China: Implications for the Genesis of Sandstone-hosted Uranium Deposits. Geotecton. Metallog. 2022, 46, 334–355. [Google Scholar]
  56. Liu, H.B.; Jin, G.S.; Han, J.; Zhang, J.F.; Li, J.J.; Zhang, J.; Shi, X. Element and isotope geochemical characteristics of diabase in Qianjiadian uranium deposit. World Nuclear. Geoscience 2021, 38, 135–143, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  57. Bonnetti, C.; Cuney, M.; Michels, R.; Truche, L.; Malartre, F.; Liu, X.; Yang, J. The multiple roles of sulfate-reducing bacteria and Fe-Ti oxides in the genesis of the Bayinwula roll front-type uranium deposit, Erlian basin, NE China. Econ. Geol. 2015, 110, 1059–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Teclu, D.; Tivchev, G.; Laing, M.; Wallis, M. Bioremoval of arsenic species from contaminated waters by sulphate-reducing bacteria. Water Res. 2008, 42, 4885–4893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Machel, H.G. Bacterial and thermochemicahl sulphate reduction in diagenetic settings—Old and new insights. Sedim. Geol. 2001, 140, 143–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Welch, S.A.; Taunton, A.E.; Banfield, J.F. Effect of microorganisms and microbial metabolites on apatite dissolution. Geomicrobiol. J. 2002, 19, 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hutchens, E.; Valsami-Jones, E.; Harouiya, N.; Chairat, C.; Oelkers, E.H.; McEldoney, S. An experimental investigation of the effect of Bacillus Megaterium on apatite dissolution. Geomicrobiol. J. 2006, 19, 343–367. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gächter, R.; Meyer, J.S. The role of microorganisms in mobilization and fixation of phosphorus in sediments. Hydrobiologia 1993, 253, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alessi, D.S.; Lezama-Pacheco, J.S.; Stubbs, J.E.; Janousch, M.; Bargar, J.R.; Persson, P.; Bernier-Latmani, R. The product of microbial uranium reduction includes multiple species with U(IV)–phosphate coordination. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2014, 131, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 14 00149 g001
Figure 1. Sketch map showing the location of the northeastern China (a) and the Songliao Basin (b) (modified from [30]).
Figure 1. Sketch map showing the location of the northeastern China (a) and the Songliao Basin (b) (modified from [30]).
Minerals 14 00149 g001
Minerals 14 00149 g002
Figure 2. Schematic stratigraphy of the Late Cenozoic sedimentary successions of the Songliao Basin (modified from [31,32,33]).
Figure 2. Schematic stratigraphy of the Late Cenozoic sedimentary successions of the Songliao Basin (modified from [31,32,33]).
Minerals 14 00149 g002
Minerals 14 00149 g003
Figure 3. Geological map of the DL deposit (modified from [34]).
Figure 3. Geological map of the DL deposit (modified from [34]).
Minerals 14 00149 g003
Minerals 14 00149 g004
Figure 4. Cross-section map of the DL deposit (modified from [35]).
Figure 4. Cross-section map of the DL deposit (modified from [35]).
Minerals 14 00149 g004
Minerals 14 00149 g005
Figure 5. Back scattered electron (b–g), transmission light (h), and fluorescence (i) images of typical minerals of the DL deposit. (a) OM in the primary reduced sandstone; (b) kaolinite and chlorite in the secondary green zones; (c) pitchblende replaced or overgrowing framboidal pyrite; (d) Ti oxide with skeleton structure; (e) Ti oxide replaced by pitchblende; (f) framboidal pyrite; (g) pitchblende and pyrite in replacement of phytoclast; (h) calcite cements of the primary reduced sandstones; (i) calcite cements of (h) showing blue fluorescence.
Figure 5. Back scattered electron (b–g), transmission light (h), and fluorescence (i) images of typical minerals of the DL deposit. (a) OM in the primary reduced sandstone; (b) kaolinite and chlorite in the secondary green zones; (c) pitchblende replaced or overgrowing framboidal pyrite; (d) Ti oxide with skeleton structure; (e) Ti oxide replaced by pitchblende; (f) framboidal pyrite; (g) pitchblende and pyrite in replacement of phytoclast; (h) calcite cements of the primary reduced sandstones; (i) calcite cements of (h) showing blue fluorescence.
Minerals 14 00149 g005
Minerals 14 00149 g006
Figure 6. S isotopic compositions of pyrites from the DL, Baixingtu [13], and Qianjiadian [14] deposits.
Figure 6. S isotopic compositions of pyrites from the DL, Baixingtu [13], and Qianjiadian [14] deposits.
Minerals 14 00149 g006
Table 1. Representative compositions (wt.%) of pitchblende from the DL deposit.
Table 1. Representative compositions (wt.%) of pitchblende from the DL deposit.
Samplezkx135-1-1zkx97-5-1zkx99-5zkx97-5-1zkx99-5-164zkx135-1-1
Spot3526127168
Na2O2.911.570.581.190.213.262.743.073.733.03
FeO0.692.40.480.360.060.621.290.440.561.03
UO269.8971.5172.6674.0574.8577.9879.2582.383.8184.96
Y2O30.090.080.040.140.060.150.090.090.210.15
Al2O31.351.120.510.320.280.890.660.10.120.08
TiO21.281.680.021.72-1.511.351.71.391.54
MgO0.110.180.04-0.020.04----
SiO23.862.930.21.430.752.471.230.770.760.7
La2O30.010.03---0.090.050.02--
PbO0.060.080.01--0.20.05-0.240.01
As2O52.261.980.032.44-1.912.312.232.512.39
Ce2O30.110.18-0.130.040.050.120.030.190.21
P2O51.161.390.071.450.011.151.641.251.351.3
ZrO22.315.07-6.34-2.131.762.581.771.81
Cr2O3-0.030.130.020.020.02-0.050.01-
V2O50.140.050.030.04-0.20.180.170.170.27
CaO1.541.540.151.64-1.491.421.760.61.28
Nd2O30.02-0.010.05-0.110.050.160.220.06
SO30.290.918.530.358.120.130.240.090.260.04
Pr2O3-0.01-0.02------
NiO---0.060.020.06-0.010.040.01
F0.13---0.24-0.050.14--
Total88.1692.7483.4991.7584.5894.4694.4696.997.9498.87
Table 2. Representative compositions (wt.%) of pyrites from the DL deposit.
Table 2. Representative compositions (wt.%) of pyrites from the DL deposit.
Rock TypeOre-Bearing SandstoneOxidized Sandstone
SampleZKX135-1-1-s2ZKX135-1-1-s2ZKX135-1-1-s2zkx135-1-2-s2zkx97-5-1-s2zkx97-5-1-s2zkx99-5-8zkx117-5-zkx117-5-zkx117-5-zkx117-5-
Spot12332431234
As2.412.592.531.231.861.241.51-0.030.03-
Fe45.3245.544.941.4240.245.7645.446.4246.5946.4146.3
S51.0250.9750.2749.0551.9752.2151.8952.8853.0952.6852.72
Cu0.01------0.02---
Pb0.190.110.05---0.01----
Zn0.03--0.04-0.030.01--0.010.01
Sb--------0.010.020.01
Co0.060.110.070.083.20.090.610.060.060.070.08
U0.110.060.091.850.210.870.010.050.01-0.02
Ni0.03--0.042.140.020.160.020.03--
Cd-0.02--0.020.080.020.04---
Mn-0.01-0.02--0.11--0.02-
Cr---0.06-0.030.02--0.01-
Total99.1899.3797.9193.7999.6100.3399.7599.4999.8299.2599.14
Table 3. Representative compositions (wt.%) of Ti oxides from the DL deposit.
Table 3. Representative compositions (wt.%) of Ti oxides from the DL deposit.
Rock TypeOxidized SandstoneOre-Bearing Sandstone
Samplezkx105-2zkx105-2zkx105-2zkx105-2zkx135-1-2zkx97-5-1zkx135-1-1zkx135-1-1zkx135-1-2
Spot278442547
Na2O0.280.080.070.160.230.310.140.250.06
UO2---0.0912.327.140.092.010.73
Al2O31.130.440.490.60.590.160.620.850.87
FeO0.861.060.960.862.970.861.080.371.33
TiO289.4793.6294.494.4674.4883.5392.1693.8195.42
ThO20.02--0.07--0.080.04-
MgO0.07-0.040.020.05-0.180.09-
SiO27.043.162.331.270.380.260.181.30.22
PbO0.04-0.01-0.140.01--0.01
As2O50.02-0.020.010.380.25-0.040.03
Ce2O30.010.020.03--0.04-0.01-
P2O50.080.070.070.140.390.160.150.010.2
Cr2O30.040.030.03-0.030.080.080.020.06
K2O0.080.050.020.01--0.020.060.03
V2O511.1110.890.920.731.440.871.29
CaO0.140.050.020.130.160.282.170.140.09
SO3-0.030.060.030.680.170.030.040.05
ZrO20.320.130.080.31.110.760.340.030.33
Total100.699.8599.6399.0494.8394.7798.7799.94100.72
Table 4. U content of sandstones from the DL deposit.
Table 4. U content of sandstones from the DL deposit.
Rock TypeSampleU (ppm)
Ore-bearing sandstoneZK97B-7-60295
ZK97B-7-53357
ZK97B-7-56113
ZK97B-7-57195
ZK97B-7-58298
ZK97B-5-42209
ZK97B-7-241186
ZK97B-5-561436
ZK97B-7-23673
ZK97B-7-252412
ZK97B-7-26268
Oxidized sandstoneZK97B-5-82
ZK97B-5-102
ZK97B-5-152
ZK97B-7-102
ZK97B-5-184
ZK97B-5-41
ZK97B-5-92
ZK97B-5-841
ZK97B-5-851
ZK97B-5-871
ZK97B-5-881
ZK97B-7-162
ZK97B-5-31
Primary reduced sandstoneZK97B-5-437
ZK97B-5-259
ZK97B-5-268
ZK97B-5-279
ZK97B-5-447
ZK97B-5-458
ZK97B-5-4610
ZK97B-5-478
ZK97B-5-488
ZK97B-5-499
ZK97B-5-509
ZK97B-5-5111
ZK97B-5-288
Table 5. TOC and total S content of the oxidized and ore-bearing sandstone from the DL deposit.
Table 5. TOC and total S content of the oxidized and ore-bearing sandstone from the DL deposit.
Rock TypeSampleTOC (wt.%)Total S (wt.%)
Oxidized sandstoneZK117-5-30.0190.005
ZK117-5-40.0190.006
ZK117-5-50.0260.007
ZK117-5-60.0330.012
ZK117-5-80.0370.006
ZK117-5-90.010.009
ZK99-5-10.0220.009
ZK99-5-30.0650.032
Ore-bearing sandstoneZK99-5-70.1370.233
ZK99-5-80.4240.061
Table 6. In situ S isotopic data of pyrite from the ore-bearing sandstone of the DL deposit.
Table 6. In situ S isotopic data of pyrite from the ore-bearing sandstone of the DL deposit.
SampleSpotδ34SV-CDT (‰)SampleSpotδ34SV-CDT (‰)
SL08111.9SL1116−0.6
211.916-1−43.8
34.717−40.8
4−17.317-1−34.9
517.218−31.6
612.818-1−32.6
70.919−32.7
8−31.919-1−32.2
9−12.220−6.6
10−28.820-1−32.0
11−29.1SL131−35.7
12−38.1213.0
13−41.03−26.6
SL111−30.4414.0
2−11.75−30.3
3−31.26−20.6
5−28.37−42.0
6−29.88−37.0
7−31.59−33.5
8−3.610−38.5
9−14.011−39.9
10−31.112−37.7
11−15.813−38.5
12−24.614−36.4
13−6.815−38.6
14−32.817−34.8
15−24.518−37.0
16−41.619−36.8
17−20.720−29.3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, J.; Qin, M.; Huang, S.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, L. Mineralogical and Geochemical Evidence for the Origin of the DL Uranium Deposit in the Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Minerals 2024, 14, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14020149

AMA Style

Liu J, Qin M, Huang S, Liu Z, Zhang L. Mineralogical and Geochemical Evidence for the Origin of the DL Uranium Deposit in the Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Minerals. 2024; 14(2):149. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14020149

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Jialin, Mingkuan Qin, Shaohua Huang, Zhangyue Liu, and Liangliang Zhang. 2024. "Mineralogical and Geochemical Evidence for the Origin of the DL Uranium Deposit in the Songliao Basin, Northeast China" Minerals 14, no. 2: 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14020149

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