Next Article in Journal
Perspectives for High-Purity Quartz from European Resources
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling of an Ideal Solar Evaporation Pond for Lithium Extraction from Brines
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes

by
Xin Zhang
1,2,*,
Junfan Che
1,2,
Fengjun Nie
1,2,*,
Aisheng Miao
3,
Zhaobin Yan
1,
Chengyong Zhang
1 and
Yujie Hu
3
1
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and Environment, East China University of Technology, Nanchang 330013, China
2
School of Earth Sciences, East China University of Technology, Nanchang 330013, China
3
Nuclear Industry Co., Ltd., Baotou 014000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(10), 1079; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101079
Submission received: 17 September 2025 / Revised: 12 October 2025 / Accepted: 13 October 2025 / Published: 16 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)

Abstract

The Ordos Basin is a key district for sandstone-hosted uranium, yet host-rock controls and uranium sources remain debated. We integrate measured sections, whole-rock geochemistry, and detrital zircon U-Pb-Lu-Hf data from the Cretaceous Huanhe Formation (Yihewusu, northern Ordos) to resolve provenance, transport, and enrichment pathways. Uranium enrichment is concentrated in feldspathic-lithic sandstones deposited in proximal fluvial-lacustrine settings. Detrital zircon ages define three clusters—Phanerozoic (500–200 Ma), Paleoproterozoic (2000–1700 Ma), and Neoarchean (2600–2300 Ma)—with Proterozoic grains >60%, indicating derivation from Archean–Paleoproterozoic TTG gneisses, granulites, and khondalites of the Yinshan Block and the northern Central Orogenic Belt. Zircon εHf(t) values (−10.84 to +7.76) and crustal model ages (3.2–2.1 Ga) record substantial Meso- to Neoarchean crustal growth in the source terranes. Critically, Permian-Cretaceous intermediate-felsic igneous rocks along the northern margin of the Western North China Block—marked by elevated U, Th/U > 5 (indicative of U loss), pervasive feldspar micro-fractures, and proximity to basin-margin uranium belts—are identified as the principal uranium reservoirs. We propose a dual uranium supply: soluble uranium mobilized from leached igneous rocks during weathering and fluid-rock interaction, and U-enriched detritus delivered to the basin. Uranium concentrated in redox-sensitive, feldspathic-lithic sandstones of the Huanhe Formation, which effectively trapped advected uranium at proximal facies transitions. These findings establish a direct genetic link between basin-margin uranium sources and in-basin mineralization, providing a predictive framework for regional uranium exploration in North China.

1. Introduction

Sandstone-hosted uranium mineralization represents one of the predominant forms of uranium deposits globally [1,2]. These deposits typically originate either during sedimentation itself or through subsequent diagenesis [1,3]. Consequently, understanding the characteristics of the host rock formations—including their facies, depositional age, and origin—is crucial for unraveling the formation processes of sediment-hosted uranium deposits.
Over nearly four decades, geologists have identified sandstone-type uranium deposits within six Mesozoic-Cenozoic sedimentary basins in northern China: the Yili, Tuha, Bayingobi, Ordos, Erlian, and Songliao basins [4,5,6,7,8]. Among these, the Ordos Basin contains the richest uranium resources [9,10]. As a key multi-energy basin in northern China, the Ordos Basin hosts significant deposits of coal, uranium, oil, and natural gas. Its formation is closely tied to the tectonic activities of three major structural domains: the Paleo-Asia, Tethys, and Circum-Pacific [11,12]. The northwestern part of the basin, situated between the Yimeng Uplift and Tianhuan syncline, has experienced multiple intense tectonic phases. These complex movements hinder the determination of sediment provenance and introduce significant uncertainties in predicting sandstone-type uranium reservoirs within the basin [13,14,15]. Detrital sediments are vital for deciphering sedimentary basin tectonic backgrounds, intracontinental basin evolution, and characterizing source rock properties [16,17,18].
In the northern segment of the Ordos Basin, substantial uranium deposits including large-scale and super large sandstone-type ones like Dongsheng, Nalinggou, Daying, and Hantaimiao have been uncovered. Meanwhile, smaller deposits such as Shuanglong, Diantou, and Guojiawan are distributed in the south [19]. Moreover, this sedimentary basin is endowed with substantial energy reserves, encompassing fossil fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas, which are pivotal for regional energy resource inventories [20]. Within the Ordos Basin, the majority of uranium-bearing strata belong to the Middle Jurassic Zhiluo Formation. A notable example is the Dongsheng uranium deposit [21]. The strata of the Zhiluo Formation, characterized by extensive distribution, a high width-to-thickness ratio, and broad-ranging connectivity, are likely to create advantageous conditions for the movement and accumulation of ore-carrying fluids [22]. Moreover, significant uranium resources have been detected in the Cretaceous strata of the basin. Notable occurrences are in the northern Yihewusu region and the southern Zhengyuan area [23,24]. Numerous investigations have been carried out regarding sediment sources and the tectonic evolutionary history of the northern Ordos Basin. These efforts have amassed substantial geological, geochemical, and chronological datasets [25,26]. Nonetheless, the origin of uranium, the source of sediments in the Cretaceous ore-bearing target layer, and their connection to uranium mineralization processes are yet to be fully elucidated.
Studying the geochemistry of clastic sediments offers insights into the evolution of both the basin and surrounding mountains [27,28]. Sediments deposited in the basin represent eroded products from geological bodies of the surrounding highlands. As they are partially or completely eroded, accumulated sediments in the basin are the only clues we need to reconstruct the region’s tectonic evolution. Therefore, we intended to carry out systematic petrological, geochemical, and chronological investigations on the Huanhe Formation, a significant ore-hosting layer spanning the northern expanse of the Ordos Basin. We combined our findings with previous data to determine the formation, evolution history, and uranium source conditions of the uranium-ore-bearing target strata.

2. Regional Geological Setting

2.1. Ordos Basin

Part of the western North China Plate (106–111° E and 35–40° N), the Ordos Basin covers approximately 2.5 × 105 km2 and is a Mesozoic-Cenozoic inland depression basin evolved from the Paleozoic stable craton background of the Ordos Plate [29,30]. Exhibiting a sub-rectangular shape and a north-northeast orientation, the basin is surrounded by a succession of fault zones, fault basins, and orogenic belts. Specifically, the Daqingshan-Wulashan lies to its north, the Qilian-Qinling-Kunlun orogenic zone extends along its southern margin, and the Lvliang and Alxa Blocks span from its eastern to western flanks [31,32]. The Ordos Basin undergoes multi-stage tectonic evolution, as shown in Figure 1. The red-framed area represents the Yihewusu study region, and the red star marks the sampling location at ZKY0–31 drill hole (Figure 1b).
The basin’s formation was governed by multiple significant tectonic events, including the Caledonian, Indosinian, and Yanshanian orogenies. The tectonic evolution produced diverse basin types: a terminal Proterozoic aulacogen, an early Paleozoic paralic basin, a Late Carboniferous intracratonic basin, a Late Triassic to Early Cretaceous residual craton basin, and a Cenozoic marginal fault basin [35,36]. Within the Mesozoic strata (Triassic, Jurassic, and Early Cretaceous epochs), the Middle Jurassic Zhiluo Formation (J2z) is the most important uranium-bearing rock system [7,33]. The surface of the study area is mostly covered by loess of the Quaternary (Q). Thick Meso-Cenozoic strata are developed. According to the geological age from old to new, the sequence of strata is as follows: the Triassic (T), including the Yanchang Formation (T3y) of the Upper Triassic, the Zhifang Formation (T2z) of the Middle Triassic, the Heshanggou Formation (T1h) and the Liujiagou Formation (T1l) of the Lower Triassic; the Fuxian Formation (J1f) of the Lower Jurassic, the Yanan Formation (J2y), the Zhiluo Formation (J2z) and the Anding Formation (J2a) of the Middle Jurassic; the Luohe Formation (K1l), the Huanhe Formation (K1h), the Luohandong Formation (K1lh) and the Jinchuan Formation (K1j) of the Lower Cretaceous; the Upper Pliocene of the Neogene (N2); and the Quaternary (Q) (corresponding to the stratigraphic sequence shown in Figure 2) [37]. We confirmed the Luohe Formation (K1l), Huanhe Formation (K1h), and Luohandong Formation (K1lh) of the Lower Cretaceous as new uranium-bearing rock series (Figure 2). The Huanhe Formation and the Jingchuan Formation are primarily lacustrine delta depositional systems, characterized by mainly lakes in the basin hinterland, while the basin margin is mainly deltaic deposition [34].

2.2. Geological Background of the Study Area

The Ordos Basin, situated in the western part of the North China Craton, is a large superimposed basin developed on a stable continental block. Its formation and evolution have undergone intricate tectono-sedimentary cycles spanning hundreds of millions of years through multiple episodes [38,39]. During the Archean-Early Paleoproterozoic, the North China Craton experienced multiple phases of tectonic activity, leading to the amalgamation and consolidation of continental nuclei. The Lvliang Movement around 1800 Ma finally cratonized the basement, forming a rigid crystalline basement composed of granulite and greenschist-facies metamorphic rocks. By the end of the Mesoproterozoic (approximately 1000 Ma), the Grenville orogenic event caused the closure of surrounding oceanic basins, incorporating the North China Block into the Rodinia supercontinent. During the Neoproterozoic, the breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent led to the redevelopment of passive continental margins along the southern and northern edges of the basin [13,40].
At the end of the Early Paleozoic, the Caledonian orogeny triggered bidirectional subduction of the Qin-Qi Ocean and Xingmeng Ocean, resulting in the overall uplift of the basin and a depositional hiatus for Silurian-Devonian strata. In the Late Paleozoic, the basin entered a marine-continental transitional stage, with the sedimentary environment shifting from marine facies to fluvial-deltaic systems [14,41]. Influenced by the Indosinian Movement, the North China Plate fragmented, and the Ordos region west of the Taihang Mountains formed an independent intracontinental basin. During the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous, the subduction of the Pacific Plate induced lithospheric thinning and increased heat flow. This tectonic-thermal event not only drove hydrocarbon generation from source rocks. Affected by the Himalayan Movement, the basin has been continuously uplifted and subjected to denudation since the Late Cretaceous. Concurrently, a series of rift basins, such as the Hetao, Yinchuan basins, developed around the periphery of the Ordos Basin, accumulating thick sedimentary sequences [31,32,40].
NEE-trending or nearly NE-trending faults are well-developed in the northern part of the Ordos Basin, primarily including the Sanyanjing Fault, Wulanjilinmiao Fault, and Boerjianghaizi Fault (Figure 3). The three faults are connected by two transform slopes, forming a left-step en echelon shape. The western section trends east–west, changing to a northeast–southwest direction towards the east. These faults cut through the Middle Jurassic Yan’an Formation, Zhiluo Formation, Upper Jurassic Anding Formation, Lower Cretaceous Luohe Formation, and Huanhe Formation. They can supply abundant reducing gases to the Lower Cretaceous, which form a reducing barrier and facilitate the subsequent uranium mineralization [42]. The Huanhe Formation (K1h) represents a key ore-hosting stratum in this region, with an estimated formation age of approximately 141–135 Ma. Vertically, it exhibits a red oxidation zone in the upper part, a red and green interlayer transition zone in the middle, and a green and gray reduction zone in the lower part [33]. Uranium mineralization predominantly occurs in the strata of the middle transition zone within the Huanhe Formation. Ore composition is complex, with uranium stone being the primary uranium mineral. Uranium minerals commonly manifest as irregular colloidal masses that precipitate along the peripheries of detrital grains or infill the fractures within detrital particles. A significant quantity of uranium minerals also deposit around the margins of pyrite with minute grains [42,43]. The Huanhe Formation transitions from a braided river delta plain in the north to a delta front and prodelta toward the south. High-quality uranium reservoirs are formed by large-scale (subaqueous) braided distributary channel sand bodies. Uranium mineralization mainly develops along the front edge of braided river deltas, where large uranium reservoir sand bodies enter the lake [43].

3. Sampling and Methods

3.1. Sample Collection

In the Yihewusu area of the northwestern Ordos Basin, ten sandstone samples were collected from the Huanhe Formation of drill hole ZKY0-31 (Figure 1) and utilized for zircon chronology and Hf isotope analysis. Sampling depths spanned 145.6 m to 654.8 m, targeting key intervals of the Huanhe Formation critical for uranium-bearing sedimentary analysis.

3.2. Rare Earth Element

The whole-rock trace element analysis was conducted at ALS Environmental (Guangzhou, China) Co., Ltd. Trace elements were determined using ICP-MS. Rare earth element (REE) analyses of the sandstone samples from the Huanhe Formation were performed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) on a Thermo Fisher X Series II quadrupole instrument (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). For the instrument operation, the radiofrequency power was set at 1300 W, the sampling depth at 8 mm, and the nebulizer gas flow rate at 0.8 L/min, with a mass scanning range of 5–250 amu and a dwell time of 50 ms per peak in peak-jumping mode. Sample preparation followed an acid digestion procedure: the samples were first pulverized to 200 mesh and dried at 105 °C for 3 h. Exactly 50 ± 1 mg of powder was weighed into a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) digestion vessel and subjected to stepwise dissolution with high-purity HNO3, HF, and HClO4. After complete digestion, an internal standard solution of Rh was added, and the mixture was diluted to a final weight of 100.0 g with deionized water, resulting in a Rh concentration of 10 ng/mL. The analytical precision for all elements was better than 5%.
To guarantee data credibility, samples from the Huanhe Formation were analyzed in parallel with internationally acknowledged geochemical reference materials (CRMs). These CRMs encompass NIST SRM 1646a [44] (an estuarine sediment standard from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the USA) and GSD-12 [45] (a shale standard from the Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, China). For NIST SRM 1646a, the measured concentrations of key rare earth elements (REEs), such as La (35.1 ± 1.0 μg/g) and Ce (78.3 ± 2.2 μg/g), exhibited a high degree of consistency with the certified values, with relative deviations (RD) less than 3%. Correspondingly, for GSD-12, the measured values of Sm (5.97 ± 0.20 μg/g) and Yb (2.84 ± 0.09 μg/g) were in close alignment with their certified counterparts, and the relative deviations (RD) were below 2.5%. The analytical precision for all REEs in our samples, quantified by the relative standard deviation (RSD), was superior to 5%. This meets the quality control requirements for trace element analysis in geological samples, as specified by international standards like ISO 11466:1995 [46] (Soil quality-Guidelines for the collection and handling of soil quality data).

3.3. Zircon LA-ICP-MS Chronology and Hf Isotope Analysis

Zircon sample selection was completed at Langfang Chengxin Mine Testing Technology. Zircon with large particles and well-developed crystal forms was selected as targets under binoculars, then captured with cathodoluminescence (CL) and transreflection photography. The State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Resources and Environment at East China University of Technology carried out zircon U-Pb dating. A GeoLasHD laser ablation system (Coherent, Göttingen, Germany) featuring a 193 nm ArF excimer laser was employed for this purpose. An Agilent 7900 inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS) was utilized for the analysis. The laser was set with a 30 μm beam spot diameter, an energy density of 10 J/cm2, and an ablation frequency of 10 Hz. The 91,500 standard was employed as the isotopic age reference, while the international standard sample SRM610 [47] served for elemental content calibration of the U, Th, and Pb concentrations. Common Pb calibration was carried out based on the measured 204Pb values. Data processing was accomplished using Glitter 1.6.6 and ICPMSDataCal 9.0 software. Zircon U-Pb age concordia diagrams were constructed, and weighted mean age calculations were performed using Isoplot 3.0 software.
For the analysis of Hf isotope composition, zircon grains exhibiting a higher degree of concordance were chosen. This analysis, which was integrated with the zircon U-Pb age test, was completed at Wuhan Shangshu Science and Technology. The test was performed with the NWR193HE (Version 3.0) laser ablation system (carrier gas: He, laser beam diameter: 44 μm, ablation frequency: 8 Hz) and the Neptune Plus (Version 1.0) multi-collector plasma mass spectrometer (LA-MC-ICP-MS). A zircon standard (e.g., 91500, Plesovice, Temora, or GJ-1) was employed as the monitoring standard sample. During analysis, the weighted average of 176Hf/177Hf for GJ-1 was 0.282007 ± 0.000025 (2σ). The decay constant of Lu employed for calculating the initial 176Hf/177Hf ratio was 1.865 × 10−11a−1. Zircon εHf(t) values were calculated according to U-Pb ages. The calculations used chondrite Hf isotope 176Lu/177Hf and 176Hf/177Hf values of 0.0336 and 0.282785, respectively. For the determination of the single-stage zircon Hf model age (TDM1), a mantle-derived depleted component 176Hf/177Hf ratio of 0.282325 and 176Lu/177Lu ratio of 0.0384 were utilized. The two-stage zircon Hf model age (TDM2) was computed according to an average crustal 176Lu/177Hf ratio of 0.015.

4. Results

4.1. Field Observations

Sandstone from the west Atamu area of Yihewusu exhibited trough-shaped cross-bedding and an iron combination (limonite) (Figure 4A,B). Rock formations in the Arbas Sumu area were variegated sandstone with trough-shaped cross-bedding, locally containing gray-white calcareous nodules and purple mudstone lenses at the bottom (Figure 4C,D). The Sumitu Aobao area exhibited thin mudstone layers interbedded with yellowish-green, medium-grained sandstone. In southeast Yihewusu, at Hongqing River Town, the variegated coarse sandstone contained rust-colored patches (Figure 4E,F).
The Huanhe Formation is subdivided into an upper and lower segment (K1h1, K1h2). In the interval from 654.8 to 145.6 m, ripple-bearing and planar-laminated sandstone units are interbedded with thinner-bedded laminated mudstone and minor siltstone intervals, developing fining-upward cyclic sequences (Figure 5).

4.2. Petrographic Analysis

Sandstone detritus mainly comprised quartz and feldspar, followed by lithic fragments. Iron-bearing materials were observable in the underlying section of the Huanhe Formation, while a variety of heavy minerals were detected across the entire formation (Figure 6). Microscopic observation revealed >90% composition of rock particles, predominantly quartz and feldspar, with black lithic fragments visible. The sandstone exhibited strong cementation and strong resistance to weathering. Quartz content ranged from 20% to 75%, feldspar from 15% to 60%, and lithic fragments from 10% to 30%. Overall sorting was poor, with semi-automorphic, angular to sub-angular grains. Filling materials were mainly mud cement and carbonate cement, with matrix minerals including illite, sericite, and kaolinite. Heavy minerals were rare, mainly magnetite, ilmenite, and garnet. Mica and asphalt strips filled in gaps between the grains, with some mica being squeezed and deformed by particles.

4.3. Rare Earth Elements

Table A1 lists REE data for sandstone samples. Total REEs (∑REE) ranged from 59.23 to 1422.13 × 10−6 and averaged 425.57 × 10−6. The ranges of light and heavy REEs (LREE, HREE) were 49.12–1383.93 × 10−6 and 5.66–38.2 × 10−6, respectively, averaging 405.13 × 10−6 and 12.46 × 10−6. LREE/HREE ratios varied between 4.86 and 36.23 (average 17.69), indicating LREE enrichment, HREE depletion, and notable fractionation between the two groups. Leveraging the widely accepted chondrite-normalized data [44], a rare earth element (REE) distribution pattern was constructed (Figure 7a). REE distribution curves normalized to chondrite showed a clear right-hand inclination and a typical V-shaped configuration (Figure 7a). The parallelism of REE distribution curves across samples suggested synchronous variation in REE content. The North American Shale Composite (NASC)-normalized REE pattern is nearly flat to slightly right-sloping (Figure 7b).

4.4. Detrital Zircon U-Pb Dating Results

Zircon grains in the sandstone samples predominantly exhibited short columnar and rounded shapes, as shown in CL images, with some retaining long columnar morphology and others having sharp edges. The majority of zircon grains exhibited Th/U ratios exceeding 0.4, a characteristic signature diagnostic of magmatic origin, as documented in Table A2. Zircon particle size varied greatly (range: 100–200 μm), with some grains being severely damaged. Most zircon particles developed oscillating rings or plate-like zones (Figure 8).
This experiment analyzed 280 detrital zircon grains and obtained 248 valid U-Pb age combinations (concordant rate >90%, Table A2). The U-Pb ages of zircon displayed a broad distribution, roughly spanning from 200 Ma to 2800 Ma, and could be categorized into three distinct clusters, 300–500 Ma, 1700–2000 Ma, and 2300–2600 Ma, as illustrated in the detrital zircon age histograms of Figure 9.
For ER21 zircon samples, 81 data points with concordant degree >90% were selected for analysis. Zircon Th content was 20 × 10−6–881 × 10−6, and the U content was 18 × 10−6–1340 × 10−6. The Th/U ratios predominantly exceeded 0.1, spanning a range from 0.10 to 4.00, as shown in Table A2.
For ER25 zircon samples, 86 data points with concordant degree >90% were selected for analysis. Th content ranged from 25 × 10−6 to 802 × 10−6, and U content ranged from 30 × 10−6 to 892 × 10−6. All Th/U ratios were greater than 0.1, fluctuating within the range of 0.10–1.70, as detailed in Table A2.
For ER50 zircon samples, 81 data points with concordant degree >90% were selected for analysis. Zircon Th content ranged from 8 × 10−6 to 877 × 10−6, while U content ranged from 15 × 10−6 to 1456 × 10−6. The Th/U ratios of zircon grains presented values exceeding 0.1, with a range spanning from 0.10 to 2.30, as tabulated in Table A2.
To avoid the influence of lead loss on dating accuracy, the 207Pb/206Pb age of zircon older than 1000 Ma was used. For zircon less than 1000 Ma, the 206Pb/238U age was used instead. The U-Pb age Concordia diagrams of detrital zircon (Figure 9) indicated that U-Pb age fell on or near the harmonic line and the data points predominantly cluster within three age intervals, 200–500 Ma, 1700–2000 Ma, and 2300–2600 Ma, forming prominent age peaks.

4.5. Hf Isotope Composition of Detrital Zircons

Hf isotope analysis was conducted on 88 detrital zircons, yielding 86 valid data points (Table A3, Figure 10), co-located with or morphologically similar to the specimens selected for LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating. This figure presents our detrital zircon data from the Huanhe Formation, plotted against the CHUR-DM reference model following the methodology of earlier research [49,50,51,52,53,54]. Zircon grains ranged from positive to negative εHf(t) and were categorized into three groups. The oldest (ca. 2300–2600 Ma) had εHf(t) values that varied between 4.11 and −8.34 epsilon units. A cluster of younger zircon grains (ca. 1800–2000 Ma) possessed predominately negative εHf(t) values falling to −10.84, characteristic of crustal material sources. The youngest zircon group (ca. 300–500 Ma) had εHf(t) range of −1.85 to −10.78 epsilon units.
The Khondalite Block and Yinshan Block are important tectonic units in the study area. The Khondalite Block is a typical tectonic-lithological unit, which preserves records of ancient tectonic-thermal events and can provide detrital materials with specific geochemical characteristics [55]. The Yinshan Block acts as a related provenance, contributing some zircons formed by the recycling of ancient crust [56]. In Figure 10, the distribution ranges of εHf(t) and zircon U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in the Huanhe Formation are clearly delineated. These distribution characteristics can effectively trace the material input pattern of different provenances to the Huanhe Formation. Among them, both the Khondalite Block and the Yinshan Block are identified as major provenance tectonic units. Further observation reveals that the distribution density of zircon data points within and around the area corresponding to the Yinshan Block is relatively higher, suggesting that in the provenance supply of this sedimentary system, the contribution of the Yinshan Block may be more prominent, while the contribution scale from source areas for the Khondalite Block is potentially limited.

5. Discussion

5.1. Provenance of Detrital Zircon

The North China Craton (NCC), among the most ancient cratons globally, consists of a continental core exceeding 3.0 Ga and multiple micro-terranes. These terranes amalgamated during a crustal growth episode spanning 2.9–2.7 Ga. The craton has a multistage, complex structural evolution history, including large-scale magmatic and metamorphic events at 2.5 Ga, Paleoproterozoic orogeny events at 2.3–1.9 Ga, basement uplift after 1.8 Ga, as well as other continental rift and non-orogenic magmatic events [57,58]. The western domain of the NCC has a more limited exposure of basement and is characterized by higher stability, encompassing regions such as Ji’ning, Daqingshan, Guyang Wuchuan, Serteng, Helanshan Qilianshan, and Alxa. It is mainly composed of metamorphic crystalline complexes from the Neoarchean and Early Proterozoic [59].
In Yihewusu, sandstone has relatively low detrital zircon content from the Neoproterozoic, accounting for 4.6% of total zircon. These ages are comparable to the 2.6–2.5 Ga TTG gneiss, mafic-ultramafic layered intrusions, and crustal rocks documented in Guyang, Wuchuan, Serteng, and Alxa [60]. The overlap in timing of magmatic activity in the original TTG gneiss and mafic intrusive rocks, combined with Hf isotope characteristics of Neoarchean zircons, suggested that their genesis was related to large-scale mantle magma intrusion [61]. Therefore, the zircon samples we retrieved might have come from the old-aged TTG gneiss and mafic granulite within the Yinshan massif.
Detrital zircons from the Paleoproterozoic (2500–1900 Ma) accounted for ~70% of the measured detrital zircon ages, broadly split into 2500–2300 Ma and 2000–1800 Ma. These ages corresponded well with the Paleoproterozoic (2500–2300 Ma) and with previously calculated ages: 207Pb/206Pb surface age of 2510–2350 Ma for zircons originating from granulites of the Guyang Wuchuan area in Inner Mongolia [62], U–Pb age of 2494–2384 Ma for single zircon grains from Yingyun diorite gneiss [63], 2494 ± 59–2371 ± 38 Ma for zircon from potassium granites in the Wulashan Jining area [64], and 207Pb/206Pb surface age of 2503–2485 Ma for charnockite zircon in Hadmengou-Pingfanggou area of Daqingshan [65]. Comparative examination of age spectra indicated that the Paleoproterozoic detrital zircon populations investigated here correlate with the widely exposed Precambrian basement lithologies in the Wulashan-Daqingshan structural zone of the NCC’s northern margin. These source rocks include Neoarchean granitic gneisses, Paleoproterozoic granulite facies metamorphic rock series, and syn-orogenic granitoid intrusions.
The 2000–1800 Ma age interval corresponds to the ages of metamorphic zircon and highly peraluminous granite occurring in the basin’s northern region. For example, the metamorphic age distribution of Khondalites in Daqingshan, Wulashan, and Helanshan ranges from 2.0 to 1.81 Ga [66,67]. Later isomorphic S-type granites are approximately 1.9 Ga old [68]. Liu et al. [69] reported that Daqingshan syenite is approximately 1.82 Ga old, while the systematic petrogeochemical studies of Wang et al. [70] and Xu et al. [71] jointly discovered an A-type granite belt ca. 1.6–1.80 Ga in Daqingshan. We thus speculated that the 2000–1800 Ma detrital zircons in this study originated mainly from granite and Khondalites in Wulashan-Daqingshan. Khondalites from the Bayannula Helan Mountain area (typically 2.6 Ga old) yielded zircons with a two-stage Hf age range of 3159–2074 Ma [66]. Our Hf isotope characteristics indicated that the zircon source area mainly comprises ancient crustal recycled materials, with additional involvement of depleted mantle at 2.0 Ga. The peak ages of the two-stage Hf modes of the three samples in this study are concentrated between 2.71 and 2.27 Ga. Among them, for zircons having ages in the interval of 2.3–1.8 Ga, their two stage Hf model ages cluster between 3373 Ma and 2054 Ma, with an average of 2641 Ma. Their Hf isotope characteristics indicate that there are materials from both crustal and depleted mantle sources.
Magmatic activity during the time interval from the Carboniferous epoch to the Early Permian epoch is linked to the extensional tectonic processes of the Xingmeng orogenic belt that manifested in the early stage of the Late Paleozoic. The Xingmeng orogenic belt, positioned in the central-eastern Inner Mongolia and on the northern edge of North China, contains diverse rock types. Significantly, Late Carboniferous (302–337 Ma) granitic intrusive rocks are distributed in the regions of Sunite Left Banner, Xilinhot, and West Wuzhumuqin Banner [72]. This orogen developed bimodal intrusive and volcanic rocks during the Late Carboniferous Daqingchang period (310–330 Ma). The youngest harmonic age of tuffaceous sandstone and tuff from Erlian and Ailige Temple is 298–302 Ma [73]. Therefore, detrital zircons from 200 to 500 Ma predominantly come from the northern boundary region of the North China Block. It can be inferred that detrital zircons in the Yihewusu Huanhe Formation, dated to the Paleozoic, mainly come from Khondalites in Jining, Daqingshan, Wulashan, Ganlishan, and Helanshan, while a smaller proportion may come from gneiss and granulites in areas such as Guyang or Wuchuan. Building upon previous research [74,75,76,77,78,79,80], we compared the zircon U-Pb ages of rocks from the Telaaobao study area with those of other rock masses in the northern Ordos Basin. The comparative age spectra are presented in Figure 11. The zircon age probability density plot (Figure 11) reveals minor detrital zircon populations with crystallization ages clustering at ca. 3.0 Ga in the Langshan-Alxa Eastern Margin tectonic belt. These Neoarchean zircons may constitute secondary provenance contributors to the studied sedimentary succession, potentially deriving from unexposed ancient crustal remnants within the western NCC.

5.2. Geodynamic Setting

The NCC preserves a complex evolutionary sequence characterized by multiple phases of tectonic reactivation. The late Neoarchean (ca. 2600–2300 Ma) represents a pivotal stage in the craton’s tectonic evolution, marked by the formation of large scale volcanic-sedimentary assemblages [81]. This stage includes three main events: formation of Neoarchean greenstone belts, emplacement of crust-derived granitic magmatism controlled by ancient arc-continent collision regimes, and crustal anatexis leading to the accretion of TTG gneisses. Late Neoarchean granitic rocks can be split into groups of 2550–2530 Ma, 2510–2500 Ma, and 2500–2450 Ma, each with distinct lithological associations—high-Na TTG suites, monzogranites, and high-K granites, respectively. Furthermore, early Neoarchean plutons are increasingly found across multiple terranes of the NCC [82]. Zircon isotopic dating from representative regions such as the Yinshan block and Ordos block revealed that these rocks predominantly comprise tonalite, constituting diagnostic TTG suites. These ancient plutons universally experienced overprinting by late Neoarchean (ca. 2500 Ma) tectonothermal events, providing critical evidence for the terminal Neoarchean amalgamation of continental blocks in the NCC. Detrital zircon U-Pb ages of 2600–2300 Ma, as determined from the Huanhe Formation sandstones in this research, exhibit a significant correlation with the magmatic-tectonic evolutionary stages. This correlation strongly indicates that the corresponding interval witnessed intense magmatic events, accompanied by substantial metamorphic and deformational activities.
Zhai and Peng [83] proposed that during the Paleoproterozoic at ca. 1900 Ma, cratonic reactivation of the NCC triggered mantle upwelling events, accompanied by gabbroic magma underplating. These processes induced the development of ultrahigh-temperature metamorphism in regions such as the Daqingshan area, culminating in a regional compressional tectonic event at ca. 1850 Ma. These changes have led to suggestions that the late Paleoproterozoic (ca. 1850 Ma) represents a milestone tectonothermal episode in the NCC’s evolutionary history [84]. The Central Orogenic Belt exhibits diagnostic paired metamorphic belts (high-pressure granulite facies and amphibolite facies), foreland thrust-fold systems, and calc-alkaline volcanic-plutonic assemblages with arc affinities. Together with zircon U-Pb isotopic records revealing a continuous age spectrum of 1900–1800 Ma, these features indicated the conclusion of the continent-continent collisional orogenic process among the eastern and western blocks of the North China Craton (NCC) throughout this period. This research revealed that the detrital zircon U-Pb age distributions of the Huanhe Formation sandstones featured a distinct peak around 1850 Ma within the 2000–1700 Ma time range (Figure 9), which implies multiple phases of tectono-magmatic reactivation events during the late Paleoproterozoic era.
The orogenic margins located in the southern and northern parts of the NCC underwent multi-cyclic composite orogenic processes from the Early Paleozoic to the Mesozoic. In particular, the Yinshan intracontinental orogenic belt at the northern margin showed intense tectonic reactivation [85]. The tectonic development of the area was controlled by an entire Wilson Cycle. Initially, the Paleo-Asian oceanic plate continuously subducted beneath the NCC in the Early Paleozoic. Subsequently, an accretionary collision took place in the Late Carboniferous, and the cycle concluded with a continental collision during the Permian. Zircon thermochronological data revealed that the Inner Mongolia Uplift experienced rapid uplift-exhumation processes during 200–300 Ma [86]. Therefore, Zhang et al. [87] hypothesized that for the eastern part of the northern margin of the North China Craton (NCC), the ultimate closure of the Paleo-Asian tectonic realm during the tectonic evolution in the Late Paleozoic-Early Mesozoic era occurred in the early Middle Triassic (ca. 245 Ma). Multidisciplinary evidence indicates that syn-collisional granites yield zircon U-Pb ages clustered at 248–240 Ma. The precisely determined 243 ± 3 Ma peak metamorphic age of high-pressure rocks like glaucophane-bearing schists, when correlated with other geological information, provides detailed and accurate tectono-thermochronological limitations. The findings collectively confirm a complete disintegration of the Paleo-Asian tectonic regime, marking its transition into an intracontinental evolutionary stage. Detrital zircons obtained from the Huanhe Formation sandstones in the present research, having ages between 500 and 200 Ma, presumably captured volcanic activities associated with the Inner Mongolia Uplift and enhanced the understanding of the subduction processes of the Paleo-Asian oceanic plate under the North China Block.
Mesozoic sandstone-hosted uranium reservoirs in the Ordos Basin are primarily hosted within multiple stratigraphic units, including the Yan’an Formation, Zhiluo Formation, Luohe Formation, and Huachi Formation. The spatial distribution of these uranium reservoirs and the uranium mineralization processes were significantly influenced by tectonic evolution during different periods. The Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous represents one of the most critical periods of tectonic activity in the Ordos Basin since the Late Paleozoic. During this interval, the regional tectonic trend ultimately shifted from approximately E-W to nearly N-S or NNE, accompanied by intense magmatic activity [88]. Controlled by a regional compressional stress field, the entire basin underwent rapid subsidence within a depression. Simultaneously, intense tectono-thermal events resulted in the development of a high geothermal field within the basin. This accelerated the thermal maturation process of deep source rocks, driving them into the peak stage of hydrocarbon generation and expulsion, and prompting the large-scale generation and migration/accumulation of natural gas [89]. Since the Late Cretaceous, influenced by the far-field effects of the India-Eurasia plate convergence, the Ordos Basin began to experience overall uplift and denudation. The northern margin of the basin was subjected to intense tectonic compression, leading to the development of large-scale folds and thrust faults [90]. Accompanying the uplift process, a series of minor uplifts developed, forming favorable structural traps and fluid migration pathways. Critically, hydrocarbon reservoirs formed by deep Upper Triassic Yanchang Formation source rocks were affected by fault activity [91]. This triggered the upward migration of deep reducing fluids. The coupling of these reducing fluids with surficial oxygenated, uranium-bearing fluids ultimately initiated the sandstone-hosted uranium mineralization process [92].

5.3. Implications for Initial Uranium Sources

The geochemical composition of sedimentary rocks offers key insights into their source materials and plays a fundamental role in reconstructing the tectonic settings in which they were deposited [93]. Rare earth element (REE) distribution patterns, particularly negative Eu anomalies, are widely used as reliable indicators for determining sedimentary provenance [94]. The North American Shale Composite-normalized REE pattern is nearly flat to slightly right-sloping (Figure 7b), suggesting that the detrital sediments were derived from a continental upper crustal source. The samples exhibit high LREE/HREE ratios (ranging from 4.86 to 36.23) and low Eu/Eu* values (between 0.57 and 2.33) (Appendix A, Table A1), suggesting a felsic origin. Previous studies have indicated that negative Eu anomalies are typically associated with parent rocks such as acidic volcanic rocks and granites [95,96]. Furthermore, felsic rocks are generally characterized by elevated average uranium content, which is consistent with the inferred provenance.
Zircon U-Pb age data indicated a dominant Archean age cluster at approximately 2.5 Ga, correlating with Meso-Neoarchean crustal growth events of the NCC [97]. This suggested that the Archean crust may have served as a primary uranium reservoir, particularly when considered in conjunction with the elevated uranium abundances (3.2–4.8 ppm) within the basement TTG suites. Notably, Hercynian granite (262 Ma) had significantly higher εHf(t) values (range: 1.35–5.62) than Archean zircons, suggesting that their source may have incorporated mantle-derived material [98]. Hercynian granite contained uranium concentrations exceeding crustal averages, with ubiquitous micro-fractures in feldspar phenocrysts (Figure 6A) providing structural pathways for uranium release. The relatively prominent columns of U (uranium) content for acid intrusive rocks in some periods may imply that they play a specific role in the enrichment of uranium elements (Figure 12). The high feldspar content (15–60%) and abundant Hercynian granitic detritus in northern basin sandstones further substantiate igneous contributions to uranium sources [99].
In this study, Th and U contents as well as Th/U ratios of the rock masses around the northern Ordos Basin were compiled from the data reported in references [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107], yielding a comparative diagram of these parameters between intrusive and extrusive rocks (Figure 12). The average Th/U ratio of the Earth’s crust is 3 to 4 [108,109]. Consequently, a Th/U ratio exceeding 4 in a rock suggests potential uranium loss, with the released uranium capable of migrating into basins for enrichment and mineralization [110]. In the northern Ordos Basin, intermediate-felsic igneous rocks exhibit a slight enrichment in Th/U ratio compared to ultramafic-mafic compositions (Figure 12). Most of these intermediate-felsic rocks possess Th/U ratios higher than, or significantly higher than 5. The Carboniferous felsic intrusive rocks are an exception, showing a slightly lower average Th/U ratio of 3.5, indicating they underwent minor uranium loss. Therefore, the uranium sources in the study area comprise two components: (1) Permian-Cretaceous intermediate-felsic rocks likely released mobilized uranium contributing to enrichment and mineralization, and (2) Neoarchean-Carboniferous intermediate-felsic rocks primarily supplied uranium-bearing clastics to the basin, although the amount of uranium exported from these older source rocks was generally limited.
Our inference that Devonian-Cretaceous intermediate-felsic igneous rocks along the northern margin of the Western North China Craton served as the principal uranium reservoirs aligns with models from Songliao and Yili basin. In the Songliao basin, widespread felsic volcanism and thick tuffaceous inputs supplied U-bearing detritus and leachable glass/feldspar [111,112,113]; meteoric oxidation followed by hydrocarbon-sulfur reductants focused U fixation in feldspathic-lithic reservoirs near facies transitions [114]. In the Yili basin, uplift of the Tianshan delivered proximal U-bearing intermediate-felsic detritus [115]; high-relief catchments and pervasive feldspar micro-fracturing enhanced U mobilization and transport to roll-front redox traps [116,117]. Shared features—magmatic sources showing U loss (elevated Th/U), labile feldspar-lithic grains that intensify fluid-rock interaction, and proximal fluvial-lacustrine traps—mirror the Huanhe Formation, reinforcing a regional source–transport–trap framework. A key contrast is the dominance of syndepositional volcanic supply in Songliao versus basement-derived, proximally recycled detritus in Yili and this study, guiding screening of felsic source belts, tuffs, and feldspar micro-fracture intensity.

6. Conclusions

1. The U-Pb ages of detrital zircons within Huanhe Formation sandstones can be categorized into three distinct age groups: Phanerozoic (500–200 Ma), Paleoproterozoic (2000–1700 Ma), and Neoarchean (2600–2300 Ma); the three age groups correspond to the subduction of the Paleo-Asian Ocean plate beneath the northern margin of the North China Craton and the closure of the Paleo-Asian Ocean during the Ordovician to Triassic periods, the multiple phases of tectono-magmatic reactivation events in the late Paleoproterozoic, and the stage of initial continental nucleus formation during the Neoarchean to Paleoproterozoic.
2. Shifts in the relative proportions of zircon age populations reveal significant changes in sediment provenance from the Neoarchean to the Mesozoic. The Yinshan Block and Central Orogenic Belt of the North China Craton (NCC)—composed predominantly of TTG gneisses, granulites, and khondalites—likely represent the primary source regions for detrital zircons in these sandstones. Additionally, Phanerozoic igneous rocks contributed distinct pulses of zircon ages (500–200 Ma) to contemporaneous strata during the Late Jurassic to Cretaceous.
3. Relative to the older Neoarchean-Carboniferous igneous suite, the Devonian-Cretaceous intermediate-felsic rocks along the northern margin of the Western North China Craton have source-favorable attributes (higher bulk U contents, more samples with elevated Th/U ratios >5, and pervasive feldspar micro-fracturing). These characteristics confirm them as the dominant uranium reservoirs and primary sources of mobilized/fluid-transported U and U-enriched detrital components for the ore-hosting Huanhe Formation in the northern Ordos Basin. This finding explicitly identifies it as a key target for future uranium prospecting in the region and provides a geological basis for narrowing down high-potential exploration areas of Huanhe Formation-hosted uranium deposits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z. and F.N.; methodology, C.Z.; software, J.C.; validation, X.Z., Z.Y.; formal analysis, J.C. and Z.Y.; investigation, X.Z. and J.C.; resources, F.N.; data curation, X.Z. and Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z. and J.C.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. and J.C.; visualization, J.C.; supervision, F.N.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, F.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article is jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2244205; 42272097), the Foundation of National Key Laboratory of Uranium Resources Exploration-Mining and Nuclear Remote Sensing (2024HDX05; 2025QZ-YZZ-08; NKLUR-WDZC-2025-01), as well as the Science and Technology Plan Project of Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education (GJJ2400612).

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the Nuclear Resources and Environment team at East University of Technology for advising and assisting with experimental analyses. We also gratitude anonymous reviewers and editors for their insightful comments.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Aisheng Miao and Yujie Hu was employed by the company Nuclear Industry Co Ltd. 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.

Appendix A

Table A1. The REE contents (10−6) of the sandstone sample from the Huanhe Formation.
Table A1. The REE contents (10−6) of the sandstone sample from the Huanhe Formation.
ER1ER2ER3ER4ER5ER6ER7ER8ER9ER10
La58.90158.70144.8041.6016.609.20391.0034.20161.8059.20
Ce103.20301.00282.8077.8027.4019.80712.8062.50288.4098.60
Pr10.4032.7031.806.803.243.0462.986.5830.6011.20
Nd36.00122.10111.9021.4012.0013.10192.8022.60121.8035.80
Sm5.9216.9015.102.712.112.9420.603.5417.106.10
Eu2.362.212.770.911.041.043.750.632.182.27
Gd6.5216.1013.502.941.832.4626.303.3516.3012.40
Tb1.122.111.370.350.310.502.470.502.271.21
Dy4.977.212.841.131.362.555.812.087.364.97
Ho0.931.180.240.180.260.540.590.371.240.94
Er2.814.160.720.700.831.651.641.134.242.74
Tm0.420.460.060.090.120.270.150.170.450.19
Yb3.043.160.510.600.841.881.111.143.152.84
Lu0.450.460.070.090.110.260.130.170.470.25
Y25.8027.605.335.247.4815.4018.8010.5027.4025.60
Th1.848.6229.9515.864.650.66128.9623.708.761.82
U2.9212.373.210.841.271.335.8611.4012.472.88
Eu/Eu*1.660.590.861.402.331.700.710.810.571.15
LREE216.78633.61589.17151.2262.3949.121383.93130.05621.88213.17
HREE20.2634.8419.316.085.6610.1138.28.9135.4825.54
LREE/HREE10.7018.1930.5124.8711.024.8636.2314.6017.538.35
ΣREE237.04668.45608.48157.3068.0559.231422.13138.96657.36238.71
Eu* represents the chondrite-normalized theoretical calculated value of europium.
Table A2. LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating data from Huanhe formation in the northwestern Ordos Basin.
Table A2. LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating data from Huanhe formation in the northwestern Ordos Basin.
Spot. NoThUTh/U207Pb/206Pb2s(abs)207Pb/235U2s(abs)206Pb/238U2s(abs)(Concordant) %
ER21-0250720.691476201.08157482.65163380.4196.30
ER21-031082160.50255370.16247937.75236456.0195.30
ER21-0544550.801538249.76147089.88137785.5893.50
ER21-061384610.30237259.15217432.60195744.2689.50
ER21-071042080.50249270.33239440.15228866.9495.50
ER21-0867013400.50307194.9830918.9929710.0895.90
ER21-094105130.80254846.27255323.62255459.5299.90
ER21-122262261.00247773.50239341.06231964.5596.90
ER21-141822600.701923109.61185351.87178859.6996.40
ER21-161531531.00245986.10235747.63225469.8395.50
ER21-19683380.20195288.19189143.16182258.0896.30
ER21-261672390.80175894.74164746.58152840.0992.50
ER21-2828310.901252397.891567121.341676134.1593.30
ER21-312132660.70227572.45222038.19208657.3193.80
ER21-327067840.6022241.3926024.2627310.1195.40
ER21-332233192.10243068.17236235.97220155.7393.00
ER21-341101830.90470424.0431152.4624816.9889.60
ER21-3586411.102390158.91231386.342139104.9392.20
ER21-363604002.61236155.10244232.90246464.5999.10
ER21-382292080.801284164.88124760.09119151.8495.40
ER21-3947180.802483212.682509124.082474190.4598.60
ER21-40831041.101963191.11186691.05172475.8892.10
ER21-411852311.00161970.56166536.32160365.7098.40
ER21-423763420.50238561.40240534.55235548.6197.90
ER21-435105100.90548192.2247634.0343616.9491.20
ER21-442174331.30241159.29240130.54232651.7796.90
ER21-453604000.80236155.10244232.90246464.5999.10
ER21-4799760.601734117.47178254.94179496.4796.20
ER21-491852310.80235970.56246536.32250365.7098.40
ER21-502644400.30582249.4246437.1241919.4689.70
ER21-52581910.201682117.12233654.21219846.9296.50
ER21-53808000.50346148.8528817.232617.0990.40
ER21-54653234.00227783.85214246.47202847.5594.50
ER21-55631260.591976110.37191451.21185465.1296.80
ER21-565121280.00178575.31187834.52196441.6995.90
ER21-5720340.691728272.031793102.441790106.9099.80
ER21-59372610.141746141.711701101.341665111.7396.60
ER21-60713530.20203382.98198634.46194948.8798.10
ER21-611961151.70182877.02170350.11160463.8492.90
ER21-6261660.921916123.53186296.141813107.7794.00
ER21-6352860.601670166.81170966.56170479.5199.70
ER21-645235640.93180750.13177032.11174846.4593.90
ER21-65696770.10182255.61174521.04164028.2694.70
ER21-67241190.101963191.11184591.05186475.8899.00
ER21-688817291.20184856.81190523.56185334.0496.60
ER21-6937621.201863257.681725105.90157376.3794.00
ER21-701692280.81175493.56164347.26152941.0390.60
ER21-711211081.12197096.29194447.15191434.0298.00
ER21-722264960.45216579.63212142.27206737.1097.00
ER21-73442550.17187687.04163840.50145233.9387.00
ER21-7428513250.22238469.44253940.33272649.4792.00
ER21-751301720.7676211.0825621.552767.7292.00
ER21-76851420.60156783.33165836.43173331.0095.00
ER21-774393921.12502188.8733424.023117.9692.00
ER21-783051821.68232562.50234435.00235739.5599.00
ER21-7913330.401576131.48159656.61161944.1198.00
ER21-801987460.27178964.82176531.14173829.8898.00
ER21-81601080.56260568.21265542.35271051.3997.00
ER21-82541350.40236163.74232639.00228143.2598.00
ER21-832814380.64254168.5027517.352786.6298.00
ER21-8432760.42260279.48257759.95252990.2198.00
ER21-851461920.76143224.0426721.702837.2294.00
ER21-86571070.53332340.7017922.741586.2087.00
ER21-87981530.64300201.8327121.342677.7498.00
ER21-881042100.50169269.91170531.44170827.3099.00
ER21-89721860.39240960.18226033.68209134.8692.00
ER21-90261290.20208777.93206852.73202554.4497.00
ER21-91551040.53231869.60235138.58237944.5198.00
ER21-923715100.73287153.6929017.522897.3499.00
ER21-931682240.75234368.06228136.72220742.1996.00
ER21-94791160.681603101.39161443.84161829.4499.00
ER21-9551341.532139118.37212577.53207476.4297.00
ER21-962352181.08167689.19148141.15134235.2590.00
ER21-9733450.731635116.36163248.11163743.3799.00
ER21-98621150.54550198.1243830.8042011.3095.00
ER21-99701600.44309248.1226224.052556.9097.00
ER21-100951310.72250070.37247239.96244243.4298.00
ER21-10117500.33260787.35261052.20260859.8499.00
ER21-10216480.34478383.2936444.9629813.2780.00
ER21-103691140.61259288.89257850.89255963.3099.00
ER25-01595911.70170185.91154233.56139440.9490.00
ER25-025343140.80192476.68187034.58178146.2895.10
ER25-051181480.40243976.95245033.46243881.9299.50
ER25-061774431.60171979.13169440.86163451.0596.40
ER25-0748300.902492173.42240298.332300146.7695.70
ER25-081922130.10211985.73208349.84200064.3795.90
ER25-09252451.20245772.61244737.30238265.1697.30
ER25-1065540.602402136.01229570.952124101.5592.30
ER25-11751250.601676156.13166061.61158765.3395.50
ER25-122684471.00243277.2831430.4830410.4397.00
ER25-131691690.201822112.13180151.06172456.1595.70
ER25-14361810.501685118.05176153.77177446.9599.20
ER25-151533060.70237854.01234433.54225259.6496.00
ER25-162273240.5051336.0926734.8128717.0092.80
ER25-172154291.40185869.24187633.70182555.3997.20
ER25-187495350.30366279.1530731.6328812.0593.50
ER25-201294300.50377225.4145034.7342116.1093.40
ER25-23751410.40188187.90182852.18178150.3592.60
ER25-243538910.90183543.35177025.30171549.6998.80
ER25-263824240.60631244.2248848.5644317.1590.40
ER25-275268760.60217444.54222822.74219146.8798.40
ER25-283856421.00375180.7543726.6242614.1397.60
ER25-294554550.80244239.01241632.88231752.6095.80
ER25-301481850.70238676.88240044.20232465.3896.80
ER25-31771100.301990115.89187856.15171864.6791.10
ER25-322688920.70185151.81187825.30183339.9897.60
ER25-331652360.60187174.54187838.54188864.6895.80
ER25-343936551.10317330.9232433.7831513.2297.10
ER25-354464050.40247446.41247326.33241042.9097.40
ER25-383037580.60200257.08189525.56178039.4693.70
ER25-3938631.201867258.121727106.20156276.6590.00
ER25-401331111.002175109.10216463.032149107.4099.30
ER25-418028020.80225345.00225029.39222946.9399.00
ER25-431301620.14235986.57221750.62207596.2393.40
ER25-462282850.80250058.88242738.72232559.2395.70
ER25-471632330.70670458.0130554.0727122.1088.20
ER25-49737340.10435185.8641830.3039714.4494.80
ER25-50531780.30236084.66227041.11215365.5994.70
ER25-512046810.30437220.3144933.9442416.1294.30
ER25-52761890.40435185.86236830.30229814.4494.50
ER25-531814391.59171178.95169240.14161451.1494.40
ER25-547505361.40243277.2830730.4830210.4393.60
ER25-551284250.30377225.4145034.7342116.1093.40
ER25-571711711.00230398.35233650.22224677.8096.10
ER25-58371790.141822113.11180351.61172555.9394.80
ER25-591502990.50187058.88179238.75172559.5595.70
ER25-601521900.80186976.68187844.24188764.5096.80
ER25-61751070.701791114. 54174756.16173964.6391.10
ER25-621461121.301836106.60182163.14160069.5099.30
ER25-64541810.301681117.12233654.20219846.9596.00
ER25-652096970.30435185.8643230.3039714.4494.80
ER25-683834250.90367376.6549134.7342116.1093.40
ER25-703834250.901867248.161887107.47184876.6592.50
ER25-71621120.552506103.86247156.84242859.0398.00
ER25-7236470.77191370.3333432.8628713.7684.00
ER25-7315220.681765212.04169692.96167074.9898.00
ER25-74571810.311911101.85194247.85197448.2398.00
ER25-751202110.57243587.04239748.70235465.4698.00
ER25-7638830.46250089.20246848.14244458.7699.00
ER25-7752890.58193395.84190547.58193750.0098.00
ER25-78471030.46262278.24239347.19213463.0088.00
ER25-791972080.95295212.0131924.3832410.9798.00
ER25-8069890.78242575.62244443.63246359.4099.00
ER25-81904280.21257471.92257142.21256256.3399.00
ER25-821046780.15236672.84231940.85226151.2297.00
ER25-83852890.29182077.47173636.78166126.3095.00
ER25-842256820.33257157.3928817.892919.8498.00
ER25-8567920.73242979.94237243.81229741.7496.00
ER25-86631130.561744101.70127954.79101247.3276.00
ER25-878270.30249888.12249751.51249462.3199.00
ER25-88881020.86260073.30245037.72234540.8095.00
ER25-8980820.98212983.80209441.07205938.7198.00
ER25-90891360.65251664.51250637.06248438.7599.00
ER25-91851570.54240669.75241039.71241345.7799.00
ER25-921421780.80249467.90249039.64248045.2499.00
ER25-9384890.941265101.85133142.05136729.9497.00
ER25-94593030.20186975.31179137.12171932.6695.00
ER25-952774040.69302166.6528017.472776.1999.00
ER25-966297360.85217364.20217140.03215745.3199.00
ER25-9752680.76171794.45171246.03169934.7599.00
ER25-981431500.95172575.93173334.13173330.0599.00
ER25-991431490.96457168.5043827.2543210.4698.00
ER25-100561170.48600221.2745733.8244011.9196.00
ER25-101672820.24179172.23177133.45174530.1998.00
ER25-10247760.62234683.79237544.32239347.4399.00
ER25-10324241.002442108.94247958.82251959.5998.00
ER25-1041922180.88261185.1628920.112937.5598.00
ER25-105533100.17235779.47227842.74217341.1595.00
ER25-106262710.10194379.32190438.46185535.7597.00
ER25-10711220.50500475.8943352.3128616.5158.00
ER25-1081411810.78248066.67247936.43246343.0099.00
ER25-10938550.691666115.59162950.46159637.3897.00
ER50-0116270.591529295.851586110.951601107.7897.40
ER50-021191990.60214161.81209533.02199449.3395.10
ER50-03676730.10182556.62174620.73163929.2393.70
ER50-0464412870.50184342.95183522.18179533.1397.80
ER50-0542351.202413130.40222061.131966103.3387.80
ER50-061434780.30194652.18195627.44193642.7999.00
ER50-07862860.30240852.06234133.13222343.5794.80
ER50-0820980.20249283.95238642.60222763.8093.20
ER50-1128930.302236127.42206368.99189673.7591.50
ER50-14341140.301942127.10198953.63200256.7699.40
ER50-1523380.611536211.46154677.38151372.7397.80
ER50-16954730.20231356.03222239.36208844.4793.80
ER50-211211510.80254164.46251239.24241361.7596.00
ER50-232372630.90210873.82205635.27192548.4393.40
ER50-261951951.00165427.4046162.9344319.0695.90
ER50-283194560.70236348.46224652.19202496.9589.60
ER50-303002141.40252265.6744142.4546423.6394.90
ER50-328777311.20185057.79190923.57185134.0496.90
ER50-331832610.70243864.78238232.27218046.6291.10
ER50-35892230.402255115.03233468.85231374.1799.10
ER50-361211211.00243078.82249835.26243272.1097.30
ER50-382404800.50243948.38239927.01225346.4093.70
ER50-393405670.60214864.83200925.01179940.5289.00
ER50-451802570.70105368.3527837.4727716.0199.50
ER50-471402800.20192794.63195440.42196547.9199.40
ER50-48613070.90184186.25162038.78143542.0287.90
ER50-491761951.10241693.77239141.14233464.0397.60
ER50-521491352.30171774.19171347.41170771.9297.30
ER50-53163710.501831112.33176654.67171499.3098.10
ER50-5572814560.10343187.4528321.592718.7695.60
ER50-57797890.71240231.53245918.81253445.1297.00
ER50-5817240.10237499.77240553.69243290.6798.90
ER50-59141370.40184895.19189461.02193766.1397.80
ER50-60511270.20178575.25187834.71196441.8895.50
ER50-618400.602380101.54238857.73240385.2595.50
ER50-62891490.60179374.62177959.06177983.5099.40
ER50-63981631.0069310.4925325.7226313.4999.90
ER50-6463630.50187782.46188752.84189978.5096.40
ER50-65631251.00178760.06173528.84161857.9496.10
ER50-661451450.40194874.81192732.69191045.5396.30
ER50-67551380.51147315.0928333.5627615.1497.20
ER50-6820391.531739121.95164864.211580113.1696.00
ER50-6923150.301738157.38165280.071565120.4798.90
ER50-70501680.801523107.68130656.72115967.0988.00
ER50-7153660.202001111.82185154.66169157.2491.00
ER50-72522620.50292223.1232527.5231212.0795.90
ER50-7336720.401692141.97176663.50176655.9199.80
ER50-74421050.601656121.23155264.01142768.1091.60
ER50-75801340.601318141.94137698.221398120.2898.40
ER50-76921530.10189462.61178231.03169152.2696.20
ER50-77232300.70176172.44158432.55144138.6390.50
ER50-7865930.60187171.46179246.69172564.0496.40
ER50-80611010.80187269.40185842.42184665.0998.00
ER50-831231540.80188088.33182752.18178360.8892.60
ER50-8430450.67261483.95255558.52245854.3796.00
ER50-859120.751857200.46176986.56169458.1795.00
ER50-862143780.57302216.6415913.711493.8893.00
ER50-8732640.50253678.40247342.92238648.7396.00
ER50-881052080.50215577.78214138.52211436.8098.00
ER50-8950980.51259270.22249241.43236645.5994.00
ER50-901751920.91254993.06256151.32256351.2099.00
ER50-913743401.10247770.68248337.53247434.9299.00
ER50-9265900.721618105.56165144.48167233.5298.00
ER50-9388701.26247377.93248642.86248544.2699.00
ER50-9422260.851569140.74164461.57169949.6896.00
ER50-951501550.97280233.3131727.643207.1898.00
ER50-9637810.46238173.92238441.70236939.0199.00
ER50-9741450.91249183.80248246.90245749.5198.00
ER50-981421560.91439202.7544530.4144010.0098.00
ER50-99321230.26177798.61161247.33147536.5591.00
ER50-100401950.21196980.24196340.38195038.5399.00
ER50-10132211.522500108.49248956.30248565.1899.00
ER50-1021762070.85594168.5047326.3745112.0195.00
ER50-1035103841.33300166.6529117.842896.3699.00
ER50-10442570.74214793.21211848.39207545.9697.00
ER50-10544281.572465102.78243754.08239751.6698.00
ER50-1061211870.65253365.90255935.83257641.3999.00
ER50-1071975490.36181372.38156233.85137633.6387.00
ER50-10851900.57457374.0332934.8728510.2885.00
ER50-10933530.621628125.92153954.12147337.4595.00
ER50-110441260.35198483.79200141.58200841.2799.00
Table A3. Lu-Hf data of detrital zircons in the Yihewusu area.
Table A3. Lu-Hf data of detrital zircons in the Yihewusu area.
Spot. No176Hf/177Hf176Lu/177Hf176Yb/177HfAge (Ma)εHf(t)tDM1tDM2
ER21-020.2817830.0000130.0003 0.0000010.01100.0000671476−2.4820212605
ER21-030.2817210.0000170.00140.0000210.05580.0004931538−4.3921642799
ER21-050.2816030.0000130.00050.0000060.01810.0002891538−7.6322733054
ER21-060.2812360.0000150.00080.0000200.03350.0003912372−2.5327953236
ER21-070.2813160.0000110.00070.0000040.02700.00025924923.2926762868
ER21-080.2824100.0000130.00120.0000230.03850.000598279−6.8911942130
ER21-090.2812680.0000120.00060.0000090.02320.00026025483.0327332928
ER21-120.2811950.0000110.00050.0000060.01840.0003162477−1.0328253193
ER21-140.2816680.0000120.00040.0000050.01460.00026319223.3821812457
ER21-160.2812920.0000130.00030.0000080.01150.00022624592.2926832923
ER21-190.2813760.0000120.00040.0000070.01530.0001801952−6.3725773241
ER21-260.2815590.0000110.00040.0000040.01570.0002901758−4.1823282936
ER21-280.2818780.0000160.00050.0000260.02220.0010231252−4.3219052595
ER21-310.2813960.0000110.00080.0000150.02870.00026422751.0225772891
ER21-320.2826220.0000140.00070.0000100.02870.0002682600.278841539
ER21-330.2813740.0000130.00070.0000060.02730.00037724303.9625972772
ER21-340.2823770.0000110.00090.0000350.03840.001564280−8.0012312219
ER21-350.2812990.0000120.00110.0000120.03900.0003312390−0.2627263072
ER21-360.2813080.0000120.00120.0000340.04410.0009012361−0.7127193087
ER21-380.2820900.0000120.00090.0000080.03690.00047712843.5916311990
ER21-390.2812970.0000140.00030.0000120.01010.00036224833.0926732877
ER21-400.2813510.0000140.00090.0000770.04320.0053651963−7.7026453352
ER21-410.2812900.0000130.00040.0000000.01690.0001232359−0.2126923046
ER21-430.2822570.0000110.00100.0000180.03990.001222476−8.0614012358
ER21-450.2813220.0000120.00030.0000010.01240.00008023611.1326422943
ER21-490.2813210.0000110.00040.0000030.01410.00013123590.9026502960
ER21-500.2822560.0000120.00110.0000280.04700.001280464−8.4014082377
ER21-510.2811940.0000120.00050.0000040.02030.0001562449−1.7828293232
ER21-530.2823500.0000120.00050.0000030.02010.000190288−8.7012562281
ER21-540.2813650.0000130.00040.0000050.01390.00018122770.6325902923
ER21-550.2813320.0000150.00050.0000070.01810.0001511976−7.5726453351
ER25-010.2819360.0000140.00050.0000080.01530.00013017007.7618231954
ER25-020.2813480.0000160.00060.0000100.02200.0000951924−8.2426273368
ER25-060.2816230.0000120.00100.0000220.04120.0007661719−3.4922772854
ER25-080.2813100.0000130.00080.0000220.03150.0009132119−5.5526943293
ER25-100.2813100.0000120.00030.0000050.01040.00016524021.7126552927
ER25-110.2816360.0000120.00070.0000270.02790.0013421676−3.6222412835
ER25-120.2825270.0000130.00050.0000100.01790.000145314−1.8510101748
ER25-130.2817400.0000140.00080.0000230.02580.00062518223.1421082406
ER25-150.2813870.0000130.00130.0000250.05370.00100623782.2226222870
ER25-160.2826760.0000130.00180.0000160.05800.0004562672.188311390
ER25-170.2813820.0000130.00080.0000300.03530.0013651859−8.7825973365
ER25-240.2813840.0000110.00020.0000050.00880.00012723593.4425532762
ER25-270.2813190.0000130.00050.0000030.01800.0001072174−3.4526563168
ER25-310.2813550.0000130.00120.0000100.04610.0003291990−7.3226593342
ER25-320.2813470.0000130.00030.0000110.01310.0004371851−9.5726103422
ER25-340.2823100.0000120.00060.0000070.02170.000218324−9.3613152359
ER25-350.2811950.0000130.00060.0000140.02030.0005752474−1.1928283203
ER25-380.2813440.0000130.00070.0000330.02360.0012452002−6.6726353300
ER25-390.2813810.0000130.00030.0000040.00940.0000681867−7.9225603303
ER25-400.2812710.0000120.00060.0000040.02090.0001052175−5.3227293315
ER25-410.2813100.0000140.00050.0000030.02120.0001932253−2.0626723116
ER25-430.2812030.0000130.00080.0000070.02740.0002542359−3.8528333329
ER25-490.2826060.0000120.00060.0000120.02360.0006263050.719051535
ER25-540.2826580.0000120.00090.0000070.03200.0002853072.538381390
ER25-590.2812930.0000120.00040.0000020.01530.00013225003.0926892889
ER25-600.2813900.0000140.00040.0000090.01200.00019523864.0625542733
ER25-610.2813760.0000130.00040.0000090.01620.0001471990−5.4925763199
ER25-650.2822340.0000150.00080.0000480.02930.001779432−9.7714282465
ER25-680.2821800.0000150.00070.0000070.02550.000164491−10.3714972553
ER50-040.2815140.0000120.00100.0000090.04020.0002971843−4.7124303036
ER50-050.2812900.0000150.00060.0000280.02250.00080724130.6527073017
ER50-110.2813400.0000130.00090.0000160.03470.0003142236−1.9226563093
ER50-160.2813100.0000110.00080.0000090.03540.0004772313−1.2226953092
ER50-210.2812910.0000120.00030.0000040.01230.00013225404.1126842838
ER50-230.2813360.0000120.00040.0000130.01950.0006642107−4.3226323190
ER50-260.2822480.0000120.00110.0000190.04800.001115443−9.1214192421
ER50-280.2812800.0000120.00030.0000070.01150.0002422363−0.2626963053
ER50-300.2824820.0000170.00070.0000100.02540.000347464−0.2510781723
ER50-350.2811320.0000120.00050.0000070.01940.0002752255−8.3429103605
ER50-390.2814540.0000110.00020.0000070.00770.00031721481.1424582792
ER50-470.2813920.0000130.00050.0000090.01820.0004271927−6.4925623233
ER50-480.2814540.0000110.00120.0000090.03510.0002941841−7.0825233220
ER50-490.2812990.0000120.00050.0000120.01780.00057424161.3426832966
ER50-550.2822620.0000130.00120.0000120.04580.000477343−10.7814042485
ER50-590.2814410.0000170.00070.0000040.02470.0001921849−6.6725043193
ER50-600.2817080.0000130.00280.0000430.12860.0016271785−1.1522662717
ER50-610.2810920.0000140.00080.0000120.03020.0005422380−7.3729853616
ER50-660.2812880.0000190.00140.0000330.04910.0006361948−10.8427623587
ER50-680.2813090.0000130.00050.0000180.01820.00069724191.6526742944
ER50-710.2813740.0000130.00080.0000190.03000.0004892001−5.8726063237
ER50-760.2813140.0000170.00070.0000070.02730.00024923660.3126813011

References

  1. IAEA. World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO); IAEA-TECDOC-1843; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 2018; p. 262. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cuney, M.; Mercadier, J.; Bonnetti, C. Classification of Sandstone-Related Uranium Deposits. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 236–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ji, H.L.; He, Z.B.; Zhong, J.; Chen, H.; Zhu, B. Sedimentary Characteristics of Lower Cretaceous in Wuerhe–Huanghuagou Area, Northwestern Margin of Junggar Basin. J. Ore Geol. Rev. 2024, 70, 1267–1290. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonnetti, C.; Cuney, M.; Malartre, F.; Michels, R.; Liu, X.D.; Peng, Y.B. The Nuheting Deposit, Erlian Basin, NE China: Synsedimentary to Diagenetic Uranium Mineralization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 69, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bonnetti, C.; Cuney, M.; Michels, R.; Truche, L.; Malartre, F.; Liu, X.D.; Yang, J.X. 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]
  6. Bonnetti, C.; Liu, X.D.; Yan, Z.B.; Cuney, M.; Michels, R.; Malartre, F.; Mercadier, J.; Cai, J.F. 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]
  7. Hou, B.; Keeling, J.L.; Li, Z. 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]
  8. Zhang, X.; Nie, F.J.; Su, X.B.; Xia, F.; Li, M.G.; Yan, Z.B.; Zhang, C.Y.; Feng, Z.B. Relationships between Meso-Cenozoic Denudation in the Eastern Tian Shan and Uranium Mineralization in the Turpan-Hami Basin, NW China: Constraints from Apatite Fission Track Study. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 127, 103820. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jin, R.S.; Teng, X.M.; Li, X.G.; Si, Q.H.; Wang, W. Genesis of sandstone-type uranium deposits along the northern margin of the Ordos Basin, China. Geosci. Front. 2020, 11, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, D.; Xia, F.; Meng, F.M.; Nie, F.J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.W.; Wan, Q. Petrology of the Sandstone-Type Uranium Target Layer and Its Uranium Existence Form in the Telaaobao Mineral Area, Ordos Basin. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 912–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zhu, Q.; Li, J.G.; Wen, S.B.; Li, G.Y.; Yu, R.G.; Miao, P.S.; Zhang, B. Alteration, uranium occurrence state, and enrichment mechanism of the Cretaceous Luohe Formation, southwestern Ordos Basin, western China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2021, 139, 104496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, Y.; Miao, P.S.; Li, J.G.; Jin, R.S.; Zhao, H.L.; Chen, L.L.; Wang, C.; Yu, H.Y.; Zhang, X.R. Association of Sandstone-Type Uranium Mineralization in the Northern China with Tectonic Movements and Hydrocarbons. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, T.; Sarma, D.S.; Somasekhar, V.; Ramanaiah, S.; Reddy, N.R. Geochemistry of the Palaeoproterozoic quartzites of LowerCuddapah Supergroup, South India: Implications for the palaeoweathering, provenance, and crustal evolution. Geol. J. 2020, 55, 1587–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Khan, T.; Sarma, D.S.; Khan, M.S. Geochemical study of the Neoproterozoic clastic sedimentary rocks of the Khambal Formation (Sindreth Basin), Aravalli Craton, NW Indian Shield: Implications for paleoweathering, provenance, and geodynamic evolution. Geochemistry 2020, 80, 129956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wanas, H.A.; Assal, E.M. Provenance, tectonic setting and source area-paleoweathering of sandstones of the Bahariya Formationin the Bahariya Oasis, Egypt: An implication to paleoclimate and paleogeography of the southern Neo-Tethys region duringEarly Cenomanian. Sediment. Geol. 2021, 413, 105822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, Y.; Nie, F.J.; Jia, L.C.; Lu, S.J.; Yan, Z.B. Geochemical Characteristics, Palaeoenvironment and Provenance of Uranium-BearingSandstone in the Sifangtai Formation, Northern Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Minerals 2021, 11, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Huang, G.W.; Pan, J.Y.; Xia, F.; Yan, J.; Zhang, C.Y.; Wu, D.H.; Liu, Y. Provenance of uranium mineralization of the Yuqia area, Northwest China: Constraints from detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopes. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 1549–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, G.W.; Wu, D.H.; Huang, G.N.; Xue, W.W.; Min, Z.; Fan, P.F. Provenance of Jurassic sediments from Yuqia sandstonetype uranium deposits in the Northern margin of Qaidam Basin, China and its implications for uranium mineralization. Minerals 2022, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, Y.H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Cuney, M.; Wu, L.Q.; Mercadier, J.; Rong, H.; Liu, Y.; Tao, Z.P. Sulfur Isotope and Trace Element Constraints on the Conditions of Pyrite Formation from the Diantou-Shuanglong Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposit, Ordos Basin, China: Implications for Uranium Mineralization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2024, 165, 105921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, C.Y.; Zhang, L.; Huang, L.; Wu, B.L.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, D.D.; Tan, C.Q.; Ma, Y.P.; Zhao, J.S. Novel Metallogenic Model of Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits: Mineralization by Deep Organic Fluids. Earth Sci. Front. 2024, 31, 368–383. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, F.F.; Liu, C.Y.; Niu, H.Q.; Zhou, N.C.; Li, X.H.; Luo, W.; Zhang, D.D.; Zhao, Y. In-Situ Chemical Age of the Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposit in Ningdong Area on the Western Margin of the Ordos Basin, North China. J. Acta Geol. Sin. 2018, 92, 406–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, J.D.; Xu, G.Z.; Lin, J.R.; Peng, Y.B.; Wang, G. The Implication of Six Kinds of New Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits to Uranium Resources Potential in North China. Geol. China 2010, 37, 1434–1449. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wu, Z.Q.; Hu, Y.X.; Liu, K.P.; Wang, X.P.; Liu, C.H.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L.; Pan, J.Y.; Mao, N.; Wang, Q.H. Basic Feature of Mineralization Host Rocks and Its Relation to Uranium Metallogenesis in Zhenyuan, Southern Ordos Basin. Uranium Geol. 2023, 39, 960–969. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sun, D.; Li, H.; Xia, F.; Nie, F.J.; Huang, G.W.; Zhang, Z.B.; Meng, F.M.; Pan, J.Y.; Hu, Y.J. Provenance and Tectonic Setting of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northwestern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Mineralization. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 3324–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, H.B.; Li, Z.Y.; Qin, M.K.; Sun, Y.; Han, J.; Jin, G.S.; Li, J.J. Advances in Geochemistry of Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposits in the Northern Ordos Basin. Earth Sci. Front. 2012, 19, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu, B.L.; Zhang, W.Y.; Song, Z.S.; Cun, X.N.; Sun, L.; Luo, J.J.; Li, Y.Q.; Cheng, X.H.; Sun, B. Geological and Geochemical Characteristics of Uranium Minerals in Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits of the Northern Ordos Basin and Their Genetic Significance. Acta Geol. Sin. 2016, 90, 3393–3407. [Google Scholar]
  27. Weltje, G.J.; Eynatten, H.V. Quantitative Provenance Analysis of Sediments: Review and Outlook. Sediment. Geol. 2004, 171, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hietpas, J.; Samson, S.; Moecher, D.; Chakraborty, S. Enhancing Tectonic and Provenance Information from Detrital Zircon Studies: Assessing Terrane-Scale Sampling and Grain-Scale Characterization. J. Geol. Soc. 2011, 168, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Luo, X.; Li, Z.; Cai, Y.; Yi, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Provenance and Tectonic Setting of Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation Sandstones, Northwest Ordos Basin, North-Central China. Minerals 2021, 11, 1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, S.T.; Lin, C.S.; Xie, X.N.; Yang, S.G.; Jiao, Y.Q. Approaches of Nonmarine Sequence Stratigraphy—A Case Study on the Mesozoic Ordos Basin. Sediment. Geol. 1995, 2, 133–148. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shi, W.; Dong, S.W.; Hu, J.M. Neotectonics around the Ordos Block, North China: A Review and New Insights. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 200, 102969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, A.Q.; Zou, H.; Ogg, J.G.; Yang, S.; Hou, M.C.; Jiang, X.W.; Xu, S.L.; Zhang, X.X. Source-to-Sink of Late Carboniferous Ordos Basin: Constraints on Crustal Accretion Margins Converting to Orogenic Belts Bounding the North China Block. Geosci. Front. 2020, 11, 2031–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhong, W.H.; Wu, L.Q.; Wang, L.H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Zhang, F.; Yue, L.; Xiang, Y.; Zheng, Y.H. The Distinctiveness of Carbonaceous Debris in Uranium Reservoirs under Arid Sedimentary Backgrounds and Its Implication for Uranium Mineralization: A Case Study of Northern Ordos Basin. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 179, 106526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, L.H.; Yan, P.B.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Wu, L.Q.; Zhang, Z.L.; Rong, H.; Zhang, F.; Li, Z.C.; Zhong, W.H. Uranium Metallogenic Model of Lower Cretaceous in Northern Ordos Basin. J. Bull. Geol. Sci. Technol. 2023, 42, 222–233. [Google Scholar]
  35. Meng, Q.R.; Wu, G.L.; Fan, L.G.; Wei, H.H. Tectonic Evolution of Early Mesozoic Sedimentary Basins in the North China Block. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 190, 416–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Deng, J.; Wang, Q.F.; Gao, B.F.; Xu, H.; Zhou, Y.H. Distribution and Tectonic Background of Various Energy Resources in Ordos Basin. Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 2006, 3, 330–336. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hu, Y.X.; Yang, T.; Zhang, X.; Ou, Y.J.; Liu, Z.R.; Si, H.J.; Li, X.Q. Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Characteristics and Uranium Metallogenic Significance of Sandstone-type Uranium Deposits in the Lower Cretaceous Luohe Formation in Zhenyuan Area, Southern Ordos Basin. Geoscience 2025, 166, 105937, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  38. Ju, Y.; Wang, W.; Ren, Z.; Yang, Z.; Liu, K.; Hou, B.; Xiao, L. Multi-Stage Evolution of the Ordos Basin: Its Coupled Basin-Mountain Systems and Energy Resources. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2025, 68, 2426–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, R.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.; Evans, N.J.; Chen, H.D.; Wei, X.S. Late Paleozoic Provenance Shift in the East-Central Ordos Basin: Implications for the Tectonic Evolution of the North China Craton. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2021, 215, 104799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dong, Y.P.; Hui, B.; Sun, S.X.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, F.F.; He, D.F.; Sun, J.P.; Shi, X.H. Multiple Orogeny and Geodynamics from Proto-Tethys to Paleo-Tethys of the Central China Orogenic Belt. Acta Geol. Sin. 2022, 96, 3426–3448, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, Z.W.; Liu, L.; Hu, J.L.; Wang, F.; Li, D.; Zhang, J.Q.; Zhu, S.Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, C.G.; et al. Dispersion of Sandy Sediments During Marine–Continental Transition: An Integrated Study from the Late Paleozoic Western Ordos Basin. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2024, 160, 106620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, G.; Liu, B.; Bai, Y.M.; Wang, L.H.; Li, H.M.; Lu, S.S. Geological Characteristics and Metallogenic Mechanism of Lower Cretaceous Uranium Mineralization in Northern Ordos Basin. World Nucl. Geosci. 2025, 42, 485–503. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Jiao, Y.Q.; Wu, L.Q.; Rong, H.; Zhang, F. Coal Accumulation Regularity of Zhiluo Formation and Its Indication to Paleoclimate and Uranium Metallogenic Environment, Ordos Basin. J. China Coal Soc. 2021, 46, 2331–2345. [Google Scholar]
  44. NIST SRM 1646a; Estuarine Sediment Standard. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2010.
  45. GSD-12; Shale Standard. Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences: Langfang, China, 2008.
  46. ISO 11466:1995; Soil Quality—Extraction of Trace Elements Soluble in Aqua Regia. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
  47. SRM 610; Trace Elements in Glass. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1972.
  48. McDonough, W.F.; Sun, S.-S. The Composition of the Earth. Chem. Geol. 1995, 120, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dan, W.; Li, X.H.; Guo, J.H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.C. Integrated in situ Zircon U-Pb Age and Hf-O Isotopes for the Helanshan Khondalites in North China Craton: Juvenile Crustal Materials Deposited in Active or Passive Continental Margin? Precambrian Res 2012, 222–223, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yin, C.Q.; Zhao, G.C.; Guo, J.H.; Sun, M.; Xia, X.P.; Zhou, X.W.; Liu, C.H. U-Pb and Hf Isotopic Study of Zircons of the Helanshan Complex: Constraints on the Evolution of the Khondalite Belt in the Western Block of the North China Craton. Lithos 2011, 122, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xi, X.P.; Sun, M.; Zhao, G.C.; Wu, F.Y.; Xu, P.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.H. Paleoproterozoic Crustal Growth in the Western Block of the North China Craton: Evidence from Detrital Zircon Hf and Whole Rock Sr-Nd Isotope Compositions of the Khondalites in the Jining Complex. Am. J. Sci. 2008, 308, 304–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ma, X.D.; Guo, J.H.; Liu, F.; Qian, Q.; Fan, H.R. Zircon U-Pb Ages, Trace Elements and Nd-Hf Isotopic Geochemistry of Guyang Sanukitoids and Related Rocks: Implications for the Archean Crustal Evolution of the Yinshan Block, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2013, 230, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ma, M.Z.; Xu, Z.Y.; Zhang, L.C.; Dong, C.Y.; Dong, X.J.; Liu, S.J.; Liu, D.Y.; Wan, Y.S. SHRIMP Dating and Hf Isotope Analysis of Zircons from the Early Precambrian Basement in the Xi Ulanbulang Area, Wuchuan, Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 501–516. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, D.; Guo, J.H.; Huang, G.Y.; Scheltens, M. The Neoarchean Ultramafic-Mafic Complex in the Yinshan Block, North China Craton: Magmatic Monitor of Development of Archean Lithospheric Mantle. Precambrian Res. 2015, 270, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, X.P.; Wang, H.; Kong, F.M. Probe into the genesis of high temperature-ultrahigh temperature metamorphism: The enlightenment from the Western Khondalite Belt of the North China Craton and the Namaqua mobile belt and the Bushveld metamorphic complex of South Africa. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2019, 35, 295–311, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  56. Ma, X.C.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z.W.; Hu, A.P.; Hu, J.L.; Hu, C.; Wang, F.; Li, D.; Zhang, C.G.; Fu, S.Y.; et al. Detrital Material Source and Paleogeographic Reconstruction of Taiyuan Formation in Western Ordos Basin [J/OL]. Acta Sedimentol. Sin. 2025, 1–23, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhai, M.G.; Santosh, M. The Early Precambrian Odyssey of the North China Craton: A Synoptic Overview. Gondwana Res. 2011, 20, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhai, M.G.; Santosh, M.; Zhang, L. Precambrian Geology and Tectonic Evolution of the North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 2011, 20, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, M.; Luo, J.L.; Li, M.; Bai, X.J.; Cheng, C.; Yan, L.W. Provenance and Tectonic Setting of Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposit in Dongsheng Area, Ordos Basin: Evidence from U-Pb Age and Hf Isotopes of Detrital Zircons. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 2746–2758. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhao, G.C.; Wilde, S.A.; Cawood, P.A. Tectonothermal History of the Basement Rocks in the Western Zone of the North China Craton and Its Tectonic Implications. Tectonophysics 1999, 310, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhao, G.C.; Cawood, P.A.; Wilde, S.A.; Min, S.; Lu, L.Z. Metamorphism of Basement Rocks in the Central Zone of the North China Craton: Implications for Paleoproterozoic Tectonic Evolution. Precambrian Res. 2000, 103, 55–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, H.C.; Yuan, G.B.; Xin, H.T. U-Pb Single Zircon Ages for Granulites in Cunkongshan Area, Guyang Inner Mongolia and Enlightenment for Its Geological Signification. Prog. Precambrian Res. 2001, 24, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang, W.J.; Li, L.; Geng, M.S. Petrology and Dating of Neo-Archaean Intrusive Rocks from Guyang Area, Inner Mongolia. Earth Sci. 2000, 25, 221–226. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wu, C.H.; Sun, M.; Li, H.M.; Zhao, G.C.; Xia, X.P. LA-ICP-MS U-Pb Zircon Ages of the Khondalites from the Wulashan and Jining High-Grade Terrain in Northern Margin of the North China Craton: Constraints on Sedimentary Age of the Khondalite. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2006, 22, 2639–2654. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shi, Q.; Ma, L.; Chen, X.Z.; Xu, Z.Y.; Li, S.C. Discovery of ca. 2.5 Ga Charnockite in the Daqing Mountains: Implications for the Petrogenetic Model of Anatectic Garnet Granite. Geol. Rev. 2024, 70, 1139–1144. [Google Scholar]
  66. Dong, C.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Li, J.J.; Wan, Y.S.; Zhou, H.Y.; Li, C.D.; Yang, Y.H.; Xie, L.W. New Evidence for the Formation Age of the Khondalite Belt in the Western North China Craton: Zircon SHRIMP Dating and Hf Isotopic Compositions from the Bayan Wula-Helan Mountains Region. Sci. Bull. 2007, 16, 1913–1922. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dong, C.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Wan, Y.S.; Xu, Z.Y.; Wang, W.; Jie, H.Q. Hf Isotope Composition and REE Pattern of Zircons from Early Precambrian Metamorphic Rocks in the Daqing Mountains, Inner Mongolia. Geol. Rev. 2009, 55, 509–520. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhong, C.T.; Deng, J.F.; Wan, Y.S.; Mao, D.B.; Li, H.M. Magma Recording of Paleoproterozoic Orogeny in Central Segment of Northern Margin of North China Craton: Geochemical Characteristics and Zircon SHRIMP Dating of S-Type Granitoids. Geochimica 2007, 36, 585–600. [Google Scholar]
  69. Liu, S.J.; Dong, C.Y.; Xu, Z.Y.; Santosh, M.; Ma, M.Z.; Xie, H.Q.; Liu, D.Y.; Wan, Y.S. Palaeoproterozoic Episodic Magmatism and High-Grade Metamorphism in the North China Craton: Evidence from SHRIMP Zircon Dating of Magmatic Suites in the Daqingshan Area. Geol. J. 2013, 48, 429–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Yin, C.Q.; Liu, X.G.; Chen, Y.; Cheng, C.Q.; Guo, M.J. Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications of 1.86–1.80 Ga A-Type Granites in the Daqingshan Complex, Khondalite Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2022, 378, 106757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Xu, C.H.; Sun, F.Y.; Fan, X.Z.; Li, L.; Liu, J.L.; Yu, L. Late Paleoproterozoic Crustal Evolution in the Daqingshan Area: Evidences from Adakitic and A-Type Granitoids in the Guyang Changshengqu Goldfield, Khondalite Belt, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2020, 345, 105761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, L.; Cheng, C.; Wei, Z. Seismic Evidence for Significant Lateral Variations in Lithospheric Thickness Beneath the Central and Western North China Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 286, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Xu, B.; Wang, Z.W.; Zhang, L.Y.; Wang, Z.H.; Yang, Z.N.; He, Y. The Xing-Meng Intracontinent Orogenic Belt. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2018, 34, 2819–2844. [Google Scholar]
  74. Luo, H.L.; Wu, T.R.; Zhao, L.; He, Y.K.; Jin, X. Permian High Ba-Sr Granitoids: Geochemistry, Age and Tectonic Implications of Erlangshan Pluton, Urad Zhongqi, Inner Mongolia. Acta Geol. Sin. 2009, 83, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Luo, H.L.; Wu, T.R.; Zhao, L. Zircon SHRIMP U-Pb Dating of Wuliangsitai A-Type Granite on the Northern Margin of the North China Plate and Tectonic Significance. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2009, 25, 515–526. [Google Scholar]
  76. Liu, C.F.; Liu, W.C.; Zhou, Z.G. Geochronology, Geochemistry and Tectonic Setting of the Paleozoic–Early Mesozoic Intrusive in Siziwangqi, Inner Mongolia. Acta Geol. Sin. 2014, 88, 992–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dong, C.Y.; Wan, Y.S.; Wilde, S.A.; Xu, Z.Y.; Ma, M.Z.; Xie, H.Q.; Liu, D.Y. Earliest Paleoproterozoic Supracrustal Rocks in the North China Craton: Recognized from the Daqingshan Area of the Khondalite Belt: Constraints on Craton Evolution. Gondwana Res. 2014, 25, 1535–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ma, M.Z.; Wan, Y.S.; Santosh, M.; Xu, Z.Y.; Xie, H.Q.; Dong, C.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Guo, C.L. Decoding Multiple Tectonothermal Events in Zircons from Single Rock Samples: SHRIMP Zircon U-Pb Data from the Late Neoproterozoic Rocks of Daqingshan, North China Craton. Gondwana Res. 2012, 22, 810–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dan, W.; Li, X.H.; Guo, J.H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.C. Paleoproterozoic Evolution of the Eastern Alxa Block, Westernmost North China: Evidence from in situ Zircon U–Pb Dating and Hf–O Isotopes. Gondwana Res. 2012, 21, 838–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dan, W.; Li, X.H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.C.; Liu, Y.; Wyman, D.A. Paleoproterozoic S-Type Granites in the Helanshan Complex, Khondalite Belt, North China Craton: Implications for Rapid Sediment Recycling During Slab Break-Off. Precambrian Res. 2014, 254, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhai, M.G. Tectonic Evolution of the North China Craton. J. Geomech.Geophys. 2019, 25, 722–745. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhai, M.G.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, X.Y.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Peng, P.; Guo, J.H.; Li, Q.L.; Zhao, T.P.; Lu, J.S.; Li, X.H. Late Neoarchean Magmatic-Metamorphic Event and Crustal Stabilization in the North China Craton. Am. J. Sci. 2021, 321, 206–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhai, M.G.; Peng, P. Paleoproterozoic Events in the North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 2665–2682. [Google Scholar]
  84. Huang, B.; Kusky, T.M.; Johnson, T.E.; Wilde, S.A.; Wang, L.; Polat, A.; Fu, D. Paired Metamorphism in the Neoarchean: A Record of Accretionary-to-Collisional Orogenesis in the North China Craton. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2020, 543, 116355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, T.X.; Yu, R.G.; Rong, H.; Li, T.; Zhu, Q. Geochemistry of Sandstones and U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons in the Zhiluo Formation of the Central and Northern Ordos Basin, China: Constraints on Provenance and Tectonic Setting. Acta Geosci. Sin. 2024, 45, 941–952. [Google Scholar]
  86. Zhang, S.H.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Hu, J.M.; Chen, Z.L.; Li, M.; Pei, J.L.; Chen, Z.Y.; Zhou, J.X. Emplacement Depths of the Late Paleozoic-Mesozoic Granitoid Intrusions from the Northern North China Block and Their Tectonic Implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 625–638. [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhang, N.; Wang, C.B.; Liu, Z.H.; Xu, Z.Y.; Li, G.; Xuan, Y.F.; Gao, Y.; Wang, C. Tectonic Evolution of the Late Paleozoic-Early Mesozoic Orogenic Belt in the Eastern Segment of the Northern Margin of the North China Block: Evidence from Meta-Volcanic Rocks of Jianshanzi, Northern Liaoning Province. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2022, 38, 2323–2344. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ren, Z.L.; Qi, K.; Liu, R.C.; Cui, J.P.; Chen, Z.P. Dynamic Background of Early Cretaceous Tectonic Thermal Events and Its Control on Various Mineral Accumulations Such as Oil and Gas in the Ordos Basin. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2020, 36, 1213–1234. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  89. He, X.Y.; Liu, C.Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J.Q.; Huang, L.P.; Du, F.P.; Yang, X.K. The Tectonic Uplift Episodes and Energy Effects in the Northeastern Ordos Basin. Acta Geol. Sin. 2024, 98, 3735–3750. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wan, T.F. Discussion on the Liupanshan-Helanshan Collision Zone. Geotecton. Metallog. 2020, 44, 845–851, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhao, H.L.; Zang, Y.L.; Li, J.G.; Zhang, B.; Chen, L.L. Preliminary Study on the Occurrence State of Uranium in the Lower Cretaceous Luohe Formation of Pengyang Uranium Deposit, Southwestern Ordos Basin. North China Geol. 2022, 45, 21–27, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  92. Ren, Y.S.; Yang, X.Y.; Miao, P.S.; Hu, X.W.; Chen, Y.; Chen, L.L.; Zhao, H.L. Mineralogical and Geochemical Research on Pengyang Deposit: A Peculiar Eolian Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposit in the Southwest of Ordos Basin. Ore Geol. Rev. 2022, 141, 104571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Taylor, S.R.; McLennan, S.M. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  94. Cullers, R.L. The Controls on the Major- and Trace-Element Evolution of Shales, Siltstones and Sandstones of Ordovician to Tertiary Age in the Wet Mountains Region, Colorado, USA. Chem. Geol. 1995, 123, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hou, W.; Liu, Z.J.; Wang, W.T.; He, Y.P.; Zhang, W. REE Geochemical Characteristics of the Lower Cretaceous Mudstone in Suibin Depression of Eastern Heilongjiang Province. J. Palaeogeogr. 2007, 9, 207–215, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  96. Bao, H.Y.; Yang, F.L.; Wang, D.P. Geochemical Characteristics of Sedimentary Rock in Southern Jiangsu Province on Mesozoic and Paleozoic: A Perspective from the SK-1 Well. J. Jilin Univ.: Earth Sci. Ed. 2011, 41 (Suppl. 1), 29–38, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  97. Diwu, C.R. Crustal Growth and Evolution of Archean Continental Crust in the Southern North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2021, 37, 317–340. [Google Scholar]
  98. Liu, S.; Feng, C.X.; Hu, R.Z.; Feng, G.Y.; Yu, X.F.; Li, C.; Jia, D.C.; Qi, Y.Q. Zircon U-Pb Age and Hf Isotope Characteristics of the Hercynian Granite in the Eastern Jilin Province and the Crustal Growth. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2012, 28, 3715–3720. [Google Scholar]
  99. Liu, R.; Yang, Z.; Xu, Q.D.; Zhang, X.J.; Yao, C.L. Zircon U-Pb Ages, Elemental and Sr-Nd-Pb Isotopic Geochemistry of the Hercynian Granitoids from the Southern Segment of the Da Hinggan Mts.: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2016, 32, 1505–1528. [Google Scholar]
  100. Amirdin, A.; Xie, G.A.; Zhang, J.; Qu, J.F.; Tian, R.S.; Zhao, H.; Li, F.H.; Li, T. Geochemistry, Zircon U-Pb Age and Tectonic Settings of Pillow Basalts in the Langshan Area on the Northern Margin of the Alxa Block, Inner Mongolia. Geol. Bull. China 2019, 38, 810–823. [Google Scholar]
  101. Zhang, F.C. Geochronology, Geochemistry and Geological Significance of the Xiaodaqingshan Granites in Jining, Inner Mongolia. Master’s Thesis, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  102. Chang, Z.G. Petrogenesis and Geological Significance of Mesozoic Bainuyangpan Formation Volcanic Rocks in Yinshan Area, Inner Mongolia. Master’s Thesis, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  103. Wang, W.L.; Teng, X.J.; Liu, Y.; Teng, F.; Guo, S.; He, P.; Tian, J.; Duan, X.L. Zircon U-Pb Chronology and Geochemical Characteristics of the Wuheertu Granite Mass in Langshan, Inner Mongolia. J. Geomech.Geophys. 2017, 23, 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  104. Hui, J.; Fan, L.Y.; Zhao, W.B.; Kang, R.; Wang, Y.F.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, B.H.; Zhao, H. Late Triassic Extension in the Northwestern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Langshan Basalts, NW China. Acta Geol. Sin. 2024, 98, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  105. Tian, J.; Teng, X.J.; Liu, Y.; Teng, F.; Guo, S.; He, P.; Wang, W.L. Chronology and Geochemistry of the Early Permian Granodiorite in Langshan Area, Inner Mongolia and Its Tectonic Setting. Geol. China 2020, 47, 767–781. [Google Scholar]
  106. Zhao, C.; Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, J.S.; Zhang, C.; Cui, D.D.; Cui, Y.S. Zircon U-Pb-Hf Isotopes and Geochemistry of Neoarchean TTG Gneisses in the Guyang Area of the Yinshan Block: Constraints on Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2024, 40, 3465–3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wu, B. Neoarchean Felsic Magmatism in the Guyang Area of the North China Craton and Its Implications for Early Plate Tectonics. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest University, Xi’an, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  108. Zhang, S.C.; Liu, P.; Ji, B.J. Thorium Resources and Their Availability. World Nucl. Geosci. 2005, 22, 98–103. [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang, X.; Griffin, W.L.; Chen, J.; Huang, P.Y.; Li, X. U and Th Contents and Th/U Ratios of Zircon in Felsic and Mafic Magmatic Rocks: Improved Zircon-Melt Distribution Coefficients. Acta Geol. Sin. 2011, 85, 164–174. [Google Scholar]
  110. Wang, W.Q.; Liu, C.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Ma, H.H.; Guan, Y.Z. Characteristics of Uranium Content and Its Geological and Mineralization Significance for the Provenance Areas, Northern Northwest China. Earth Sci. Front. 2019, 26, 292–303, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  111. Feng, Z.B.; Zhang, B.C.; Nie, F.J.; Xia, F.; Ning, J.; Zhang, L.L. Characteristics of rock fissure fillings and their relationship with the accumulation of uranium and associated elements in the Kailu Sag of southern Songliao Basin, Northeast China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2024, 169, 106079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Peng, H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Fu, X.F.; Wu, L.Q.; Guo, X.D.; Wang, Q.S.; Liu, C. Provenance and uranium source tracing for uranium-bearing series in the south of Songliao Basin: Evidence from zircon U–Pb chronology and lithogeochemistry. J. Geochem. Explor. 2025, 272, 107703, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cheng, Y.H.; Petrov, V.; Jin, R.S.; Miao, P.S. Neotectonic controls on large-scale uranium mineralization in the Meso-Cenozioc basins, Northern China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 176, 106393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Peng, H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Dong, F.S.; Guo, X.D. Relationships between uranium occurrence, pyrite and carbonaceous debris in Fuxin Formation in the Songliao Basin: Evidenced by mineralogy and sulfur isotopes. Ore Geol. Rev. 2022, 140, 104580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Huang, H.; Cawood, P.A.; Ni, S.J.; Hou, M.C.; Shi, Z.Q. Provenance of late Paleozoic strata in the Yili Basin: Implications for tectonic evolution of the South Tianshan orogenic belt. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 2018, 130, 952–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Huang, G.W.; Xue, W.W.; Pan, J.Y.; Song, T.Z.; Huang, G.N.; Zhang, C.Y.; Bai, X.D.; Zhang, T.; Hong, B.Y. Provenance and Tectonic Setting of Sandstones in the Mengqiguer Sandstone-type Uranium Deposit, Yili Basin: Evidence from Zircon U-Pb Chronology. Geotecton. Metall. 2018, 42, 1108–1141. [Google Scholar]
  117. Zhang, X.; Nie, F.J.; Xia, F.; Zhang, C.Y.; Feng, Z.B. Provenance constraints on the Xishanyao Formation, southern Yili Basin, northwest China: Evidence from petrology, geochemistry, and detrital zircon U–Pb geochronology. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2018, 55, 1020–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Location of the Ordos Basin in the simplified tectonic map of the North China Craton and its adjacent regions (modified from Zhong et al. [33]); (b) Regional geological map and tectonic setting of the Ordos Basin (modified from Wang et al. [34]).
Figure 1. (a) Location of the Ordos Basin in the simplified tectonic map of the North China Craton and its adjacent regions (modified from Zhong et al. [33]); (b) Regional geological map and tectonic setting of the Ordos Basin (modified from Wang et al. [34]).
Minerals 15 01079 g001
Figure 2. Lithology of strata in the Ordos Basin (Revised by Wang et al. [34]).
Figure 2. Lithology of strata in the Ordos Basin (Revised by Wang et al. [34]).
Minerals 15 01079 g002
Figure 3. Geological map of northern Ordos basin (Revised by Wang et al. [42]).
Figure 3. Geological map of northern Ordos basin (Revised by Wang et al. [42]).
Minerals 15 01079 g003
Figure 4. Field photographs of Huanhe Formation in west Atamu of Yihewusu, from the northern Ordos Basin. (A) Trough cross-bedding developed in gray-white medium sandstone from west Atamu of Yihewusu. (B) Iron nodules developed in yellow coarse sandstone from west Atamu of Yihewusu. (C) Variegated sandstone with trough cross-bedding from Arbasi Sumu. (D) Gray sandstone (with gray-white calcareous nodules) from Arbasi Sumu, with purple mudstone lenses visible at bottom. (E) Yellow-green medium sandstone interbedded with thin mudstone from Sumitu Aobao. (F) Variegated coarse sandstone of Hongqinghe Town southeast of Yihewusu.
Figure 4. Field photographs of Huanhe Formation in west Atamu of Yihewusu, from the northern Ordos Basin. (A) Trough cross-bedding developed in gray-white medium sandstone from west Atamu of Yihewusu. (B) Iron nodules developed in yellow coarse sandstone from west Atamu of Yihewusu. (C) Variegated sandstone with trough cross-bedding from Arbasi Sumu. (D) Gray sandstone (with gray-white calcareous nodules) from Arbasi Sumu, with purple mudstone lenses visible at bottom. (E) Yellow-green medium sandstone interbedded with thin mudstone from Sumitu Aobao. (F) Variegated coarse sandstone of Hongqinghe Town southeast of Yihewusu.
Minerals 15 01079 g004
Figure 5. Stratigraphic Summary of ZKY0-31 Drill Core, with Sample Depth Annotations.
Figure 5. Stratigraphic Summary of ZKY0-31 Drill Core, with Sample Depth Annotations.
Minerals 15 01079 g005
Figure 6. Microscopic characteristics of detrital composition in Huanhe Formation sandstone. (A) Debris particles included potassium feldspar (Kfs) and quartz (Qtz), with rutile (Rt) and calcite cement (Cal) at the edges of the particles. ZKW2020-1, 415.14 m, 200× (single polarized light). (B) Quartz (Qtz) with iron impregnation at the edge. ZKW2020–1411, 20 m, 200× (single polarized light). (C) Shaped columnar rutile (Rt), block-shaped asphalt (Bit), light red garnet with two sets of fissures (Grt), biotite (Bt), light brown tourmaline (Tur). ZKW2020–1401, 64 m, 100× (single polarized light). (D) Biotite (Bt) contains rutile (Rt) in the cleavage joint, with some chloritization (Chl) in the biotite. ZKW2020–1415, 14 m, 200× (reflected light). (E) Volcanic rock debris (Volc), mainly comprising interlaced thin lath plagioclase and matrix ejected rock debris, with weak optical property of the matrix and interfill structure. ZKW2020–1415, 14 m, 200× (monochromatic). (F) Schist rock debris (Sch), mainly composed of quartz and sericite, arranged in a continuous and directional manner, forming a sheet-like structure. ZKW2020–1411, 20 m, 100× (orthogonal polarization).
Figure 6. Microscopic characteristics of detrital composition in Huanhe Formation sandstone. (A) Debris particles included potassium feldspar (Kfs) and quartz (Qtz), with rutile (Rt) and calcite cement (Cal) at the edges of the particles. ZKW2020-1, 415.14 m, 200× (single polarized light). (B) Quartz (Qtz) with iron impregnation at the edge. ZKW2020–1411, 20 m, 200× (single polarized light). (C) Shaped columnar rutile (Rt), block-shaped asphalt (Bit), light red garnet with two sets of fissures (Grt), biotite (Bt), light brown tourmaline (Tur). ZKW2020–1401, 64 m, 100× (single polarized light). (D) Biotite (Bt) contains rutile (Rt) in the cleavage joint, with some chloritization (Chl) in the biotite. ZKW2020–1415, 14 m, 200× (reflected light). (E) Volcanic rock debris (Volc), mainly comprising interlaced thin lath plagioclase and matrix ejected rock debris, with weak optical property of the matrix and interfill structure. ZKW2020–1415, 14 m, 200× (monochromatic). (F) Schist rock debris (Sch), mainly composed of quartz and sericite, arranged in a continuous and directional manner, forming a sheet-like structure. ZKW2020–1411, 20 m, 100× (orthogonal polarization).
Minerals 15 01079 g006
Figure 7. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution pattern in Yihewusu area [48] and (b) North American shale-normalized (NASC) REE distribution pattern in Yihewusu area.
Figure 7. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution pattern in Yihewusu area [48] and (b) North American shale-normalized (NASC) REE distribution pattern in Yihewusu area.
Minerals 15 01079 g007
Figure 8. Cathodoluminescence (CL) Imaging of Representative Sedimentary Rocks from the Huanhe Formation.
Figure 8. Cathodoluminescence (CL) Imaging of Representative Sedimentary Rocks from the Huanhe Formation.
Minerals 15 01079 g008
Figure 9. U-Pb Geochronology of Detrital Zircons from Huanhe Formation Metasedimentary Rocks: Concordia Diagrams, Weighted Ages, and Frequency Histograms.
Figure 9. U-Pb Geochronology of Detrital Zircons from Huanhe Formation Metasedimentary Rocks: Concordia Diagrams, Weighted Ages, and Frequency Histograms.
Minerals 15 01079 g009
Figure 10. Correlation between Initial εHf(t) and U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons in the Huanhe Formation. All circles shown are results of our analyses. CHUR denotes the homogeneous chondrite-like reservoir, while DM represents the depleted mantle, which is constructed based on the contemporary average values of 176Hf/177Hf = 0.28325 and 176Lu/177Hf = 0.0334. Khondalite Block and Yinshan Block are tectonic units as provenances (elaborated above).
Figure 10. Correlation between Initial εHf(t) and U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons in the Huanhe Formation. All circles shown are results of our analyses. CHUR denotes the homogeneous chondrite-like reservoir, while DM represents the depleted mantle, which is constructed based on the contemporary average values of 176Hf/177Hf = 0.28325 and 176Lu/177Hf = 0.0334. Khondalite Block and Yinshan Block are tectonic units as provenances (elaborated above).
Minerals 15 01079 g010
Figure 11. A Comparative Analysis of Zircon U-Pb Age Spectra: Sandstone from the Yihewusu Section of the Huanhe Formation and Adjacent Regions (Revised by previous research [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]). Letters a–f denote zircon U-Pb age spectra datasets (a = target horizon in the study area; b–f = adjacent regions). Colors represent three concentrated age intervals: light blue (~200–500 Ma, younger tectonic/magmatic events), dark blue (~1700–2000 Ma, middle-stage crustal evolution), and yellow (~2300–2600 Ma, Archean-Paleoproterozoic crustal formation). N indicates the number of valid zircon grains analyzed for U-Pb dating at each location (e.g., N = 248 for Yihewusu).
Figure 11. A Comparative Analysis of Zircon U-Pb Age Spectra: Sandstone from the Yihewusu Section of the Huanhe Formation and Adjacent Regions (Revised by previous research [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]). Letters a–f denote zircon U-Pb age spectra datasets (a = target horizon in the study area; b–f = adjacent regions). Colors represent three concentrated age intervals: light blue (~200–500 Ma, younger tectonic/magmatic events), dark blue (~1700–2000 Ma, middle-stage crustal evolution), and yellow (~2300–2600 Ma, Archean-Paleoproterozoic crustal formation). N indicates the number of valid zircon grains analyzed for U-Pb dating at each location (e.g., N = 248 for Yihewusu).
Minerals 15 01079 g011
Figure 12. Comparative Assessment of Average U-Th Contents and Th/U Ratios: Intrusive (Upper Graphic) versus Extrusive Volcanic (Lower Graphic) Rocks from the Northern Ordos Basin. (Scale: Y—axis units: Th, U in μg/g; Th/U ratio unitless; n = sample number).
Figure 12. Comparative Assessment of Average U-Th Contents and Th/U Ratios: Intrusive (Upper Graphic) versus Extrusive Volcanic (Lower Graphic) Rocks from the Northern Ordos Basin. (Scale: Y—axis units: Th, U in μg/g; Th/U ratio unitless; n = sample number).
Minerals 15 01079 g012
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

Zhang, X.; Che, J.; Nie, F.; Miao, A.; Yan, Z.; Zhang, C.; Hu, Y. Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes. Minerals 2025, 15, 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101079

AMA Style

Zhang X, Che J, Nie F, Miao A, Yan Z, Zhang C, Hu Y. Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes. Minerals. 2025; 15(10):1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Xin, Junfan Che, Fengjun Nie, Aisheng Miao, Zhaobin Yan, Chengyong Zhang, and Yujie Hu. 2025. "Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes" Minerals 15, no. 10: 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101079

APA Style

Zhang, X., Che, J., Nie, F., Miao, A., Yan, Z., Zhang, C., & Hu, Y. (2025). Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes. Minerals, 15(10), 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101079

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