Next Article in Journal
The Formation Age and Geological Setting of the Huoqiu Group in the Southern Margin of North China Craton: Implication for BIF-Type Iron Prospecting Potentiality
Previous Article in Journal
Controlling Parameters of Acoustic Velocity in Organic-Rich Mudstones (Vaca Muerta Formation, Argentina)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Early Cretaceous Zn-Pb (Ba±Ag±Cu±Fe±Mn) Deposits of Iran: Irish Type or Mississippi Valley Type? Reply to Nejadhadad et al. Comment on “Rajabi et al. Barite Replacement as a Key Factor in the Genesis of Sediment-Hosted Zn-Pb±Ba and Barite-Sulfide Deposits: Ore Fluids and Isotope (S and Sr) Signatures from Sediment-Hosted Zn-Pb±Ba Deposits of Iran. Minerals 2024, 14, 671”
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Barite Deposits of Türkiye: A Review

Geological Engineering Department, İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa, Büyükçekmece 34500, Istanbul, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(7), 692; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15070692 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 22 April 2025 / Revised: 20 June 2025 / Accepted: 25 June 2025 / Published: 28 June 2025

Abstract

Türkiye hosts a wide variety of barite deposits that can be broadly classified into two major groups based on their tectonic settings: magmatism-associated and passive margin-hosted deposits. The magmatism-associated deposits include Kızılcaören (F + Ba + REE + Th, Beylikova–Eskişehir), Kirazören (Bulancak–Giresun), and Karacaören (Mesudiye–Ordu). The Kızılcaören deposit formed in relation to the emplacement of a late Oligocene carbonatitic sill, while the Kirazören and Karacaören deposits are associated with the Cretaceous Pontide magmatic arc. Passive margin-hosted deposits occur within various Paleozoic sedimentary lithologies—such as metasandstone, shale, schist, and limestone—and are found in the Taurides and the Arabian Platform. These deposits occur as either concordant or discordant veins. This barite belt extends from Şarkikaraağaç (Isparta), through Hüyük (Konya) and Alanya (Antalya), to Silifke (Mersin), Tordere (Adana), Önsen, Şekeroba (Kahramanmaraş), and Hasköy (Muş). The Paleozoic deposits represent the major barite resources of Türkiye, with an annual production of approximately 300,000 metric tons. Smaller deposits around Gazipaşa (Antalya) contain minor Pb-Zn sulfides. Mesozoic barite deposits are hosted in Triassic dolomites and are associated with Pb-Zn mineralization in the Hakkari region of the Arabian Platform. Pb and Sr isotope data indicate that the barium in these deposits was derived from ancient continental crust. The isotopic compositions of both concordant (stratabound) and discordant (vein-type) barites are generally homogeneous. In northwestern Türkiye, the Sr isotope compositions of the barite deposits align well with those of the Oligocene carbonatite host complex. The 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratio of the Kızılcaören deposit (0.706‰) is the least radiogenic among Turkish barite deposits, suggesting a mantle contribution. The Kirazören deposit in the Pontide magmatic arc follows with a slightly higher ratio (0.707‰). Triassic barites from the Hakkari region yield 87Sr/86Sr values around 0.709‰, slightly more radiogenic than coeval seawater. Paleozoic barite deposits show the most radiogenic 87Sr/86Sr values, including Aydıncık (0.718‰), Şarkikaraağaç (0.714‰), Hasköy (0.713‰), Kahramanmaraş (0.712‰), Tordere, and Hüyük (both 0.711‰), consistent with their respective host rocks. The elevated radiogenic Pb and Sr isotope values in the passive margin-hosted deposits suggest that the barium originated from deeper, barium-enriched rocks, whereas stable sulfur isotope data point to a marine sulfur source. Moreover, Sr and S isotopic signatures indicate that the Paleozoic sediment-hosted deposits formed in association with cold seeps on the seafloor, resembling modern analogs. In contrast, the Mesozoic Karakaya deposit (Hakkari) represents a typical vent-proximal, sediment-hosted deposit with no magmatic signature.

1. Introduction

Barite has been used as a filler, extender, or weighting agent in products such as plastics and rubber [1], as well as in paint primers, ceramic glazes, and optical glass [2], due to its high density (4.48 g/cm3), relative abundance, and ease of being ground into a fine powder. Recent supply chain disruptions have significantly shifted the perception of barite, leading to its classification as a critical mineral [1,2,3].
Barite can precipitate in various oceanic environments: in the water column, on the seafloor, and within marine sediments [4]. It forms over a wide range of pressures (1 to 2000 bar) and temperatures (0–400 °C) across many geological settings but is primarily produced through precipitation from aqueous solutions [5]. Most barium in the Earth’s crust is associated with K-feldspars and K-micas due to the similarity in their ionic radii (Ba2+ = 1.36 Å, K+ = 1.33 Å; [5]). Hydrothermal vents are recognized as a major source of barium to the ocean, contributing an estimated one-third of its total marine input [6,7]. In hydrothermal systems, barium is typically transported as chloride complexes, with barium- and sulfur-rich fluids moving separately. For barite to precipitate, these barium- and sulfur-bearing solutions must mix [8].
Early classifications of barite deposits, based primarily on deposit morphology, have been proposed by several authors [9,10,11,12]. These classifications identified three main types: stratiform, vein, and residual deposits. Among them, stratiform deposits are particularly significant due to their large reserves, whereas vein-type deposits are notable for their comparatively high ore grades. In a tectonic framework, Ref. [13] categorized barite deposits into two major types: continental margin and cratonic rift-related deposits. Later, Ref. [14] proposed a more detailed classification scheme that included three primary deposit types—magmatic, structure-related, and sedimentary—with clearly defined subclasses. Other researchers have classified barite deposits based on the source of barium. For example, Refs. [4,15] categorized barites as either diagenetic or hydrothermal, offering a simple yet practical classification. More recently, Ref. [16] provided an expanded classification system, distinguishing deposits as bedded-sedimentary, bedded-volcanic, vein, cavity-fill, metasomatic, and residual types. Furthermore, recent studies have significantly advanced the understanding of Ba ion mobility and barite precipitation in modern marine sediments. Insights from [4,15] have contributed valuable information for economic geologists. These authors classified barite deposits using stable isotopic data (Sr and S), as well as crystal size and morphology.
The aim of this study is to present and classify the barite deposits of Türkiye, which formed during different geological periods and within various tectonic environments, host rocks, and mineral parageneses. This classification is based on both geological context and isotopic geochemistry. Turkish barite deposits are categorized into two main groups: magmatism-associated and passive margin-hosted deposits, reflecting their distinct tectonic settings and geochemical characteristics. In addition to providing a comprehensive review, this study presents new data on the magmatism-associated Kızılcaören and Kirazören deposits. For the first time, it also includes barite mineral chemistry data from representative deposits of each type. A deeper understanding of Turkish barite deposits will enhance regional correlations and broader interpretations of barite mineralization across the Alpine–Himalayan Mountain Belt and the Atlas Mountains.

2. Geological Setting

Throughout its geological history, Türkiye has been situated between two major continents: Gondwana to the south and Eurasia to the north. Various continental fragments, originally part of one of these mega-continents, were later separated and reassembled through tectonic processes. As a result, the Anatolian region is composed of multiple oceanic and continental terranes, each with distinct geological characteristics. The most recent major orogenic event—the Alpine orogeny—was associated with the closure of several Neotethyan oceanic branches and has played a key role in shaping the present distribution of these terranes [17,18]. Türkiye is composed of three primary tectonic units: the Pontides, the Anatolides–Taurides, and the Arabian Platform. The Pontides display Laurussian affinities, whereas the Anatolides–Taurides exhibit Gondwanan affinities. These two domains are separated by the İzmir–Ankara–Erzincan Suture Zone (also named as North Anatolian Suture Zone (NASZ) (Figure 1) [19,20,21].
The Taurides–Anatolides collectively record the evolution of the northern margin of Gondwana until the Triassic period, when one or more continental fragments separated, leading to the formation of several adjacent Mesozoic oceanic basins. Oceanic crust and ophiolites developed within these Mesozoic basins during the Triassic–Cretaceous period. Subsequent northward subduction facilitated the gradual reassembly of these continental fragments, ultimately giving rise to the present-day Tauride–Anatolide belt during the Late Cretaceous to Early Cenozoic [22]. The pre-Triassic basement rocks of the Arabian Platform and the Taurides–Anatolides share similar geological features [18,20,23,24]. Both regions host Türkiye’s most economically significant barite deposits, including those at Şarkikaraağaç, Hüyük, Karalar, Aydıncık, Önsen, Şekeroba, Tordere, and Hasköy [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
The oldest unit of the Arabian Plate is the Derik Formation, which comprises brownish-red andesitic lava, sandstone, shale, and conglomerate, interpreted as Neoproterozoic continental arc-type volcanics [32]. The Derik Formation is unconformably overlain by a passive margin sedimentary succession spanning the Cambrian to Cretaceous periods. This succession is tectonically overlain by ultrabasic rocks and an ophiolitic mélange [32]. The stratigraphic positions of these Paleozoic-hosted, passive margin barite deposits—occurring as stratiform, stratabound, and vein types—are illustrated in a columnar section by [30]. The Karakaya barite deposit, located in the Hakkari Pb-Zn province, occurs in Late Triassic–Early Jurassic limestones as feeder veins, stratabound, and stratiform bodies within the uppermost levels of the succession [33]. These deposits formed within the passive margin sequence of the Neotethyan Ocean.
The Late Cretaceous marked the subduction and eventual disappearance of the Neotethys Ocean beneath the Pontides [34]. This tectonic event led to the development of a continental arc, which hosted the formation of numerous volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) and barite deposits [35,36,37,38]. These settings are widely interpreted as rifted back-arc basins and are associated with a variety of deposit types, including Kuroko-type massive sulfides, Carlin-type gold, and vein-type manganese oxide deposits [39,40,41,42]. Within the Upper Cretaceous section of this extensive volcano-sedimentary sequence, large limestone blocks—several hundred meters in size—are present. These blocks host massive barite mineralization, occurring both within and along the outer rims as replacement bodies. The Dereli deposit, abandoned approximately 15 years ago, and the Kirazören barite deposit are representative examples of limestone-replacement barite deposits formed through hydrothermal processes. A geologically unique example is the carbonatite-hosted Kızılcaören F–Ba–REE–Th deposit in western Anatolia, which formed during Late Oligocene magmatic activity [43]. This mineralization is attributed to an extensional tectonic phase, during which magmatic melts were emplaced into shallow crustal levels through deep-seated faults. The mantle signature observed in the metallogeny of Anatolia from the Paleocene to the Miocene provides strong evidence for a post-collisional extensional regime [36,44].
Figure 1. Main mineral deposits and types of Türkiye (modified from [36]) and the location of barite deposits.
Figure 1. Main mineral deposits and types of Türkiye (modified from [36]) and the location of barite deposits.
Minerals 15 00692 g001

3. Barite Deposits

Barite deposits in Türkiye can be classified into two major types—magmatism-associated and passive margin-hosted—based on their geological and tectonic settings (Table 1). Each type exhibits distinct geochemical characteristics (Figure 1). The term magmatism-associated refers to deposits formed in volcanic arc or post-collisional magmatic environments, while passive margin-hosted refers to deposits that developed in Atlantic-type continental margin settings, where magmatic activity is absent.
In this study, the largest and most representative deposit of each type (in terms of reserves) is examined in detail with respect to its geology, ore types, and geochemistry. Additional deposits of the same type are also briefly described to provide broader context and comparison.

3.1. Magmatism-Associated Barite Deposits

3.1.1. The Kirazören (Bulancak/Giresun) Deposit

The Kirazören barite deposit is located in the Bulancak district of Giresun Province, within the Pontide magmatic arc of the Upper Cretaceous. The deposit lies at higher elevations in the Giresun Mountains, where the ore occurs within crystallized limestone blocks of the volcano-sedimentary series. The mineralization forms a large replacement body, reaching up to 40 m in thickness and 100 m in length. The grayish-white barite contains up to 1 ppm gold and is characterized by a dense concentration of fine-grained, green-tinted pyrite. This region also hosts several local barite bodies, each with estimated ore reserves of up to 400,000 tons. A prominent example, the Dereli barite deposit, has been completely depleted and abandoned following open-pit mining operations.

3.1.2. The Karacaören (Mesudiye/Ordu) Deposit

The Karacaören barite deposit is hosted within Eocene-aged andesitic stocks, approximately 3 km northeast of Karacaören Village in the Mesudiye district and about 60 km from the Black Sea coast. The barite body exhibits a lenticular geometry, measuring 220 m in length and 70 m in width, and is oriented N35° E. The barite displays characteristics of clearly hydrothermal vein formation, with white to grey coloration and a steep, nearly vertical orientation.
The mineralization occurs at an elevation of 2300 m at the summit of the Black Sea Mountains. Due to challenging topographic conditions, no beneficiation plant has been constructed at the site. To date, approximately 400,000 tons of barite ore—suitable for use in paint and drilling applications—has been extracted via open-pit mining and sold without further processing. Minor occurrences of galena, sphalerite, and hematite are associated with the barite. The second most abundant mineral within the vein is coarse-grained quartz. The Güzelyurt gold deposit is located approximately 5 km south of the barite occurrences.

3.1.3. The Kızılcaören (Beylikova/Eskişehir) F + Ba + REE + Th Deposit

The Kızılcaören deposit represents a unique rare earth element (REE) mineralization in Anatolia and shows similarities with ore mineralogy and geochemistry to the Bayan Obo deposit in China and the Mountain Pass deposit in the USA. The banded F–Ba–REE–Th ore consists primarily of barite, fluorite, bastnäsite, calcite, and Mn-rich calcite. Barite-rich banded ore forms isolated mineralized bodies located at the center of the deposit (Figure 2).
The deposit was discovered in 1959 through aerial gamma-ray spectrometry surveys, which detected thorium-associated radioactivity [45]. According to an earlier reserve report by the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) of Türkiye [46], the deposit contains several tens of millions of tons of barite reserves.
The Kızılcaören F–Ba–REE–Th deposit is hosted within a Triassic-aged mélange series and is interpreted to have formed during the late Oligocene to early Miocene, approximately 24–25 million years ago [43,47]. The deposit has been variously classified as a carbonatite [43,44,48,49,50] or as a pegmatite [14]. Although extensive research has been conducted on the geology of the Kızılcaören deposit [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], no previous studies have identified distinct ore types or clarified their genetic relationships. In this study, we conducted detailed geological mapping of the deposit, classified the ore types, and performed mineralogical and geochemical analyses on the different ore types.
The Kızılcaören deposit occurs within Triassic lithic tuff units and partially metamorphosed and silicified sedimentary rocks, including conglomerate, sandstone, shale, and limestone. These form a northward-dipping, thrust-bound sedimentary succession. Both the lithic tuff and the weakly metamorphosed sedimentary series host the F–Ba–REE–Th mineralization. The sedimentary sequence contains large, crystallized limestone blocks, some exceeding several hundred meters in size (Figure 2). The presence of these exogenic limestone blocks within the sandstone supports the interpretation of a mélange-type origin for the sedimentary sequence.
Three phonolitic necks intrude into serpentinized ultramafic rocks, forming a dome-like structure aligned along E–W-trending lineaments. Feldspar from the phonolites has been dated to approximately 23 Ma using the K–Ar geochronological method [41], indicating a late Oligocene age. Several researchers (e.g., [43,49]) have associated these phonolitic intrusions and related alkaline magmatism with the formation of the mineralization.
The Ore Geometry and Types
The layered ore represents the primary ore type throughout the deposit and includes several varieties: (Figure 3a) silicate-rich banded ore, (Figure 3b) manganese oxide-rich banded ore, (Figure 3c) barite-rich banded ore, and (Figure 3d) fluorite-rich banded ore. These banded ore levels can reach up to 20 m in thickness and generally display a chemical zonation from bottom to top. The basal unit begins with fluorite–barite–bastnäsite ore, which gradually transitions into banded manganese oxide ore, and finally into a manganoan calcite-rich upper unit. The manganese oxide- and barite-rich layers can individually reach up to 10 m thick and contain minor amounts of fluorite and bastnäsite. The carbonate-rich uppermost level is well-laminated, with bedding thicknesses ranging from 0.5 to 5 cm. This fine layering is interpreted as the result of carbonic, gas-rich fluid accumulation near the top of the ore sill emplacement. This stratified ore is shown in both the geological map and cross sections (Figure 4). The presence of ore and host rock fragments aligned parallel to the banding suggests a close genetic relationship with fluid flow. These fragments likely originated from deeper parts of the system, were transported vertically, and then reoriented into a horizontal position (Figure 4).
The layered ores are relatively soft and exhibit gentle dips, in contrast to the massive ore bodies, which are steeply dipping and nearly vertical. The banded ores also show evidence of mineral fragmentation related to fluid flow, as well as rounded mineral grains including sanidine, K-feldspar, calcite, barite, fluorite, and bastnäsite. Phlogopite flakes occur in all ore types, typically as elongated euhedral crystals aligned along the banding planes.
The ore minerals of the massive ore are fine-grained, relatively hard, and homogeneous. A weak mineral orientation related to fluid flow is also observed in the massive feeder ore body, as revealed by petrographic studies (Figure 5). Based on these characteristics, the massive vein is interpreted as a feeder system for the layered ores. Cross-cutting relationships between the feeder veins and the layered ore bodies suggest polyphase mineralization, dominated by successive pulses of Ba, Si, Mn, F, and REEs.

3.2. Passive Margin Deposits (PMH) (From Sedimentary to Vein Type)

The Arabian plate and the southern margin of the Anatolide plate represent passive margin tectonic settings in Türkiye [32,53]. These regions contain thick sedimentary sequences—exceeding 10 km in thickness—ranging from the Cambrian to the Eocene, and they host the most significant barite deposits in Türkiye.

3.2.1. The Şarkikarağaç (Isparta) and Hüyük (Konya) Deposit

The Şarkikaraağaç and Hüyük regions are among the most important barite-producing areas in Türkiye, with total reserves estimated at approximately 17 million tons [54]. The main barite body is exposed in the largest open pit of the Şarkikaraağaç deposit, where it extends conformably along the contact between Cambrian–Devonian-aged schists and limestones of the Sultandede Formation.
The origin of the barite formations in this region has been widely discussed by numerous geologists; [54,55,56,57,58] proposed an exhalative–sedimentary and/or diagenetic origin for the barites. In contrast, [25] suggested that the mineralization is related to submarine volcanism, while [26,54] argued that the deposits closely resemble Mississippi Valley-type (MVT) mineralization and may be genetically associated with an underlying magmatic body.
In addition to this major deposit—which produces approximately 247,000 metric tons of barite annually—numerous smaller barite bodies occur within schist units and along schist–calc-schist contacts, oriented parallel to the schistosity. These mineralizations extend from Şarkikaraağaç to Hüyük, comprising more than 30 occurrences aligned along a N45° W–SE trend. Barite layers and pods typically strike N40–50° W, with dips of approximately 50° NE, and range in thickness from 0.5 to 8 m (Figure 6a). Approximately 90% of the region’s barite production is derived from the Şarkikaraağaç deposit, while the remaining 10% comes from the Hüyük deposit. Although this barite zone is crosscut by faults, a consistent structural trend is evident in the field. The barite layers are interbedded with and alternated by host rock, indicating a stratiform–stratabound style of mineralization. Both white and grey barite ores are extracted from the deposit, which also contains minor amounts of galena, chalcopyrite, and pyrite, along with rare occurrences of malachite, azurite, limonite, calcite, quartz, and siderite. Field observations suggest that this deposit is primarily sedimentary in origin, as the barite beds occur parallel to the schistosity planes. Similarly, Ref. [57] proposed a syn-sedimentary origin for the Dinek region barites, located between Şarkikaraağaç and Hüyük. The barite mineralization likely formed contemporaneously with the host rocks and later experienced metamorphism under greenschist facies conditions. Despite this metamorphic overprint, primary depositional structures remain visible within the barite layers and lenses. The barites are stratabound and typically exhibit a stratiform geometry, although signs of deformation—including secondary veins, folding, and brecciation—are also present in the study area [58].

3.2.2. The Tordere (Feke/Adana) Region Deposits

There are three main barite occurrences in this region—Kuştepe, Çebişderesi, and Sinanlı—from north to south, along with several abandoned mining sites situated between Sinanlı and Çebişderesi. The Tordere (Feke–Adana) barite deposit, hosted by Cambrian limestones of the Koruk Formation, displays epigenetic characteristics. The vein and replacement-type ore bodies exhibit a NE trend in the southern sites (Sinanlı and Çebişderesi) and a NW trend in the northern Kuştepe area. At the Kuştepe location, barite veins were mined along fault zones trending N60° W/60° SW and N80° W/66° NE, with vein thicknesses ranging from 3 to 5 m. In the Sinanlı area, barite was extracted along N20° E/60° SE and N80° W/66° NE-trending faults, reaching depths of up to 45 m below the adit entrance. In the southern part of the region, additional production occurred from N28° E/50° NW and N20° E/60° NW-dipping veins. The ore bodies are up to 5 m thick and are characterized by brecciation and sharp vein–host rock contacts (Figure 6b). Notably, no alteration zones are observed around the ore bodies.
Several adits have been opened along these veins, and underground mining continues in some areas. The region currently produces approximately 10,000 metric tons of barite annually. Barite veins are commonly associated with hematite, and to a lesser extent with galena, chalcopyrite, pyrite, and malachite. In addition, a nearby vein-type fluorite-barite mineralization, known as the Akkaya occurrence, is located close to the Tordere deposit and is also interpreted to have formed epigenetically from formation waters [59].

3.2.3. The Karalar (Gazipaşa/Antalya) Deposit

The Karalar galena–barite deposit is a vein-type mineralization hosted within the limestones of the Permian Bıçkıcı Formation. Galena and barite mineralizations are found in the Boyalık and Suluocak localities, referred to as the Boyalık, Büyük Ocak, and Sulu Ocak occurrences, respectively. At the Büyük Ocak site, the primary vein trends N85° W and dips 35° SW, while the host limestone layers trend N60° W with dips of 60–70° NE. The ore vein is unconformable to the limestone bedding and exhibits a reverse dip. The vein thickness ranges from 50 cm to 2.5 m. Notably, substantial limestone breccias occur within the ore vein, likely formed during faulting events. A second vein, trending N70° W and dipping 85–89° NE, is also vein-type in nature and has a thickness of 30 cm to 1.0 m. The third vein trends N85° E/85° NW and has a thickness of approximately 20 cm. This vein contains significant amounts of calcite in addition to barite. Exploration and production activities at the Boyalık mine have been conducted via open-pit methods within the ore zone. The mineralization developed along a thrust zone between the Permian Bıçkıcı Formation and the overlying Triassic Çamlıca Formation. It is generally discordant with the host rocks and is interpreted as epigenetic in origin [60].
The ore veins are composed primarily of barite (80%–85%) and galena (10%–15%), with minor amounts of sphalerite, pyrite, fahlore, limonite, quartz, and calcite as gangue minerals [27]. Meanwhile, ref. [61] proposed an exhalative–sedimentary model for the deposit, and [25,62] suggested a syn-sedimentary origin. However, the ore zones do not follow bedding or schistosity planes, and the fault-controlled nature of the mineralization clearly supports an epigenetic origin. According to [28,63], barium and lead were leached from Ordovician–Triassic basement rocks by deeply circulating meteoric waters during post-Triassic time, while barium and sulfur may have been mobilized from basement rocks by shallower heated fluids.

3.2.4. The Aydıncık–Silifke Region (Mersin) Deposits

The barite mineralizations in this region were initially studied under the scope of a project conducted by the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) of Türkiye [29]. These include the Koçaşlı and Aydıncık (Sarıyar) deposits in Aydıncık (Mersin) and the Gökbelen and Çılbayır deposits in Silifke (Mersin) (Figure 6c,d). The Koçaşlı and Aydıncık (Sarıyar) barite occurrences developed within the Middle–Late Cambrian-aged Çaltepe Formation and Devonian-aged limestones belonging to the Geyikdağ Unit of the Taurides. The Koçaşlı barite mineralization is located southeast of Koçaşlı village, within recrystallized Devonian limestones. It trends N10° W and dips 60° SW. The Aydıncık–Sarıyar barite mineralization is hosted within Devonian recrystallized limestones, forming a lens up to 8 m thick and 40 m long. The barite ore is gray to dark gray in color and occurs as thin layers and lenses at multiple stratigraphic levels, conformable with the bedding of the host carbonate rocks. The Gökbelen barite deposit is located north of Gökbelen village, within limestone zones of the Cambrian–Ordovician limestone–shale succession of the Seydişehir Formation. The ore vein trends N35° W and dips 15° NE [29,64]. The mineralized zone is 1.5 to 3 m thick. Barite is the principal mineral, accompanied by hematite, limonite, goethite, and minor quartz. The ore zone is generally iron-rich. The Çilbayır barite mineralization formed in limestones along a N30° E-trending fracture zone, north of Çilbayır village. Additionally, N–S oriented barite veins inclined 26° W and with thicknesses between 15 and 20 cm are observed along this line. The mineralization occurs within a zone varying in width from 2 to 8 m.

3.2.5. The Önsen Region (Kahramanmaraş) Deposit

In this region, three barite occurrences—Çilekli, Çınaraltı, and Dadağlı—are aligned from south to north. The northernmost Çilekli barite zone extends along a fault zone with a N15° E/90° NW orientation. The Çınaraltı barite zone, located centrally, exhibits similar structural characteristics with a N39° E/65° NW trend. The southernmost Dadağlı barite zone trends N80° E/90°. The nearly monomineralic barite ore occurs as irregular veins, pods, stockworks, and disseminations, formed primarily through hydrothermal filling and replacement processes. The Cambrian-aged host carbonates exhibit intense karstification, much of which is infilled with brownish terra rossa. The barite mineralization is hosted both in stockworks and in brecciated limestone, forming high-grade ore zones that are a few meters thick and extend approximately 300 m in length, bounded by fault zones (Figure 6e).
Barite mineralizations occur as isolated lenses and pockets, with an estimated reserve of 8000–10,000 tons. Mining activities in all three zones include both open-pit and underground operations.

3.2.6. The Şekeroba Region (Kahramanmaraş) Deposit

The barite deposits in the Şekeroba region are highly scattered, with an annual production ranging between 50,000 and 80,000 metric tons of ore. From north to south, the main deposits include Beyoğlu, Şekeroba, and Yıldız [29]. This region holds the distinction of being the first barite production district in Türkiye, with mining activities dating back to 1960.
The Şekeroba deposit contains the highest-quality barite in Türkiye and is operated by Barit Maden Turk A.S. (Istanbul, Türkiye). Annual production is approximately 40,000 metric tons of ultra-white barite ore (Figure 6f). The ore zone of the Şekeroba deposit trends N10° E/65° SE and extends up to 300 m in length. On average, it is 100 m wide and 15 m thick, occurring within Ordovician–Silurian-aged metasandstone and metashale of the Seydişehir Formation (Figure 7). The ore consists of coarse-grained, nearly monomineralic barite exhibiting a cataclastic texture. In addition to barite veins, uneconomic quartz veins are also present.
Petrographic studies indicate that the barite is highly deformed. Recrystallization originates along cleavage surfaces of large euhedral barite grains, resulting in the formation of fine-grained, subhedral secondary barite crystals. Textural evidence indicates that chalcopyrite is replacing barite in some parts of the deposit (Figure 8a). Additionally, lamprophyric dyke and sill intrusions are accompanied by the barites in the underground gallery.
The Beyoğlu deposit occurs as a steeply dipping vein trending N40° E/85° SE, with a thickness of 2–3 m. It is hosted in brownish quartzite of the Akçadağ Formation. The main Şekeroba barite deposit forms a roughly N–S-trending vein system. Active production continues from a vein at the Şekeroba deposit that reaches up to 20 m in thickness and extends several hundred meters in length. More than 10 million tons of barite have been produced from this vein; however, mining was halted due to increased overburden (stripping) requirements.
The Yıldız deposit is characterized by nearly E–W/30–60° N-trending veins hosted in alternating quartzite and shale layers of the Akçadağ Formation, with a maximum thickness of 4 m. These veins are frequently offset by faults and may reach lengths of 60–80 m. Barite occurs as red-colored, irregular lenses due to the presence of abundant hematite in the paragenesis. This deposit has not yet been exploited due to licensing issues. The red coloration is one of the most distinctive features of mineralization in this region.

3.2.7. The Hasköy (Muş) Deposit

Barite occurrences in the Muş region are hosted within the Middle to Upper Devonian-aged Meydan Formation of the Mutki Group, part of the Bitlis Metamorphics, which represents the older basement unit of the Anatolides. The barite mineralization is predominantly observed as fracture-filling veins that crosscut the stratification. Economically significant barite deposits have been exploited in several locations, including Hasköy, Azıklı, Elmabulak, Toprakkale, Kasor, and Kızılkilise.
The mineral assemblage associated with these occurrences includes barite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena, chalcocite, covellite, malachite, azurite, hematite, limonite, and quartz [65,66]. It is suggested that barium was transported by circulating seawater, which leached elements from the underlying rocks. A granitic intrusion likely played a key role in the mineralization process by acting as a heat source [31].

3.2.8. The Karakaya (Hakkari) Deposit

The Karakaya stratiform barite deposit occurs within the Triassic limestone–limestone shale alternating sedimentary sequence of the passive margin Paleozoic–Mesozoic carbonates of the Arabian Platform. Permian carbonates consisting of thick-bedded and black cherty limestone (Tanin Group) locally include vein-type barite-bearing Pb-Zn deposits (Kurşuntepe, Akkaya, Tanintanin, and Deştan). Mesozoic formations begin with Early Triassic shales (Çığlı Group) and gradually pass to carbonate–shale alternating shallow marine sediments (Cudi Group). The most important Pb-Zn deposits (Meskantepe, Üzümcü, Armutlu, Karakaya) occur in this group, especially in the thick-bedded dolomitic limestone layers (Figure 9). White-gray barite shows bandings up to 15 m and white feeder vein bodies up to 20 m. These large, newly discovered barite deposits occur approximately 300 m above the SEDEX-type Zn-Pb deposits [63,67]. Barites that are both stratiform (Figure 10) and vein-type (feeder veins) are monomineralic. Vein-type barites are formed in the feeder zone, while stratiform barites are formed on the seafloor [33].

4. Analytical Methods

Whole-rock analysis of barite samples was performed at Bureau Veritas Mineral Laboratories in Canada under the Group LF202 analytical package. The major oxides and several minor elements were determined for a 0.2 g sample using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectrometry, following lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion and diluted nitric acid digestion. The loss on ignition (LOI) was measured by weight difference after heating the samples at 1000 °C. Rare earth and refractory elements were analyzed by ICP mass spectrometry following lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion and nitric acid digestion of a 0.2 g sample. Additionally, a separate 0.5 g split was digested in aqua regia and analyzed by ICP mass spectrometry to determine the base metals.
Sulfur isotope analysis (δ34S) of barites was performed by elemental analysis–isotope ratio mass spectrometry EA-IRMS in the Iso-Analytical Laboratory (UK). IA-R061 (barium sulphate, δ34SV-CDT = +20.33‰) IA-R061, IA-R025 (barium sulphate, δ34SV-CDT = +8.53‰), and IA-R026 (silver sulfide, δ34SV-CDT = +3.96‰) references were used for the calibration and 18O correction to SO+ ion irradiation.
Strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr) of barites were determined at Middle East Technical University Laboratories. Isotope ratios were determined by taking the average of the measurements held in a serial manner. The 87Sr/86Sr data are presented as normalized to 86Sr/88Sr = 0,1194. During measurements, the NBS 987 Sr isotope standard was measured and, if significant, a bias correction was made. Analytical uncertainties are presented at the 2 sigma level. According to the long-term measurement results from the Middle East Technical University Laboratories, the Sr SRM987 standard gives an average value of 0.710250 ± 10 (n = 90).
Oxygen (δ18O) isotope analysis of barites was performed at the GNS Science (New Zealand) Stable Isotope Laboratory. Measurement of δ18O in sulfate minerals was performed using mass spectrometry (isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)). The barites were pyrolyzed at 1450 °C in silver capsules on a HEKA tech high-temperature element analyzer coupled with a GV Instruments IsoPrime mass spectrometer. All measurements were repeated three times. All results are reported in terms of reported values of +12.0‰ and −11.3‰ for δ18O values and VSMOW normalized to the IAEA-SO-5 and IAEA-SO-6 international standards. The analytical accuracy of these measurements is 0.5‰. Oxygen (δ18O) and carbon (δ13C) isotope analyses of Mesozoic barites were carried out at the Middle East Technical University Central Laboratory using the stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry analysis method. The δ13C and δ18O isotope ratios of carbonate samples were determined by gas bench continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry (DeltaPlus XP Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer—ThermoFinnigan, Somerset, NJ, USA). The standard “NBS19 Limestone (NIST)” (δ13C: 1.95‰ and δ18O: −2.20‰) was analyzed in each set of experiments together with the samples and used to convert the crude isotopic ratios of the samples determined by the device into real isotopic values. The results were determined according to VPDB (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite) in per mil (‰). The 1σ margins of error for δ13C and δ18O isotope ratios do not exceed 0.2‰.
Mineral chemistry analyses were conducted using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) at the Geochronology and Geochemistry Laboratory of Istanbul University—Cerrahpaşa (IUC-GGL), Department of Geological Engineering. Sample and standard reference materials (SRM) underwent ablation with an irradiance of approximately 5 joules per square centimeter, a spot diameter of 60 μm, and a laser pulse rate of 10 Hz. Plasma power was set at 1200, with helium utilized as the sample gas at a flow rate of 0.6 L/min and argon introduced as a make-up gas at the same flow rate. All isotopes were examined at low resolution, encompassing five samples within a 20% mass window and a total dwell time of 30 ms per element. For external calibration, the glass reference NIST612 was measured following every ten sample analyses utilizing the values provided by [68]. Data quality assurance involved the analysis of USGS reference glasses BCR-2G and AGV-2G [69] concurrently with the samples. The reduction of data was carried out using the ICPMSDataCal 12 software package [69].

5. Ore Geochemistry

5.1. Major and Trace Element Geochemistry

As a result of the high-grade nature of the analyzed barites, the concentrations of major oxides are very low (Table 2).
Table 3. Whole-rock average trace element composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye (ppm).
Table 3. Whole-rock average trace element composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye (ppm).
DepositSrHfZrYCuPbZnNiAsCdSbHg
Kirazören (n:3)8793.42.4173.982.3980.834.3<209950.413000.62
Kızılcaören (n:2)55150.642.55492633212.577122.50.9100.07
Şarkikaraağaç (n:18)>10,000---27.320.9343.7<20<5-6.9-
Hüyük (n:21)>10,000---<10<5353.8<20<5-2.35-
Aydıncık (n:2)16,292.52.052.851.82.650.7530.250.6<0.10.70.065
Tordere (n:3)13,756.51.501.501.6339.2329.874.001.3312.00<0.117.204.19
Önsen (n:3)15,205.22.00.51.325.20.32.00.1<0.5<0.10.80.3
Şekeroba (n:7)10,923.62.20.91.722.80.83.00.60.8<0.10.70.2
Karakaya(n:3)24,448.11.91.12.25.91334.213.510.42.6241.40.40.637
Table 4. Whole-rock average rare earth element composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye (ppm).
Table 4. Whole-rock average rare earth element composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye (ppm).
DepositLaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLu
Kirazören (n:3)6.575.470.552.400.7*3.870.200.810.160.360.030.220.03
Kızılcaören (n:2)>10,000>10,000>10005140599.5140317.534.8128.917.5235.053.7519.952.49
Şarkikaraağaç (n:18)0.36<0.10.08<0.1<0.10.98<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.05<0.1<0.04
Hüyük (n:21)0.16<0.10.16<0.1<0.11.80.2<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.05 <0.1<0.04
Aydıncık (n:2)2.550.750.090.350.26*2.710.040.17<0.02<0.03<0.010.100.015
Tordere (n:3)2.171.100.150.750.281.682.160.050.28<0.020.060.020.200.03
Önsen (n:3)1.80.2<0.02<0.30.2<0.022.70.030.2<0.02<0.03<0.010.10.01
Şekeroba (n:7)2.10.30.10.50.2<0.023.00.040.1<0.030.050.020.20.03
Karakaya (n:3)2.30.770.170.350.06*2.460.350.290.020.090.020.120.01
* These values could not be read due to high interference of other elements.
The results of whole-rock trace element analyses are presented in Table 3. Due to the predominantly monomineralic nature of the barite samples, trace element concentrations are generally very low, with most values falling below the detection limit. Elements below this threshold are not included in the table.
Among the analyzed samples, the Kirazören deposit, along with Kızılcaören, displays distinct trace element signatures. Kirazören barites contain 1.5 ppm Sn, 0.3 ppm Rb, 1.9 ppm Th, 5.4 ppm U, 27 ppm V, 0.4 ppm Cd, and 15 ppm Mo. In contrast, barites from passive margin settings exhibit trace element concentrations that are mostly below the detection limit.
In addition to whole-rock analyses (see Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) conducted on powdered samples, mineral chemistry analyses were also performed on individual barite grains, with the average values summarized in Table 5. This method allowed for the detection of elements that were below the detection limit in whole-rock analysis, such as Sc, V, Cr, Co, U, and Th. Notably, the Kirazören barites are characterized by comparatively elevated concentrations of Sc, V, Cr, and Zr in the mineral chemistry results.
Notable trace element enrichments are observed in several barite deposits: Kirazören barite shows elevated concentrations of Au (up to 1 ppm in one sample), Cu, Pb, As, and Sb; Karakaya barite exhibits higher Pb, Zn, and Cd values; and one barite sample from Tordere is characterized by increased Cu, Pb, As, Sb, and Hg concentrations.
SrO composition of barites was calculated from Sr values. SrO compositions were analyzed as 1.4–2.04 in Tordere barites, 0.6%–2.6% in Sekeroba barites, 1.1%–1.99% in Önsen barites, 1.8%–2.1% in Aydıncık barites, 1.1%–3.7% in Karakaya barites, and 0.91%–1.1% in the Kirazören deposit. These values are similar to those of SrO compositions of hydrothermal deposits.

5.2. Rare Earth Element (REE) Geochemistry

The results of rare earth element (REE) analysis are presented in Table 4, and the chondrite-normalized REE distribution diagram [70] is shown in Figure 11. The total rare earth element (TREE) content of barite samples from Türkiye generally is low, with the notable exception of the Kızılcaören carbonatite-hosted F–REE–Ba deposit. This deposit contains several million tons of barite resources [44], and the barite-rich banded ores exhibit elevated TREE concentrations, particularly enriched in light REEs (LREEs).
The steep downward trend from LREEs to heavy REEs (HREEs) indicates pronounced fractionation, consistent with high-temperature formation conditions and the strong complexation and mobilization behavior of HREEs. A weak positive Ce anomaly is observed in the Kızılcaören barite, whereas barites from other deposits display distinct negative Ce anomalies. The negative Ce anomaly has been attributed to the influence of seawater-derived components in the ore-forming hydrothermal fluids [71,72,73].
A weak negative Ce anomaly observed in the volcanic arc-hosted Kirazören deposit suggests limited seawater involvement in the hydrothermal system responsible for transporting Ba2+ and SO42− ions. These barites also display a negative Eu anomaly alongside a positive Gd anomaly. The presence of a positive Gd anomaly has been previously documented in modern oceanic barite formations [4], Permian carbonates in Iran [74], and Paleozoic carbonates in southeastern Bosnia [75].
In terms of total rare earth element (TREE) content, the deposits can be ranked in decreasing order as follows: the carbonatite-hosted Kızılcaören deposit; the volcanic arc-hosted Kirazören deposit (both magmatism-associated); and sedimentary-hosted deposits such as Karakaya, Şekeroba, Tordere, Aydıncık, and Önsen (classified as passive margin-hosted, or PMH deposits). This trend in REE enrichment shows an inverse relationship with radiogenic character: deposits with higher TREE contents exhibit lower radiogenic signatures, while those with lower TREE contents display higher radiogenic character.
Eu values could not be detected in the whole-rock analyses due to significant interference from other elements. This is likely because Eu2+ can substitute for Ba2+ in the barite structure owing to their identical charge and similar ionic radii [76,77,78]. However, mineral chemistry analyses reveal relatively high Eu concentrations (Table 5, Figure 12). Europium can also be strongly concentrated in plagioclase feldspar and subsequently mobilized by hydrothermal fluids, similar to barium. Positive Eu anomalies have been frequently reported in modern deep-sea hydrothermal systems [79,80,81], where hot hydrothermal fluids are particularly enriched in Eu compared to other rare earth elements [82,83,84].

5.3. Isotope Geochemistry (S, O, D, Sr)

Due to its similar atomic radius to barium, strontium is commonly incorporated into the barite structure and provides valuable information about the source and evolution of barium in the system. The 87Sr/86Sr isotopic ratio is widely used for stratigraphic correlation and absolute dating [85]. To compare the isotopic signatures of various deposits, 87Sr/86Sr isotope analyses were conducted on 20 barite samples from different locations. The results, along with corresponding δ18O and δ34S (‰) values, are presented in Table 6.
Comparing the Sr isotope ratios of barites, the Kızılcaören F + Ba + REE + Th complex ore reveals the lowest radiogenic value (0.706‰), and it is obviously associated with a young magmatic source. This low radiogenic Sr isotope ratio is compatible with the Oligocene carbonatite magma emplacement into the Triassic metasediments, which hosts the deposit. The following Sr isotope ratio belongs to the Kirazören barite deposit (0.707‰) which is located in the Upper Cretaceous volcano sedimentary succession of the Pontides. These two magmatism-associated deposits are remarkable with their comparatively lower 87Sr/86Sr ratios as well as δ 34S and δ18O.
The 87Sr/86Sr ratios of the Karakaya stratiform barite deposit, found within Jurassic limestones, are consistent with its age, measuring 0.709‰. Other deposits, such as the Tordere (0.712‰), Şekeroba, and Önsen deposits (0.713‰), exhibit elevated radiogenic values, though none are as high as the Aydıncık deposit (0.718‰). Beyond the eastern Taurides, Paleozoic passive margin-hosted barite deposits in Türkiye display varying ratios: Hüyük barites in the central Taurides range from 0.709 to 0.710, while Şarkikaraağaç barites range from 0.711 to 0.718 [54]. These data indicate that the 87Sr/86Sr ratios in the eastern Taurides are generally more radiogenic than those in the central Tauride region, with the Aydıncık deposit notably presenting the highest radiogenic value. Furthermore, Muş barites exhibit 87Sr/86Sr ratios ranging from 0.711 to 0.714‰ [65], which are more radiogenic than coeval seawater. This elevated radiogenicity is attributed to the interaction of Devonian seawater with the continental crust, leading to the mobilization of Sr and Ba [31].
The Kızılcaören and Kirazören deposits are notable for their comparatively lower δ34S and δ18O ratios. When plotted on the diagram of δ34S values for sulfur-bearing minerals in hydrothermal systems [86], the isotopic signature of the magmatism-associated Kızılcaören and Kirazören barites suggests that the ore-forming fluids likely originated from a magmatic source. In contrast, the δ34S values of passive margin-hosted barite deposits clearly indicate seawater–sediment interaction.
In addition to these isotope analyses, oxygen and hydrogen (δ18O and δD (2H)) isotope analyses were performed on three quartz samples from veins accompanying barite veins in the Şekeroba deposit [30]. δ18O and δD values of the fluid inclusions in quartz samples were analyzed using the isotope fluorination method to determine the nature of ore-forming fluids. The results show that the δ18O values of quartz are similar to those of barites. The mean δ18O value for quartz is 15.8‰, and the δD value is −67‰. These values align with those metamorphic waters, which typically exhibit a wide range of δ18O values between 5‰ and 25‰, and δD values between −70‰ and −20‰ [87,88].

6. Discussion

Barite deposits in Türkiye exhibit diverse geological origins, geochemical characteristics, and isotopic compositions, reflecting the complex interplay of tectonic evolution and varied fluid sources across the region. These deposits are broadly classified into two main groups: magmatism-associated deposits and passive margin-hosted deposits, each possessing distinctive features.

6.1. Geological Environment

Magmatism-associated barite deposits, exemplified by those at Kızılcaören, Kirazören, and Karacaören, are typically found within volcanic, volcaniclastic rocks, and carbonatites. Their genesis is directly linked to Late Cretaceous to Miocene magmatic activity in the Pontide arc and the extensional tectonic regimes of western Anatolia [38,39,40,42,43,47]. Notably, the Kızılcaören deposit is hosted by Oligocene carbonatite intrusions [43,44], sharing mineralogical characteristics with well-known REE-barite deposits like Bayan Obo (China) and Mountain Pass (USA).
In contrast, passive margin-hosted barite deposits, including Şarkikaraağaç, Hüyük, Şekeroba, Önsen, Tordere, Aydıncık, Hasköy, and Karakaya, occur within Paleozoic–Mesozoic sedimentary sequences across the Taurides and the Arabian Plate [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,33,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. These deposits encompass both stratiform and vein-type occurrences, frequently hosted by limestone, dolostone, or schist. Their textures and morphologies are consistent with sedimentary–diagenetic or low-temperature hydrothermal processes.

6.2. Trace Element Geochemistry

Whole-rock and in situ analyses reveal distinct trace element profiles distinguishing the two deposit types. Kirazören and Kızılcaören barites are significantly enriched in elements such as Pb, Zn, Mo, U, Th, and rare earth elements (REEs), indicating hydrothermal fluids with a prominent magmatic component. Conversely, passive margin-hosted deposits generally exhibit low concentrations of trace elements, with notable exceptions like Tordere and Karakaya. In these instances, a slight enrichment in base metals suggests either fault-controlled fluid flow or interaction with Pb–Zn systems [33].
The carbonatite-hosted Kızılcaören deposit in particular displays exceptionally high total REE (TREE) contents, characterized by a steep light rare earth element (LREE)/heavy rare earth element (HREE) pattern and a positive Ce anomaly. This geochemical signature is consistent with high-temperature fluids derived from carbonatitic sources [43,46,70]. In stark contrast, passive margin-hosted barites typically show flat to slightly LREE-enriched patterns and negative Ce anomalies, which are interpreted to reflect low-temperature seawater–sediment interaction and diagenetic precipitation [4,30,70,71,72,73].

6.3. Isotopic Signatures

A genetic approach to determining the source of barium has been undertaken using its sulfur, oxygen, and strontium isotopic compositions. Barite precipitation can occur through several mechanisms: directly from the seawater column (marine barite); at the oxic–anoxic boundary within marine sediments where barium-rich pore waters migrate upwards and react with sulfate-rich seawater (diagenetic barite); or from hot hydrothermal solutions (hydrothermal barite) [89].
Sulfur isotope values (δ34S) provide further insight: magmatism-associated deposits such as Kızılcaören and Kirazören, exhibit relatively low δ34S values (5.6‰–17‰). These values are consistent with magmatic or mixed sulfur sources [86,89]. In contrast, δ34S values for passive margin barites are notably higher, often exceeding 30‰ (e.g., Şekeroba, Aydıncık). Oxygen isotopes (δ18O) further support these trends: magmatic barites typically display lower δ18O values (6‰–9‰), while sedimentary-hosted barites show elevated values (up to 16.6‰) [30,33,54,67]. This suggests lower-temperature fluid evolution and greater influence from marine pore waters.
The δ34S, δ18O (‰), and 87Sr/86Sr isotope values of the studied barites were plotted on a diagram adapted from [90] to facilitate comparison with various environmental settings [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99] (Figure 13). Magmatism-associated barites plot in the lower-left quadrant of the diagram, indicating slightly lower values than marine hydrothermal barites. Conversely, passive margin-hosted barites occupy a large area on the right side of the diagram (Figure 13a), clustering at the intersection of marine cold seep, diagenetic barites, marine hydrothermal, and continental barite fields.
The cold seep formation model has also been proposed for barites from other regions, including the Sea of Okhotsk [92,100,101], Selwyn Basin [15], and the Gulf of Mexico [93,102]. This aligns with the typical diagenetic source and formation characteristics observed in passive margin-hosted barite deposits in Türkiye. In contrast, magmatism-associated deposits (Kızılcaören and Kirazören) strongly suggest a possible magmatic contribution and/or associated hydrothermal processes. Furthermore, the δ34S and 87Sr/86Sr isotope values of the magmatism-associated barites again show slightly lower values compared to marine hydrothermal barites, while passive margin-hosted barite deposits exhibit isotopic signatures more akin to continental barites (Figure 13b).
While δ34S values of the Mesozoic passive margin-hosted Karakaya barite deposit closely resembles seawater composition (Figure 13 and Figure 14a), Paleozoic passive margin-hosted deposits exhibit greater enrichment in heavy sulfur isotopes. Previous research by [103,104] interpreted the highly positive δ34S values in pyrites as an indication of intensified diagenetic fluids driven by hydrothermal convection.
Unlike other Paleozoic passive margin-hosted deposits, the Mesozoic Karakaya barite deposit is distinct due to the presence of a large Pb-Zn deposit located over 300 m below its uppermost barite zone. Furthermore, it uniquely preserves both stratiform and feeder vent complex structures. This deposit was thus classified as a vent-proximal SEDEX-type deposit by [33]. Similar preserved feeder and vent complexes have been documented by various researchers (e.g., [105,106,107,108,109]) and are often defined as shale-hosted massive sulfide (SHMS) deposits. However, some studies [109,110,111,112,113] have also indicated that these deposits may lack clear exhalative features, instead showing evidence of subsurface or replacement-style mineralization, frequently replacing earlier barite. Nevertheless, given that the Pb-Zn-Ba deposits of the Karakaya (Hakkari) region are hosted within a carbonate series, it is more accurate to classify this deposit as a sediment-hosted massive sulfide (SMS) deposit.
Figure 14. (a) δ34S isotope evolution curve [114], (b) 87Sr/86Sr isotopic change in seawater over geological time [115] and positions of the studied barite deposits in Türkiye.
Figure 14. (a) δ34S isotope evolution curve [114], (b) 87Sr/86Sr isotopic change in seawater over geological time [115] and positions of the studied barite deposits in Türkiye.
Minerals 15 00692 g014
Passive margin-hosted barites typically exhibit more radiogenic 87Sr/86Sr ratios, ranging from 0.710 to 0.718. These elevated ratios indicate significant interaction with either radiogenic continental crust or highly evolved marine fluids, as further summarized in Figure 15, which presents these characteristics in accordance with their host rock features and tectonic setting. Notably, the Aydıncık barite (0.71884) records the highest radiogenic value among all deposits investigated in this study, potentially reflecting extensive leaching of crustal material [30,54]. Furthermore, lead (Pb) isotope data corroborate these findings, also pointing to highly radiogenic Pb sourced from old continental crust [30,33].
Such a significant influx of radiogenic Pb, Sr, and Ba from the continent into the marine environment, particularly during the Ordovician and Devonian, could theoretically result in primary hydrogenous or sedimentary barite deposition. However, the rapid transfer of such a large quantity of barium from land to sea within a short timeframe is geologically improbable. Therefore, a substantial amount of Sr and Ba must have been dissolved and transported into seawater from the thick sedimentary sequence characteristic of a passive margin setting.
Conversely, diagenetic barite deposits can form within marine sediments through the infiltration of barium-rich seawater. High biological productivity influences barium mobility and deposition. Enhanced biological productivity and subsequent organic matter decay lead to the development of anoxic conditions. Under these conditions, barium can dissolve from marine sediments, mobilize into oxic environments, and precipitate as BaSO4. The migration of Ba2+ typically occurs from anoxic to sub-oxic or oxic conditions, with its pathway (upward or downward) depending on the distribution of anoxic sediments. Generally, however, organic matter-rich productive period sediments and their associated anoxic conditions are found below, with oxic sediments above. Methanogenesis within the anoxic sediments promotes the dissolution of Ba, Sr, and other divalent cations, facilitating their upward migration. These ions then encounter sulfate ions in oxic sediments or at the sediment-seawater interface, leading to barite precipitation. The presence of organic debris-rich black shale units at the bottom of the primary ore zone in the Şekeroba, Tordere, and Şarkikaraağaç deposits strongly indicates past productive marine conditions followed by anoxia linked to organic material decay.
Primary diagenetic–sedimentary barite deposits, having undergone subsequent orogenic movements, likely experienced dissolution and remobilization of barium from their original sites. This mobilized barium was then redeposited as vein and replacement-type mineralization within quartzites, shales, and limestones. However, the precise timing of this re-precipitation remains undefined. The absence of barite deposits in Triassic rocks suggests two possibilities: either the barite formed exclusively prior to the Triassic, or hydrothermal fluids did not reach shallow Triassic stratigraphic levels.
The barite ores consistently exhibit significant tectonic deformation and brecciation. Stable oxygen isotope data from quartz coexisting with Şekeroba barites do not indicate a signature related to seawater or rifting. Instead, the deformed nature of the ore, its low-angle geometry associated with thrusting, and the metamorphic oxygen–hydrogen isotope signatures [30] collectively suggest that deeply circulated lateral fluid movements played a major role in the secondary barium deposition. This regeneration phenomenon has also been discussed for Moroccan barite deposits by [118,119], who proposed that syn-sedimentary barites formed during the Cambrian were subsequently regenerated during Triassic rifting, concurrent with the opening of the Tethyan Ocean.

7. Conclusions

Türkiye holds a significant position as a global barite producer, contributing approximately 10% of the world’s total production and possessing resources estimated at several tens of millions of tons. These barite deposits serve both the dyeing and drilling industries, with an annual export volume of 200,000 tons. Barite occurrences in Türkiye are broadly categorized into two main groups based on their genesis: magmatism-associated and passive margin-hosted deposits. The latter group, characterized by relatively larger reserves, represents the primary source of barite production in the country. The general characteristics of these two distinct deposit types are summarized below:
Passive Margin-Hosted Barite Deposits:
  • Primarily found within passive continental margin deposits of Lower Paleozoic age (e.g., Şarkikaraağaç, Tordere, Aydıncık, Hasköy), exhibiting either stratiform or vein geometries.
  • Characterized by a relatively low abundance of trace elements, but high radiogenic 87Sr/86Sr and δ34S values.
  • Barite-forming solutions represent a mixture of seawater, diagenetic waters, or deep-circulating continental crustal waters.
  • Share similarities in age and origin with the Atlas Mountains barite deposits (Moroccan deposits).
Magmatism-Associated Barite Deposits:
These deposits, exemplified by Kızılcaören, Kirazören, and Karacaören, exhibit the following general characteristics:
  • Hosted in arc volcanics within the Pontides or in post-collisional Oligocene-aged carbonatites in NW Anatolia.
  • Display higher concentrations of trace elements (e.g., Zn, Pb, As, Ag, Au, and REEs) compared to passive continental margin deposits.
  • Exhibit low radiogenic Sr isotope values (7Sr/86Sr) and moderate δ34S values relative to passive continental margin deposits, clearly indicating an igneous (magmatic) source.

Funding

This research was funded by the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University under the grant number FBA-2017-21296 and Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TUBITAK) under the grant number 122Y432.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank İsmet Alan and MTA for their logistical support during the field study of the Aydıncık–Silifke region deposits. Many thanks to Eti Maden, Barit Maden Türk A.Ş., Ado Mining, Ölmez Mining, SEDEX Resources, and Mountain Zinc Mining for their support and permission to conduct field studies in their licensed areas.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Brobst, D.A. Barite: World Production, Reserves, and Future Prospects; No. 1321-1325; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1970.
  2. Fortier, S.M.; Nassar, N.T.; Graham, G.E.; Hammarstrom, J.M.; Day, W.C.; Mauk, J.L.; Seal, R.R. Mınıng engıneerıng Annual Review 2021: Critical Minerals USGS critical minerals review. Min. Eng. 2022, 74, 34–48. [Google Scholar]
  3. U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2023; 210p. [CrossRef]
  4. Griffith, E.M.; Paytan, A. Barite in the ocean-occurrence, geochemistry, and palaeoceanographic applications. Sedimentology 2012, 59, 1817–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hanor, J.S. Barite-celestine Geochemistry and Environments of Formation. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2000, 40, 193–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Edmond, J.M.; Measures, C.; McDuff, R.E.; Chan, L.H.; Collier, R.; Grant, B.; Gordon, L.I.; Corliss, J.B. Ridge crest hydrothermal activity and the balances of the major and minor elements in the ocean: The Galapagos data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1979, 46, 1–18, ISSN 0012-821X. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Von Damm, K.L.; Oosting, S.E.; Kozlowski, R.; Buttermore, L.G.; Colodner, D.; Edmonds, H.N.; Edmond, J.M.; Grebmeir, J.M. Evolution of East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent fluids following a volcanic eruption. Nature 1995, 375, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Torres, M.E.; Brumsack, H.J.; Bohrmann, G.; Emeis, K.C. Barite fronts in continental margin sediments: A new look at barium remobilization in the zone of sulfate reduction and formation of heavy barites in diagenetic fronts. Chem. Geol. 1996, 127, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huvelin, P. Baryum et strontium. Notes Mémoires Serv. Géologique Maroc. 1980, 276, 271–308. [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, S.H.B.; Gallagher, M.J.; Poole, F.G. World barite resources—A review of recent production patterns and a genetic classification. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall.-Sect. B-Appl. Earth Sci. 1990, 99, B125–B132. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jewell, P.W. Bedded barite in the geologic record. In Marine Authigenesis: From Global to Microbial; Glenn, C.R., Prévôt-Lucas, L., Lucas, J., Eds.; Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2000; Volume 66, pp. 147–161. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonel, K.A. Barytes; British Geological Survey, Mineral Profile: Edinburgh, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  13. Maynard, J.B.; Okita, P.M. Bedded barite deposits in the United States, Canada, Germany, and China; two major types based on tectonic setting. Econ. Geol. 1991, 86, 364–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dill, H.G. The “chessboard” classification scheme of mineral deposits: Mineralogy and geology from aluminum to zirconium. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2010, 100, 1–420. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernandes, N.A.; Gleeson, S.S.; Magnall, J.M.; Creaser, R.A.; Martel, E.; Fischer, B.J.; Sharp, R. The origin of Late Devonian (Frasnian) stratiform and stratabound mudstone-hosted barite in the Selwyn Basin, Northwest Territories, Canada. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2017, 85, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Johnson, C.A.; Nadine, M.P.; Miller, M.M. Critical Mineral Resources of the United States—Barite (Barium); USGS Professional Paper 1802–D; Klaus, J.S., John, H.D., Jr., Robert, R.S., II, Dwight, C.B., Eds.; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
  17. Göncüoğlu, M.C.; Kozlu, H.; Dirik, K. Pre-Alpine and Alpine terranes in Türkiye: Explanatory notes to the terrane map of Türkiye. Ann. Geol. Pays Hell. 1997, 37, 515–536. [Google Scholar]
  18. Göncüoğlu, M.C.; Kozlu, H. Early Paleozoic evolution of the NW Gondwanaland: Data from southern Türkiye and surrounding areas. Gondwana Res. 2000, 3, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Göncüoğlu, M.C. Introduction to the Geology of Türkiye: Geodynamic Evolution of the Pre-Alpine and Alpine Terranes 5; sayı/Monography series; General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA): Ankara, Turkey, 2010; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  20. Şengör, A.M.C.; Yılmaz, Y. Tethyan evolution of Türkiye, a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics 1981, 75, 181–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Okay, A.I. Geology of Türkiye: A Synopsis. Anschnitt 2008, 21, 19–42. [Google Scholar]
  22. Robertson, A.H.F.; Parlak, O.; Ustaömer, T. Late Palaeozoic–Early Cenozoic tectonic development of Southern Turkey and the easternmost Mediterranean region: Evidence from the inter-relations of continental and oceanic units. In Geological Development of Anatolia and the Easternmost Mediterranean Region; Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Göncüoğlu, M.C.; Göncüoğlu, Y.; Kozur, H.W.; Kozlu, H. Geological evolution of the Taurides during the Infra-Cambrian to Carboniferous period: A Gondwanan perspective based on new biostratigraphic findings. Geol. Carpat. 2004, 55, 433–447. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gürsu, S.; Möller, A.; Göncüoglu, M.C.; Köksal, S.; Demircan, H.; Köksal, F.T.; Kozlu, H.; Sunal, G. Neoproterozoic continental arc volcanism at the northern edge of the Arabian Plate, SE Türkiye. Precambr. Res. 2015, 258, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Çopuroğlu, İ. Mineralogical—Petrographical and genetic exploration of Karalar—Gazipaşa (Antalya) galenite—Barite deposit. Bull. Miner. Res. Explor. 1994, 116, 29–36. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  26. Cengiz, O.; Kuşçu, M. Geochemical Properties and the source of barite deposits between Şarkikaraağaç (Isparta) and Hüyük (Konya). Bull. Miner. Res. Explor. 2002, 123–124, 67–89. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  27. Bozkaya, G.; Gökçe, A. Trace- and Rare-Earth Element Geochemistry of the Karalar (Gazipaşa-Antalya) Barite-Galena Deposits, Southern Türkiye. Turk. J. Earth Sci. 2004, 13, 63–76. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bozkaya, G.; Gökçe, A. Lead and sulfur isotopic studies of the barite–galena deposits in the Karalar area (Gazipaşa–Antalya), Southern Türkiye. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2007, 30, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  29. Alan, İ.; Şahin, Ş.; Elibol, H.; Altun, İ.; Keskin, H.; Bakırhan, B.; Balcı, V.; Böke, N.; Esirtgen, T.; Kop, A.; et al. Orta Toroslar’ın Jeodinamik Evrimi Bozyazı—Aydıncık—Gülnar—Silifke (Mersin) Yöresi. [Geodynamic Evolution of Central Taurus, Bozyazı- Aydıncık-Gülnar-Silifke (İçel) regions]. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration Report no 11462. (In Turkish, unpublished).
  30. Cansu, Z.; Öztürk, H. Formation and genesis of Paleozoic sediment-hosted barite deposits in Turkey. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 125, 103700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumral, M. Mineralogical, Geochemical and Isotopic (Sr, O, S) Evidence for Multiple Sources for the Hasköy Barite Deposits, SE, Anatolia, Türkiye. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2010, 19, 208–220. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yalçın, N. Lithological characteristics of the Amanos mountain range and its significance on the tectonic evolution of the southeast Türkiye. Bull. Geol. Soc. Türkiye 1980, 23, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hanilçi, N.; Öztürk, H.; Banks, D. Geological, geochemical and microthermometric characteristics of the Hakkari region Zn-Pb deposits, SE Turkey. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 125, 103667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yılmaz, Y.; Tüysüz, O.; Yiğitbaş, E.; Genç, Ş.C.; Şengor, A.M.C. Geology and Tectonic Evolution of the Pontides. In Regional and Petroleum Geology of the Black Sea and Surrounding Region; Robinson, A.G., Ed.; American Association of Petroleum Geologists: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Housh, T.B.; Çiftçi, E. Cu isotope geochemistry of volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits of the eastern Pontides, Türkiye. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2008; Volume 2, p. 012025. [Google Scholar]
  36. Öztürk, H.; Hanilci, N. Metallogenic Evaluation of Türkiye: Implications for Tin Sources of Bronze Age in Anatolia. Tuba-Ar-Turk. Acad. Sci. J. Archaeol. 2009, 12, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  37. Revan, M.K.; Genç, Y.; Maslennikov, V.V.; Maslennikova, S.P.; Large, R.R.; Danyushevsky, L.V. Mineralogy and trace-element geochemistry of sulfide minerals in hydrothermal chimneys from the Upper-Cretaceous VMS deposits of the eastern Pontide orogenic belt (NE Türkiye). Ore Geol. Rev. 2014, 63, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Çiftçi, E. Volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits of Türkiye. Miner. Resour. Türkiye 2019, 16, 427–495. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tüysüz, N.; Özdoğan, K.; Er, M.; Yılmaz, Z.; Ağan, A. A Carlin type gold occurence in the Pontide island arc: The Kaletaş Gold Occurence (Gümüşhane, NE-Turkey). Geol. Bull. Turk. 1994, 37, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tüysüz, N.; Sadıklar, B.; Er, M.; Yılmaz, Z. An epithermal gold-silver deposit in the Pontide island arc, Mastra, Gumushane, northeast Turkey. Econ. Geol. 1995, 90, 1301–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Öztürk, H. Manganese deposits in Türkiye: Distributions, types and tectonic setting. Ore Geol. Rev. 1997, 12, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yiğit, Ö. Mineral Deposits of Türkiye in relation to Tethyan Metallogeny: Implications for Future Mineral Exploration. Econ. Geol. 2009, 104, 19–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nikiforov, A.V.; Ozturk, H.; Altuncu, S.; Lebedev, V.A. Kızılcaören ore-bearing complex with carbonatites (northwestern Anatolia, Türkiye): Formation time and mineralogy of rocks. Geol. Ore Depos. 2014, 56, 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Goodenough, K.M.; Deady, E.A.; Beard, C.D.; Broom-Fendley, S.; Elliott, H.A.L.; Berg, F.; Öztürk, H. Carbonatites and Alkaline Igneous Rocks in Post-Collisional Settings: Storehouses of Rare Earth Elements. J. Earth Sci. 2021, 32, 1332–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gültekin, A.H.; Örgün, Y.; Suner, F. Geology, mineralogy and fluid inclusion data of the Kızılcaören fluorite barite REE deposit, Eskisehir, Türkiye. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2003, 21, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaplan, H. Rare earth element and torium complex ore deposit at southern edge of Eskişehir-Sivrihisar-Kızılcaören village. J. Geol. Eng. 1977, 2, 29–34. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  47. Sarıfakıoğlu, E.; Özen, H.; Hall, C. Petrogenesis of extensionrelated alkaline volcanism in Karaburhan (Sivrihisar–Eskisehir), NW Anatolia, Türkiye. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2009, 35, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Özgenç, I. Geology and ree geochemistry of carbothermal bastnaesite -fluorite—Barite deposit of Kızılcaören (Sivrihisar—Eskişehir). Geol. Bull. Türkiye 1993, 36, 1–11, (In Turkish with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  49. Hatzl, T. Die Genese Der Karbonatit—Und Alkalivulkanit—Assoziierten FluoritBaryt-Bastnasit—Vererzung Bei Kızılcaören (Turkei); Münchner Geol. Hefte; Technischen Universitat München: Munich, Germany, 1992; 271p. [Google Scholar]
  50. van den Berg, F. Kızılcaören Fluorite-Barite-Bastnäsite Carbothermal Ore Deposits: Rare Earth Elements in a Post-Collisional Setting. Master’s Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, 2017; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stumpel, E.F.; Kırıkoğlu, M.S. Fluorite-barite-rare earths deposits at Kızılcaören, Türkiye, Mitt. Österr. Geol. Ges. 1985, 78, 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  52. Öztürk, H.; Altuncu, S.; Hanilçi, N.; Kasapçı, C.; Goodenough, K.M. Rare earth element-bearing fluorite deposits of Türkiye: An overview. Ore Geol. Rev. 2019, 105, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Öztürk, H.; Hein, J.R.; NHanilçi, N. Genesis of the Doğankuzu and Mortaş Bauxite Deposits, Taurides, Turkey: Separation of Al, Fe and Mn and Implications for Passive Margin Metallogeny. Econ. Geol. 2002, 97, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cengiz, O.; Uçurum, A.; Muchez, P. Determination of the source of Sarkikaraagaç (Isparta), Hüyük, Beysehir (Konya) ve Gazipasa (Antalya) barite deposits by fluid inclusion and S, O, C, Sr ve Pb isotope studies. Final. Rep. TUBITAK Proj. 2008, 211, 104Y032, (In Turkish With English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  55. Ayhan, A. Characteristics of Low-Mid Cambrian hosted Barit Mineralizations in Hüyük (Beysehir) region. Selçuk Univ. J. Enginnering-Archit. Fac. 1986, 1, 1–17, (In Turkish With English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  56. Ayhan, A. Stratiform Barite Deposits Between Sarkikaraagaç (Isparta) and Hüyük (Konya) in Sultandag Region, Türkiye. Chem. Erde Geochem. 2001, 61, 54–66. [Google Scholar]
  57. Elmas, N.; Suner, F. Barite mineralizations in Dinek (Şarkikaraağaç-Isparta) and its surroundings. İTÜ J. 2006, 5, 267–277. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  58. Elmas, N.; Kumral, M.; Suner, F.; Taşdelen, S. Stratiform barite deposits hosted in metamorphic assemblages of Dinek and surrounding regions, Isparta, Turkey. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2012, 48, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Özüş, A.S.; Yaman, S. Fluorite-Barite mineralization of Akkaya (Feke-Adana) and genetical problema. Bull. Geol. Soc. Türkiye 1986, 29, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gökçe, A.; Bozkaya, G. Geology and Fluid Inclusion Characteristics of the Karalar (Gazipaşa, Antalya) Barite–Galena Deposits. Geol. Bull. Türkiye 2003, 46, 1–16, (In Turkish with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  61. Striebel, H. Die Bleierz-Baryt-Lagerstaette Von Karalar-Gazipaşa (Turkei) Und Ihr -Geoiogischer Rahmen. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ayhan, A. Geologie und Mineralogie der blei-zink- Baryt-Lagerstaetten Zwischen Burhan Mah. und Yuları bei Gazipaşa-Antalya. Ph.D. Thesis, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gökçe, A.; Bozkaya, G. Fluid inclusion and stable isotope characteristics of the Karalar (Gazipaşa, Antalya) barite-galena deposits, Southern Turkey. Geol. Ore Depos. 2008, 50, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Karasu, V.; Oner, F.; Yalcin, C.; Uras, Y.; Yalcin, M.G. Mineralogy, geochemistry, and stable isotope characteristics of Paleozoic carbonate-hosted vein-type barite deposits from Silifke–Mersin, Southern Türkiye. Carbonates Evaporites 2024, 39, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kumral, M.; Çoban, H.; Taşdelen, S.; İmamoğlu, Ş.; Kargı, H.; Baran, H.A.; Kepekli, A.; Kıran, D.; Elmas, N. Formation Conditions of Barite Deposits in Muş Region and Investigation of Industrial Properties. Final. Rep. TUBITAK Proj. 2008, 117, 104Y315, (In Turkish With English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  66. Baran, H.A. Geological and Petrographical Features of Toprakkale (Muş) Barite Mineralization. E-J. New World Sci. Acad. Nat. Sci. 2010, 4A0029, 189–203. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hanilçi, N.; Öztürk, H.; Koral, H. Metallogenic Evolution of Hakkari Region Zn-Pb Deposits in Light of the Stable Sulphur Isotope and Fluid Inclusion Geochemistry. Final. Rep. TUBITAK Proj. 2018, 105, 114Y554, (Unpublished Final Report). [Google Scholar]
  68. Jochum, K.P.; Willbold, M.; Raczek, I.; Stoll, B.; Herwig, K. Chemical Characterisation of the USGS Reference Glasses GSA-1G, GSC-1G, GSD-1G, GSE-1G, BCR-2G, BHVO-2G and BIR-1G Using EPMA, ID-TIMS, ID-ICP-MS and LA-ICP-MS. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 2005, 29, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lin, J.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Hu, Z. Calibration and correction of LA-ICP-MS and LA-MC-ICP-MS analyses for element contents and isotopic ratios. Solid Earth Sci. 2016, 1, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Boynton, W.V. Geochemistry of the rare earth elements: Meteorite studies. In Rare Earth Element Geochemistry; Henderson, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 63–114. [Google Scholar]
  71. Elderfield, H.; Greaves, M.J. The rare earth elements in seawater. Nature 1982, 296, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Elderfield, H.; Sholkovitz, E.R. Rare earth elements in the pore waters of reducing near-shore sediments. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1987, 82, 280–288. [Google Scholar]
  73. Murray, R.W.; Buchholtz ten Brink, M.R.; Jones, D.L.; Gerlach, D.C.; Russ, G.P., III. Rare earth elements as indicators of different marine depositional environments in chert and shale. Geology 1990, 18, 268–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zarasvandi, Z.; Zaheri, N.; Houshang, P.; Chrachi, A.; Bagheri, H. Geochemistry and fluid-inclusion microthermometry of the Farsesh barite deposit, Iran. Geologos 2014, 20, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jurković, I.; Garašić, V.; Hrvatović, H. Geochemical characteristics of barite occurrences in the Palaeozoic complex of south-eastern Bosnia and their relationship to the barite deposits of the mid-Bosnian Schist Mountain. Geol. Croat. 2010, 63, 241–258. [Google Scholar]
  76. Shannon, R.D. Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 1976, 32, 751–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Guichard, F.; Church, T.M.; Treuil, M.; Jaffrezic, H. Rare earths in barites: Distribution and effects on aqueous partitioning. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1979, 43, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mazumdar, A.; Banerjee, D.M.; Schidlowski, M.; Balaram, V. Rare-earth elements and stable isotope geochemistry of early Cambrian chert-phosphorite assemblages from the lower Tal Formation of the Krol Belt (Lesser Himalaya, India). Chem. Geol. 1999, 156, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Michard, A.; Albarede, F.; Michard, G.; Minster, J.F.; Charlou, J.L. Rare-earth elements and uranium in high-temperature solutions from East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent field (13 N). Nature 1983, 303, 795–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Owen, R.M.; Olivarez, A.M. Geochemistry of rare earth elements in Pacific hydrothermal sediments. Mar. Chem. 1988, 25, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Douville, E.; Bienvenu, P.; Charlou, J.L.; Donval, J.P.; Fouquet, Y.; Appriou, P.; Gamo, T. Yttrium and rare earth elements in fluids from various deep-sea hydrothermal systems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1999, 63, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sverjensky, D.A. Europium redox equilibria in aqueous solution. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1984, 67, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Derry, L.A.; Jacobsen, S.B. The chemical evolution of Precambrian seawater: Evidence from REEs in banded iron formations. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1990, 54, 2965–2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bekker, A.; Planavsky, N.; Krapez, B.; Rasmussen, B.; Hofmann, A.; Slack, J.F.; Rouxel, O.; Konhouser, K. Iron Formations: Their Origins and Implications for Ancient Seawater Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 561–628. [Google Scholar]
  85. Elderfield, H. Strontium isotope stratigraphy. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 1986, 57, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rollinson, H.R. Using Geochemical Data Evaluation, Presentation, Interpretation; Longman Scientific and Technical: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 0 582 06701 4. [Google Scholar]
  87. Taylor, H.P. The Application of Oxygen and Hydrogen Isotope Studies to Problems of Hydrothermal Alteration and Ore Deposition. Econ. Geol. 1974, 69, 843–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wilkinson, J.J.; Jenkin, G.R.T.; Fallick, A.E.; Foster, R.P. Oxygen and hydrogen isotopic evolution of Variscan crustal fluids, south Cornwall, U.K. Chem. Geol. 1995, 123, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Paytan, A.; Mearon, S.; Cobb, K.; Kastner, M. Origin of marine barite deposits: Sr and S isotope characterization. Geol. Geol. Soc. Am. 2002, 30, 747–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Griffith, E.M.; Paytan, A.; Wortmann, U.G.; Eisenhauer, A.; Scher, H.D. Combining metal and nonmetal isotopic measurements in barite to identify mode of formation. Chem. Geol. 2018, 500, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Aquilina, L.; Dia, A.N.; Boulegue, J.; Bourgois, J.; Fouillac, A.M. Massive barite deposits in the convergent margin off Peru: Implications for fluid circulation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1997, 61, 1233–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Greinert, J.; Bollwerk, S.M.; Derkachev, A.; Bohrmann, G.; Suess, E. Massive barite deposits and carbonate mineralization in the Derugin Basin, Sea of Okhotsk: Precipitation processes at cold seep sites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2002, 203, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Feng, D.; Roberts, H. Geochemical characteristics of the barite deposits at cold seeps from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2011, 309, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  94. Stevens, E.W.N.; Bailey, J.V.; Flood, B.E.; Jones, D.S.; Gilhooly, W.P., III; Joye, S.B.; Teske, A.; Mason, O.U. Barite encrustation of benthic sulfur-oxidizing bacteria at a marine cold seep. Geobiology 2015, 13, 588–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kim, J.; Lee, I.; Lee, K.-Y. S, Sr, and Pb isotopic systematics of hydrothermalm chimney precipitates from the Eastern Manus Basin, western Pacific: Evaluation of magmatic contribution to hydrothermal system. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109, B12210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Eickmann, B.; Thorseth, I.H.; Peters, M.; Strauss, H.; Brocker, M.; Pedersen, R.B. Barite in hydrothermal environments as a recorder of subseafloor processes: A multiple-isotope study from the Loki’s Castle vent field. Geobiology 2014, 12, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Markovic, S.; Paytan, A.; Li, H.; Wortmann, U.G. A revised seawater sulfate oxygen isotope record for the last 4 Myr. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2016, 175, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Johnston, D.T.; Gill, B.C.; Masterson, A.; Beirne, E.; Casciotti, K.L.; Knapp, A.N.; Berelson, W. Placing an upper limit on cryptic marine sulphur cycling. Nature 2014, 514, 530–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Paytan, A.; Kastner, M.; Martin, E.E.; Macdougall, J.D.; Herbert, T. Marine barite as a monitor of seawater strontium isotope composition. Nature 1993, 366, 445–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Torres, M.E.; Bohrmann, G.; Dube, T.E.; Poole, F.G. Formation of modern and Paleozoic stratiform barite at cold methane seeps on continental margins. Geology 2003, 912, 897–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Aloisi, G.; Wallmann, K.; Bollwerk, S.M.; Derkachev, A.; Bohrmann, G.; Suess, E. The effect of dissolved barium on biogeochemical processes at cold seeps. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2004, 68, 1735–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Canet, C.; Anadón, P.; González-Partida, E.; Alfonso, P.; Rajabi, A.; Pérez-Segura, E.; AlbaAldave, L.A. Paleozoic bedded barite deposits from Sonora (NW Mexico): Evidence for a hydrocarbon seep environment of formation. Ore Geol. Rev. 2014, 56, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jørgensen, B.B.; Böttcher, M.E.; Lüschen, H.; Neretin, L.N.; Volkov, I.I. Anaerobic methane oxidation and a deep H2S sink generate isotopically heavy sulfides in Black Sea sediments. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2004, 68, 2095–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Magnall, J.M.; Gleeson, S.A.; Stern, R.A.; Newton, R.J.; Poulton, S.W.; Paradis, S. Open system sulphate reduction in a diagenetic environment–Isotopic analysis of barite (δ34S and δ18O) and pyrite (δ34S) from the Tom and Jason Late Devonian Zn–Pb–Ba deposits, Selwyn Basin, Canada. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2016, 180, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sangster, D.F. The role of dense brines in the formation of vent-distal sedimentary-exhalative (SEDEX) lead-zinc deposits: Field and laboratory evidence. Miner. Depos. 2002, 37, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sangster, D.F. Toward an integrated genetic model for vent-distal SEDEX deposits. Miner. Depos. 2018, 53, 509–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rajabi, A.; Canet, C.; Rastad, E.; Alfonso, P. Basin evolution and stratigraphic correlation of sedimentary-exhalative Zn–Pb deposits of the Early Cambrian ZariganChahmir Basin, Central Iran. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 64, 328–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rajabi, A.; Rastad, E.; Canet, C.; Alfonso, P. The early Cambrian Chahmir shalehosted Zn–Pb deposit, Central Iran: An example of vent-proximal SEDEX mineralization. Miner. Depos. 2015, 50, 571–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Magnall, J.M.; Gleeson, S.A.; Blamey, N.J.F.; Paradis, S.; Luo, Y. The thermal and chemical evolution of hydrothermal vent fluids in shale hosted massive sulphide (SHMS) systems from the MacMillan Pass district (Yukon, Canada). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2016, 193, 251–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Magnall, J.M.; Gleeson, S.A.; Paradis, S. A new subseafloor replacement model for the macmillan pass clastic-dominant Zn-Pb ± Ba deposits (Yukon, Canada). Econ. Geol. 2020, 115, 953–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Magnall, J.M.; Wirth, R.; Hayward, N.; Gleeson, S.A.; Schreiber, A. Stratiform host-rock replacement via self-sustaining reactions in a clastic-dominated (CD-type) Zn deposit. Econ. Geol. 2023, 118, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Rajabi, A.; Alfonso, P.; Canet, C.; Rastad, E.; Niroomand, S.; Modabberi, S.; Mahmoodi, P. The world-class Koushk Zn-Pb deposit, Central Iran: A genetic model for vent-proximal shale-hosted massive sulfide (SHMS) deposits–Based on paragenesis and stable isotope geochemistry. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 124, 103654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rajabi, A.; Mahmoodi, P.; Alfonso, P.; Canet, C.; Andrew, C.; Azhdari, S.; Rezaei, S.; Alaminia, Z.; Tamarzadeh, S.; Yarmohammadi, A.; et al. Barite Replacement as a Key Factor in the Genesis of Sediment-Hosted Zn-Pb±Ba and Barite-Sulfide Deposits: Ore Fluids and Isotope (S and Sr) Signatures from Sediment-Hosted Zn-Pb±Ba Deposits of Iran. Minerals 2024, 14, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Claypool, G.E.; Holser, W.T.; Kaplan, I.R.; Sakai, H.; Zak, I. The age curves of sulfur and oxygen isotopes in marine sulfate and their mutual interpretation. Chem. Geol. 1980, 28, 199–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. McArthur, J.M.; Howarth, R.J.; Shields, G.A. Strontium Isotope Stratigraphy; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 127–144. [Google Scholar]
  116. Honma, H.; Shuto, K. On strontium isotopic ratio of barite from Kuroko-type ore deposits, Japan. J. Japan. Assoc. Min. Petr. Econ. Geol. 1979, 74, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jamieson, J.W.; Hannington, M.D.; Tivey, M.K.; Hansteen, T.; Williamson, N.M.B.; Stewart, M.; Fietzke, J.; Butterfield, D.; Frische, M.; Allen, L.; et al. Precipitation and Growth of Barite within Hydrothermal Vent Deposits from the Endeavour Segment, Juan de Fuca Ridge. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2016, 173, 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Valenza, K.; Moritz, R.; Mouttaqi, A.; Fontignie, D.; Sharp, Z. Vein and karst barite deposits in the Western Jebilet of Morocco: Fluid inclusion and isotope (S, O, Sr) evidence for regional fluid mixing related to Central Atlantic rifting. Econ. Geol. 2000, 95, 587–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Jébrak, M.; Wartiti, M.; Marcoux, E.; Zaharoui, M. The Bouznika Cambrian barite deposit (Morocco), an early mineralization on the Iapetus margin. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2011, 60, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. Geological map and cross sections of the Kızılcaören F + Ba + REE + Th deposit showing ore types and cross sections. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36N.
Figure 2. Geological map and cross sections of the Kızılcaören F + Ba + REE + Th deposit showing ore types and cross sections. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36N.
Minerals 15 00692 g002
Figure 3. Banded ore types at the Kızılcaören deposit. (a) Gently dipping chalcedony-rich, low-grade banded ore, (b) banded manganese oxide-rich ore with alkali silicates (grey bandings), (c) banded barite-rich ore, (d) banded fluorite-rich ore with crosscutting vein indicates multiphase mineralization stages.
Figure 3. Banded ore types at the Kızılcaören deposit. (a) Gently dipping chalcedony-rich, low-grade banded ore, (b) banded manganese oxide-rich ore with alkali silicates (grey bandings), (c) banded barite-rich ore, (d) banded fluorite-rich ore with crosscutting vein indicates multiphase mineralization stages.
Minerals 15 00692 g003
Figure 4. The cross-section illustrates well-developed banded ore formations with a feeder plume intruding into the layered ore and containing basement rock fragments. The presence of exogenic fragments within the banded ore suggests lateral transport facilitated by gas-rich fluid injections.
Figure 4. The cross-section illustrates well-developed banded ore formations with a feeder plume intruding into the layered ore and containing basement rock fragments. The presence of exogenic fragments within the banded ore suggests lateral transport facilitated by gas-rich fluid injections.
Minerals 15 00692 g004
Figure 5. Photomicrographs of banded fluorite–barite–bastnäsite ore: (A) rounded white and grey barite grains, anhedral, fragmented, and elongated fluorite (black areas), euhedral phlogopite, and Mn–Ca–Ce carbonate. (B) Early-formed, aligned fluorite crystals showing flow textures with barite, followed by late-phase calcite cementation. (C) Euhedral phlogopite, rounded and corroded fluorite with a lilac tint, and barite within a carbonate matrix; black areas represent pyrite. (D) Relict clinopyroxene (orange) in fluorite–barite–bastnäsite ore. Images (A,B,D) are in crossed-polarized light; image (C) is in plane-polarized light. Abbreviations: bar: barite, cal: Mn, Ca, Ce carbonate, cpx: clinopyroxene, fl: fluorite, phl: phlogopite.
Figure 5. Photomicrographs of banded fluorite–barite–bastnäsite ore: (A) rounded white and grey barite grains, anhedral, fragmented, and elongated fluorite (black areas), euhedral phlogopite, and Mn–Ca–Ce carbonate. (B) Early-formed, aligned fluorite crystals showing flow textures with barite, followed by late-phase calcite cementation. (C) Euhedral phlogopite, rounded and corroded fluorite with a lilac tint, and barite within a carbonate matrix; black areas represent pyrite. (D) Relict clinopyroxene (orange) in fluorite–barite–bastnäsite ore. Images (A,B,D) are in crossed-polarized light; image (C) is in plane-polarized light. Abbreviations: bar: barite, cal: Mn, Ca, Ce carbonate, cpx: clinopyroxene, fl: fluorite, phl: phlogopite.
Minerals 15 00692 g005
Figure 6. General views of various barite deposits in Türkiye: (a) stratabound barite layers in the Şarkikaraağaç deposit. (b) Sharp contact between barite and host limestone in the Tordere deposit. (c,d) Stratabound barite mineralizations from the Çilbayır and Aydıncık deposits. (e) Vein-type barite with a distinct contact against brecciated limestone in the Önsen deposit. (f) Ultra-white vein-type barite from the Şekeroba deposit.
Figure 6. General views of various barite deposits in Türkiye: (a) stratabound barite layers in the Şarkikaraağaç deposit. (b) Sharp contact between barite and host limestone in the Tordere deposit. (c,d) Stratabound barite mineralizations from the Çilbayır and Aydıncık deposits. (e) Vein-type barite with a distinct contact against brecciated limestone in the Önsen deposit. (f) Ultra-white vein-type barite from the Şekeroba deposit.
Minerals 15 00692 g006
Figure 7. Geological map and cross sections of the Şekeroba barite deposit. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36 N.
Figure 7. Geological map and cross sections of the Şekeroba barite deposit. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36 N.
Minerals 15 00692 g007
Figure 8. Photomicrographs of barite samples from the Şekeroba deposit: (a) barite with minor chalcopyrite (Ccp); (b) barite with pyrite (Py); (c) quartz veins containing pyrite, viewed under crossed polarized light; (d) large barite (Bar) crystals surrounded by late-stage, fine-grained barite crystals, viewed under plane-polarized light. Abbreviations: Bar—barite, Py—pyrite, Ccp—chalcopyrite.
Figure 8. Photomicrographs of barite samples from the Şekeroba deposit: (a) barite with minor chalcopyrite (Ccp); (b) barite with pyrite (Py); (c) quartz veins containing pyrite, viewed under crossed polarized light; (d) large barite (Bar) crystals surrounded by late-stage, fine-grained barite crystals, viewed under plane-polarized light. Abbreviations: Bar—barite, Py—pyrite, Ccp—chalcopyrite.
Minerals 15 00692 g008
Figure 9. Geological map and cross-section of the barite-bearing Zn-Pb deposits of the Hakkari region [68]. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36 N.
Figure 9. Geological map and cross-section of the barite-bearing Zn-Pb deposits of the Hakkari region [68]. Coordinates are of European Datum ED50/UTM zone 36 N.
Minerals 15 00692 g009
Figure 10. (a) Stratiform-banded barite layers of the Karakaya barite deposit and (b) stratabound barite layers in the Kurşuntepe barite deposits in Hakkari.
Figure 10. (a) Stratiform-banded barite layers of the Karakaya barite deposit and (b) stratabound barite layers in the Kurşuntepe barite deposits in Hakkari.
Minerals 15 00692 g010
Figure 11. Chondrite-normalized [70]. REE pattern of the whole-rock analysis of barites of Türkiye.
Figure 11. Chondrite-normalized [70]. REE pattern of the whole-rock analysis of barites of Türkiye.
Minerals 15 00692 g011
Figure 12. Chondrite-normalized [70] REE pattern of the barites. The thin lines represent the data distribution, while the thick lines show the average value.
Figure 12. Chondrite-normalized [70] REE pattern of the barites. The thin lines represent the data distribution, while the thick lines show the average value.
Minerals 15 00692 g012
Figure 13. Figure showing the sulfur (δ34S), oxygen (δ18O), and strontium (87Sr/86Sr) isotopic compositions of Turkish barites, compared with values from various environmental settings [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. (a) δ 34S and 18O isotopic compositions of barites. 87Sr/86Sr isotopic compositions of barites versus (b) δ34S and (c) δ18O. Dashed pink lines indicate the isotopic composition of modern seawater sulfate [98,99].
Figure 13. Figure showing the sulfur (δ34S), oxygen (δ18O), and strontium (87Sr/86Sr) isotopic compositions of Turkish barites, compared with values from various environmental settings [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. (a) δ 34S and 18O isotopic compositions of barites. 87Sr/86Sr isotopic compositions of barites versus (b) δ34S and (c) δ18O. Dashed pink lines indicate the isotopic composition of modern seawater sulfate [98,99].
Minerals 15 00692 g013
Figure 15. (a) Mean isotopic values of barite deposits classified by tectonic setting and host rock. This panel presents the average 87Sr/86Sr, δ34S, and δ18O values for various barite deposits. (b) Comparison of the 87Sr/86Sr values from barite deposits with different geological environments. Reference ranges for various environments are indicated by boxes [85]. Specific values for Kuroko barite are from [116], and values for Juan de Fuca barite are from [117]. Note the distinct clustering: magmatism-associated barites plot between Kuroko–Juan de Fuca barites and seawater; Mesozoic passive margin-hosted (PMH) deposits resemble seawater values; and Paleozoic PMH deposits are positioned between seawater and continental rock fields.
Figure 15. (a) Mean isotopic values of barite deposits classified by tectonic setting and host rock. This panel presents the average 87Sr/86Sr, δ34S, and δ18O values for various barite deposits. (b) Comparison of the 87Sr/86Sr values from barite deposits with different geological environments. Reference ranges for various environments are indicated by boxes [85]. Specific values for Kuroko barite are from [116], and values for Juan de Fuca barite are from [117]. Note the distinct clustering: magmatism-associated barites plot between Kuroko–Juan de Fuca barites and seawater; Mesozoic passive margin-hosted (PMH) deposits resemble seawater values; and Paleozoic PMH deposits are positioned between seawater and continental rock fields.
Minerals 15 00692 g015
Table 1. Essential information about the barite deposits of Türkiye.
Table 1. Essential information about the barite deposits of Türkiye.
Deposit (City)MineralogyShape of DepositHost Rock Tectonic Unit
Magmatism-associated depositsKirazören (Giresun)Barite ± pyriteVeinCretaceous limestone and arc volcanoclastics (this study)Pontides
Karacaören (Ordu)Barite ± galena
± sphalerite ± hematite
VeinEocene andesites (this study)Pontides
Kızılcaören (Eskişehir)Fluorite + barite
+ bastnaesite
Banded and disseminated oreLate Paleozoic–Triassic accretionary complex (sandstone, shale, conglomerate, spilite, lithic tuff) [43,44]Tavşanlı Zone, Anatolides
Passive margin-hosted depositsŞarkikaraağaç (Isparta)Barite ± galena
± sphalerite
± chalcopyrite
± pyrite
± bornite
Stratiform-stratabound and veinCambrian–Devonian schist and limestone [25]Central
Taurides
Hüyük (Konya)Barite ± pyriteVeinCambrian–Devonian schist and limestone [26]Central
Taurides
Tordere (Adana)Barite ± chalcopyrite
± pyrite ± galena
± malachite ± fluorite
VeinCambrian limestone [30]Eastern Taurides
Karalar (Antalya)Barite + galena + sphalerite + chalcopyrite + pyrite + borniteVeinPermian–Triassic limestones and schist [27,28]Central
Taurides
Koçaşlı, Aydıncık, Gökbelen, Çilbayır (Mersin)Barite ± galenaVeinCambrian–Devonian limestone [29] Central
Taurides
Önsen (Kahramanmaraş)Barite ± pyriteVeinCambrian limestone [30]Arabian Plate
Şekeroba, KahramanmaraşBarite ± chalcopyrite ± galenaVeinOrdovician–Devonian meta-sandstone and shale [30]Arabian Plate
Kızılağaç-Hasköy (Muş)Barite ± chalcopyrite ± pyrite ± sphalerite galena± malachite Stratiform and veinDevonian dolomitic limestone
[31]
Eastern Taurides
Karakaya (Hakkari)Barite StratiformJurassic limestone [33]Arabian Plate
Table 2. Whole-rock average major oxide composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye.
Table 2. Whole-rock average major oxide composition of barite samples from deposits in Türkiye.
DepositSiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MgOMnOCaONa2OK2OBaSO4References for Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4
Kirazören (n:3)6.331.783.78<0.01<0.010.030.080.0580.99this study
Kızılcaören (n:2) *4.381.041.9850.4651.5430.350.0750.8438.28
Şarkikaraağaç (n:18)2.360.040.260.770.2511.820.010.0294[54]
Hüyük (n:21)0.120.020.020.010.0050.470.010.0194
Aydıncık (n:2)2.940.120.09<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.010.0395.45this study
Tordere (n:3)0.770.060.370.07<0.011.95<0.010.0196.51[30]
Önsen (n:3)1.42<0.01<0.04<0.01<0.010.04<0.01<0.0197.04
Şekeroba (n:7)0.28<0.010.070.02<0.010.05<0.01<0.0197.68
Hasköy (n:13)3.710.160.893.390.074.530.260.0143.5[65]
Karakaya (n:3)0.170.050.060.07<0.012.270.02<0.0193.79this study
* Additionally, Kızılcaören barites have 20% F composition. P2O5 and Cr2O3 values of all deposits < 0.01.
Table 5. Average trace element composition (ppm) from mineral chemistry analyses of barite samples from various deposits in Türkiye. PMH = passive margin-hosted.
Table 5. Average trace element composition (ppm) from mineral chemistry analyses of barite samples from various deposits in Türkiye. PMH = passive margin-hosted.
DepositKızılcaören
(n:44)
Kirazören (n:26)Cenozoic PMH
(Karakaya) (n:31)
Paleozoic PMH
Tordere
(n:9)
Önsen
(n:12)
Hasköy
(n:12)
Mean PMH (n:33)
Sc0.152.530.060.030.030.050.04
V2.7812.060.820.840.110.030.28
Cr4.1820.790.440.020.200.130.13
Co0.050.050.040.070.020.020.03
Ni0.491.210.690.300.182.140.92
Ga1.000.750.050.040.020.020.02
Ge1.030.580.980.680.630.470.59
Rb0.210.100.100.070.040.060.05
Sr9123.3814,587.1944,720.2630,874.7919,722.8226,640.4125,294.30
Y18.8114.0016.7113.5214.5513.5913.92
Zr0.6912.200.180.010.030.010.02
Nb0.220.370.000.0010.0030.0020.00
Cs0.100.040.030.020.050.090.06
La37.906.172.053.633.184.143.65
Ce38.154.340.150.520.440.280.40
Pr3.920.290.010.040.0040.100.05
Nd12.141.860.561.641.321.851.60
Sm2.240.640.490.830.710.770.76
Eu29.2221.3916.0640.6936.1746.7841.26
Gd2.480.980.741.050.991.121.06
Tb0.120.010.000.0020.00040.0020.00
Dy0.610.110.000.010.00130.010.01
Ho0.110.020.000.0020.00470.0020.00
Er0.270.080.010.030.010.020.02
Tm0.030.010.000.010.010.010.01
Yb0.170.100.010.020.020.030.02
Lu0.040.030.050.030.030.030.03
Hf1.041.152.001.071.091.141.10
Ta0.010.040.000.0010.0020.0010.00
Pb0.3476.866.180.560.130.560.40
Th15.020.940.000.050.0050.020.02
U1.201.040.040.050.030.010.03
Zn1291.451336.821680.121024.761202.431053.341099.76
Table 6. 87Sr/86Sr, δ18O (‰), and δ34S (‰) values of barite samples from Türkiye.
Table 6. 87Sr/86Sr, δ18O (‰), and δ34S (‰) values of barite samples from Türkiye.
Deposit87Sr/86Srδ18O (‰)δ34S (‰)
Kirazören10.707176.317.08
Kirazören 20.706887.07.73
Kızılcaören10.705988.65.90
Kızılcaören30.706059.65.61
Kızılcaören50.706087.55.78
Şarkikaraağaç *0.71413.627.9
Hüyük *0.710513,228.5
Aydıncık 0.7188413.135.48
Aydıncık 20.7176112.732.10
Tordere Feke0.7128316.631.46
Tordere Feke20.7110915.832.01
Önsen0.7121311.520.70
Önsen Dadağlı0.7111111.121.14
Önsen Çınaraltı0.7105211.319.98
Şekeroba0.7118311.628.93
Şekeroba0.712139.140.44
Şekeroba0.7125910.234.59
Sekeroba Beyoğlu0.7127310.829.46
Şekeroba Yıldız0.715710.332.68
Şekeroba Yıldız0.7137312.831.80
Hasköy *0.7131114.0438.18
Karakaya 20.7083114.324.19
Karakaya 30.70913.923.05
* Şarkikaraağaç value is the mean value of 22 samples. Hüyük value is the mean value of 13 samples [54]. Hasköy value is the mean value of 22 samples from [65]. Tordere, Şekeroba, and Önsen values are from [30].
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

Cansu, Z.; Öztürk, H.; Hanilçi, N. Barite Deposits of Türkiye: A Review. Minerals 2025, 15, 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15070692

AMA Style

Cansu Z, Öztürk H, Hanilçi N. Barite Deposits of Türkiye: A Review. Minerals. 2025; 15(7):692. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15070692

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cansu, Zeynep, Hüseyin Öztürk, and Nurullah Hanilçi. 2025. "Barite Deposits of Türkiye: A Review" Minerals 15, no. 7: 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15070692

APA Style

Cansu, Z., Öztürk, H., & Hanilçi, N. (2025). Barite Deposits of Türkiye: A Review. Minerals, 15(7), 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15070692

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