Next Article in Journal
Soil Geochemistry and Exploration Implications of the Terziali Gold Prospect (Central Anatolia, Türkiye): A Case Study of Shear-Related Orogenic Gold Mineralization
Previous Article in Journal
Selective Cobalt Extraction from Low-Grade Cobalt-Bearing Pyrite via Oxygen Pressure Acid Leaching
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/min16060650
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Provenance and Sedimentary Environments of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Enrichment and Mineralization

by
Zongyan Li
,
Tao Wang
*,
Nan Peng
,
Jianliang Jia
,
Suping Li
and
Qingji Yao
Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2026, 16(6), 650; https://doi.org/10.3390/min16060650 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 4 May 2026 / Revised: 15 June 2026 / Accepted: 16 June 2026 / Published: 19 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Sandstone-type uranium deposits are the main source of uranium in China. The Ordos Basin, one of the most typical Mesozoic intracontinental sedimentary basins in northern China, is a major uranium-bearing basin in China. The Hangjinqi area is a significant uranium-bearing region in the northern Ordos Basin, with favorable geological conditions and promising exploration prospects for mineralization, and the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation is one of the uranium-bearing strata in this area. This study focuses on the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area to investigate the governing factors of uranium enrichment and mineralization in this stratum. U-Pb dating of detrital zircons from sandstones of the Huanhe Formation reveals dominant peak ages of 2370–2585 Ma, 214–320 Ma, and 1805–2325 Ma, and secondary peak ages of 340–506 Ma, 1598–1797 Ma, and 110–150 Ma. The age results of the selected detrital zircons indicate that the provenance of the Huanhe Formation is mainly derived from three sources: (1) the 2.6–2.5 Ga TTG gneisses and granulites in the Yinshan Block; (2) the Paleoproterozoic (2500–1800 Ma) khondalites and granitic gneisses in the Daqingshan–Wulashan–Jining area, as well as granites in the Yinshan area; and (3) large-scale intermediate–acidic intrusive rocks and volcanic rocks of the Yinshan orogenic belt, whose ages range from 110.9 to 505.9 Ma (predominantly Paleozoic). These source rocks may have provided a potential uranium source. The paleoclimate proxies, including Sr/Cu, Sr/Ba, V/Cr, Ni/Co, and Fe2+/Fe3+ ratios, combined with the Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA) and the Index of Compositional Variability (ICV), suggest that the Huanhe Formation was formed in a relatively arid and oxidized environment with a low degree of chemical weathering, which facilitated the migration of uranium-bearing ore-forming fluids. The sedimentary environment, provenance, and paleoclimate created favorable geological conditions for uranium enrichment in the Huanhe Formation of the northern Ordos Basin.

1. Introduction

Sandstone-type uranium deposits are one of the most important sources of uranium resources, accounting for approximately 30% of the global uranium reserves [1]. In the context of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals, sandstone-type uranium deposits have become the most critical type of uranium resource in China. Over the past decade, with the implementation of a series of sandstone-type uranium exploration projects in the sedimentary basins of Northern China and the introduction of an exploration approach dominated by the secondary development of coal and oil drilling data, a large amount of borehole data has been collected, and a number of large and super-large sandstone-type uranium deposits has been discovered [2,3,4,5]. These deposits are mainly hosted in the Songliao [6,7], Ordos [8,9], Qaidam [2,10], and Erlian Basins [11,12], with ore-forming ages ranging from 190 Ma to 0.1 Ma [13]. Among these basins, the Ordos Basin contains the most abundant uranium resources [9,14].
Several representative uranium deposits have been discovered in the northern Ordos Basin, including Zaohuohao, Nalinggou, Tarangaole, Daying and Bayinqinggeli deposits, all of which are hosted in the Zhiluo Formation and the sandstone-type uranium deposit discovered in the Pengyang region of the southwestern basin is hosted in the Cretaceous Luohe Formation [15,16,17,18,19]. In addition, a series of relatively large-scale uranium mineralizations has been successively identified in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation [20], primarily distributed in the Yihewusu area and the Zhenyuan area [21,22]. These discoveries indicate that the sandstones of the Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Ordos Basin have favorable geological settings and conditions for uranium mineralization, significantly expanding the exploration potential for sandstone-type uranium deposits. In recent years, many researchers have investigated the sedimentary characteristics, provenance, tectonic setting, and modes of occurrence of uranium minerals of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation [21,23,24,25], and have achieved relevant results. However, studies on the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area remain limited, and issues regarding the uranium source, paleoenvironment, and their relationships with the uranium mineralization process require further investigation.
In this study, we investigated the provenance, paleoenvironmental characteristics, and possible uranium mineralization mechanisms of the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area using detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology and whole-rock major and trace element geochemistry. The results indicate that the metamorphic and igneous rocks in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan region are the main source of uranium mineralization in the Huanhe Formation, and the relatively arid and oxidized environments can provide favorable conditions for the migration of uranium-bearing ore-forming fluids.

2. Regional Geology

The Ordos Basin is situated in the western part of the North China Craton (Figure 1a), covering an area of approximately 2.5 × 105 km2. It is one of the most typical Mesozoic intracontinental sedimentary basins in northern China [26,27]. Tectonic activity around the basin periphery is intense, whereas the interior remains relatively stable. Based on tectonic features, the Ordos Basin can be divided into six secondary tectonic units: the Yimeng Uplift, Weibei Uplift, Western Margin Thrust Belt, Tianhuan syncline, Jinxi Fold Belt, and Shaanbei Slope [8,28].
The formation of the Ordos Basin is closely related to the tectonic activities of three major structural domains: the Paleo-Asian, the Tethys, and the Circum-Pacific [30,31,32]. Its tectonic evolution experienced a multiple-stage superimposed process, including stable subsidence during the Paleozoic, depression migration in the Mesozoic, and peripheral strike-slip movements and fault depressions in the Cenozoic, eventually forming a large superimposed basin [27]. The basin exhibits a nearly north–south orientation, with a length of approximately 640 km from north to south and a width of around 400 km from east to west [33]. The basin is rimmed by multiple fault zones, fault basins, and orogenic belts. Specifically, the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan are located to the north, the Qilian–Qinling–Kunlun orogenic belt runs along the southern margin, and the Lvliang and Alxa Blocks bound the basin on the east and west [34,35].
The Ordos Basin is composed of a deep crystalline basement and an overlying sedimentary cover. The crystalline basement consists of Archean and Paleoproterozoic metamorphic crystalline rocks, which are in angular unconformity contact. The uplift and denudation of the crystalline basement provided abundant provenances and uranium sources for the sedimentary cover and subsequent uranium mineralization [22]. The sedimentary cover is primarily characterized by the development of Triassic, Jurassic, Lower Cretaceous, Paleogene, Neogene, and Quaternary, among which the Triassic, Jurassic, and Lower Cretaceous constitute the main sedimentary units of the basin. In the study area (Figure 1b), the surface is widely covered by Quaternary (Q) loess, and thick Mesozoic–Cenozoic strata are developed. The Jurassic System consists of the Middle Jurassic Yan’an Formation (J2y), Zhiluo Formation (J2z), and Anding Formation (J2a) (Figure 2). The Cretaceous System is mainly represented by the Lower Cretaceous Luohe Formation (K1l), Huanhe Formation (K1h), and Luohandong Formation (K1lh) (Figure 2) [36]. Specifically, the Huanhe Formation represents the principal uranium-bearing horizon of the Lower Cretaceous in the study area. This study focuses on the Huanhe Formation, which is dominated by alluvial fan and braided river facies. The braided river facies can be further subdivided into floodplain and channel deposits. The alluvial fan facies is mainly composed of gray–green conglomerates and pebbly sandstones, with minor fine-grained sandstones and mudstones. The braided river facies consist predominantly of gray–green pebbly coarse-grained sandstones, coarse-grained sandstones, and brown–red medium–fine-grained sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones (Figure 3).
In the northern Ordos Basin, well-developed faults with NEE or nearly NE trends include the Boerjianghaizi, Sanyanjing, and Wulanjilinmiao faults (Figure 4). These faults cut across the Middle Jurassic Yan’an and Zhiluo formations, the Upper Jurassic Anding Formation, and the Lower Cretaceous Luohe and Huanhe formations. They supply abundant reducing gases to the Lower Cretaceous strata, creating a reduction barrier that favors later uranium mineralization [37,38]. The Huanhe Formation, which is an important ore-bearing stratum in this area, has an age of approximately 141–135 Ma. Vertically, it consists of an upper red oxidation zone, a middle red and green interlayer transitional zone, and a lower green and gray reduction zone [39]; uranium mineralization occurs predominantly in the middle transitional zone.

3. Sampling and Analytical Methods

3.1. Sample Description

The samples of this study were collected from drill holes ZKYO-15 and ZKY2024-1 in the Hangjinqi area for geochemistry and zircon chronology analysis. The sampling locations are shown in Figure 3. All 17 sandstone samples were subjected to geochemical analysis. Among them, three samples (ZKY2024-1-3, ZKYO-15-5, and ZKYO-15-8) were selected for zircon dating. Specifically, sample ZKY2024-1-3 was collected from the red oxidation zone, sample ZKYO-15-5 from the green and gray reduction zone, and sample ZKYO-15-8 from the red and green interlayer transitional zone. Typical lithological intervals in the borehole have been sampled and analyzed.
As illustrated in Figure 5, the sandstones of the Huanhe Formation are mainly composed of quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments (Figure 5a,b). The quartz is predominantly monocrystalline and characterized by distinct undulatory extinction (Figure 5c,d), accounting for approximately 70%–80%. The feldspar is dominated by plagioclase, in which obvious polysynthetic twinning can be observed (Figure 5c), constituting about 10%–20%. The lithic fragments are mainly volcanic and metamorphic lithic fragments (Figure 5e,f), making up approximately 5%–20%, indicating that the provenance is mainly derived from metamorphic and igneous rocks. The clastic grains are generally poorly rounded, moderately sorted, and angular to subangular, suggesting a relatively proximal source area.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Zircon U-Pb Dating

Zircon U-Pb isotope dating was performed using LA-ICP-MS at the Key Laboratory of Isotope Geology, Ministry of Natural Resources, Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. The laser ablation system consisted of a RESOlution S155 ArF 193 nm excimer laser (Applied Spectra, Inc., West Sacramento, CA, USA) coupled with an Agilent 7900 quadrupole ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). During laser ablation, helium was used as the carrier gas and argon as the make-up gas to adjust sensitivity, and the two gases were mixed through a T-connector before entering the ICP. The laser ablation system was equipped with a signal-smoothing device. The laser spot size and repetition rate used in this analysis were 29 µm and 6 Hz, respectively.
During U-Pb isotope dating, the zircon standard 91500 and the glass standard reference material NIST610 were used as external standards for isotope fractionation correction. Each analysis consisted of approximately 20–30 s of background signal and 40 s of sample signal. Off-line data processing, including the selection of sample and background signals, instrument sensitivity drift correction, and the calculation of element concentrations, U-Pb isotope ratios, and ages, was carried out using the software “iolite 2.5” [40]. U-Pb concordia diagrams and weighted mean age calculations for the zircon samples were performed using Isoplot 4.15. NIST SRM610 glass was used as the external standard for Pb, Th, and U content determination in the zircon grains, with common lead correction applied using the 208Pb correction method.

3.2.2. Major and Rare Earth Element Analysis

Whole-rock geochemical analyses were completed at Nanjing Hongchuang Geological Exploration Technology Service Co., Ltd. (Nanjing, China). Major element (Lithium metaborate alkali melt-ICP-OES internal standard method): Accurately weigh 100 mg of the sample, which has been ground to 200 mesh and dried at 105 °C. Thoroughly mix the sample with 400 mg of anhydrous lithium metaborate, then transfer the mixture into a graphite crucible. Place the crucible in a muffle furnace at 1000 °C for 15 min to melt the sample until it forms a glass bead. Remove the bead and allow it to cool. Transfer the cooled glass bead into a 250 mL beaker containing 50 mL of 5% aqua regia. Heat and stir the mixture on an 80 °C water bath using a magnetic stirrer for 30 min until the glass bead is completely dissolved. After cooling, dilute the solution with 5% aqua regia to a final volume of 100 mL, mix well, and let it stand. The major elements (Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, K, Na, P, Si, Ti, Sr, Ba) are determined using an ICP-OES instrument from HORIBA (Kyoto, Japan). Lithium (Li) is used as the internal standard during the measurement. The method ensures precision with a relative standard deviation (RSD) of less than 3%.
Weigh 1 g of the sample (accurate to 0.1 mg) that has been dried at 105 °C into a ceramic crucible, which has been preheated to a constant weight at 1000 °C. Place the crucible in a muffle furnace and gradually increase the temperature to 1000 °C (±25 °C). Maintain this temperature for 2 h. Remove the crucible, allow it to cool slightly, and transfer it to a desiccator. Let it cool to room temperature and equilibrate for 30 min before weighing. Repeat the ignition process at 1000 °C for an additional 30 min, then weigh the sample again. Continue this cycle until a constant weight is achieved. The loss on ignition (LOI) is calculated based on the weight difference.
Trace Element Analysis (Acid Dissolution-ICP-MS with Internal Standard Method): Accurately weigh 50 mg of the sample, ground to 200 mesh and dry at 105 °C, into a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) digestion vessel. Add 1 mL HNO3, 3 mL HCl, and 1.5 mL HF. Seal the PTFE digestion vessel with its cover, place it in a stainless steel sleeve, and tighten securely. Heat the sealed vessel in an oven at 190 °C for no less than 36 h to ensure complete dissolution. After digestion, place the PTFE vessel on a hot plate at 160 °C and evaporate the solution to a moist salt state. Add 1 mL of HNO3 twice consecutively, each time evaporating the solution to a moist salt state. Finally, add 1.5 mL of HNO3 and 2 mL of H2O, seal the vessel again with the stainless steel sleeve, and heat at 190 °C in the oven for 12 h. Allow the solution to cool and dilute it to 50 mL with 18 MΩ ultrapure water. The diluted solution is analyzed for trace elements using an Agilent 7900 ICP-MS instrument (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The analysis employs a wet sample introduction method and uses Rh as the internal standard. Each element is scanned five times, achieving a precision of RSD < 3%.
Major element analysis was performed using GSR-1 and GSR-3 as reference materials, while trace element analyses used GSR-1, GSR-3, and BHVO-2 as reference materials. Except for LOI and FeO, the detection limits for major elements ranged from 0.00002 to 0.0090 wt%, with precisions (RSD) of 0.050%–0.890%. The detection limits for trace elements ranged from 0.00004 to 0.03 ppb, with precisions (RSD) of 0.320%–2.345%. Approximately one duplicate sample was included for every ten samples in each batch.
When the ferrous iron (Fe2+) content in a sample exceeds 0.5%, weigh an appropriate amount of the sample into a platinum crucible based on its Fe2+ content. Add a suitable volume of 1:1 sulfuric acid and concentrated hydrofluoric acid, and decompose the sample on a small electric furnace until completely dissolved. Add a sufficient amount of saturated boric acid to remove excess hydrofluoric acid, followed by 1–2 drops of sodium diphenylamine sulfonate solution as an indicator. Titrate the solution with a standard potassium dichromate titration solution until the endpoint, indicated by a purple color, is reached. The ferrous iron content is then calculated.

4. Results

4.1. Zircon U–Pb Dating

Representative Cathodoluminescence (CL) images of detrital zircons from three samples are shown in Figure 6. The zircon grains are predominantly characterized by elongated prismatic morphologies, with subordinate short prismatic, equant, and irregular shapes. The zircon grain ranged from 50 to 100 μm in length, with length-to-width ratios of 1:1–2:1. Most zircon grains were angular to subangular, indicating proximal transport characteristics. However, severel zircon grains were elliptical to sub-rounded, suggesting long-distance transport. Internally, the zircon grains showed clear magmatic oscillatory zoning and banded structures (Figure 6). The Th/U ratios range from 0.1 to 4.16, with most values exceeding 0.4, indicating a predominantly magmatic origin [41]. A few grains have Th/U ratios between 0.1 and 0.4 (Figure 7), reflecting variable degrees of metamorphic recrystallization.
In zircon U-Pb dating, the 206Pb/238U age is employed for young zircons (<1000 Ma) with limited accumulation of radiogenic components, whereas the 207Pb/206Pb age is utilized for ancient zircons (>1000 Ma) characterized by the substantial accumulation of radiogenic components [42]. A total of 180 zircon grains was selected from three samples for analytical testing, among which 161 yielded ages within the 90%–110% concordance (discordance < 10%) interval. The results show a high degree of consistency in zircon age distributions across the three samples (Figure 8): primary age peaks are concentrated in the ranges of 2370–2585 Ma, 214–320 Ma, and 1805–2325 Ma, while secondary age peaks are at 340–506 Ma, 1598–1797 Ma, and 110–150 Ma (Table A4). Among these, the 2370–2585 Ma interval accounts for the highest proportion of valid data at 24.8%, followed by 214–320 Ma and 1805–2325 Ma, which account for 24.2% and 21.7%, respectively. The proportions for 340–506 Ma, 1598–1797 Ma, and 110–150 Ma are 10.6%, 9.3%, and 9.3%, respectively (Figure 9). To facilitate the discussion of provenance in the study area, the zircon age data are categorized into three stages: Archean (>2500 Ma, representing 9.3% of valid data), Paleoproterozoic (2500–1800 Ma, 37.3%), and Phanerozoic (505.9–110.9 Ma, 44.1%).

4.2. The Whole-Rock Major Elements and Trace Element Compositions

The major, trace, and rare earth element (REE) compositions of sandstones from the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area are given in Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3, respectively. SiO2 content ranges from 40.68% to 72.12%, with an average of 61.91%, while Al2O3 content ranges from 7.98% and 14.70%, averaging 11.99%. TiO2 content ranges from 0.24% to 0.70%, with an average of 0.45%. The SiO2/Al2O3 ratio varies from 3.72 to 6.15, with an average of 6.15.
The Sr/Ba, V/Cr, Ni/Co, Sr/Cu, and Fe2+/Fe3+ of the sandstone are 0.44 to 1.41 (average = 0.81), 0.85 to 6.09 (average = 1.95), 1.28 to 2.45 (average = 1.97), 10.99 to 186.37 (average = 46.25), and 0.16 to 3.65 (average = 1.35), respectively. The Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA) ranges from 53.18 to 76.00, with an average of 58.75, while the Index of Compositional Variability (ICV) ranges from 0.81 to 1.69, averaging 1.22. The total rare earth element (∑REE) content ranges from 91.27 to 251.22, with an average of 158.68. The total light rare earth element (∑LREE) content varies between 68.42 and 191.26, averaging 129.05, while the total heavy rare earth element (∑HREE) content ranges from 19.36 to 59.95, averaging 29.64. The ∑LREE/∑HREE ratio ranges from 2.99 to 7.61 (average = 4.52). The REE distribution patterns present the slightly right sloping trends and a weak negative Eu anomaly (Figure 10a). This is similar to the REE distribution patterns of intrusive and metamorphic rocks in the northern Ordos Basin (Figure 10b).
Minerals 16 00650 g008
Figure 8. Detrital zircon U-Pb concordia diagrams (left) and probability density plots (right) of Huanhe Formation.
Figure 8. Detrital zircon U-Pb concordia diagrams (left) and probability density plots (right) of Huanhe Formation.
Minerals 16 00650 g008
The major and trace elements in sedimentary rocks exhibit high stability and are rarely affected by other geological processes during weathering, transport, and sedimentation [1]. These geochemical signatures can serve as a reliable indicator of identifying provenance characteristics. In the TiO2–Al2O3 and F1–F2 diagrams, the source rocks of the Huanhe Formation are intermediate–acid igneous rocks (Figure 11).
Minerals 16 00650 g009
Figure 9. Pie chart of detrital zircon age peaks for sandstones from the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area.
Figure 9. Pie chart of detrital zircon age peaks for sandstones from the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area.
Minerals 16 00650 g009

5. Discussions

5.1. Reconstruction of Ancient Sedimentary Environments

The Sr/Ba ratio can be used as a reliable proxy for interpreting paleo-salinity, with a positive correlation between the Sr/Ba ratio and salinity [1,43]. It is generally accepted that Sr/Ba ratios below one indicate a freshwater environment, whereas Sr/Ba ratios above one are characteristic of saline environments. In the Hangjinqi area, the majority of Sr/Ba ratios from the Huanhe Formation samples are below one (Figure 12a), indicating that the Huanhe Formation sandstone formed in the freshwater environment.
The V/Cr and Ni/Co ratios are commonly used to assess redox environment during deposition. A V/Cr ratio of less than two indicates an oxic environment, whereas a V/Cr ratio between two and 4.25 suggests a sub-oxic environment [44]. A Ni/Co ratio below five indicates oxic environment [44]. For the Huanhe Formation samples, most V/Cr values are below two, with only a few exceeding two, indicating that the sedimentary environment was predominantly oxic (Figure 12b). All the samples show Ni/Co ratios lower than five, further confirming oxic conditions during the sedimentary period (Figure 12c). The Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio also serves as an indicator of the redox characteristics in sandstones, with values below one suggesting oxidizing conditions [45]. The Fe2+/Fe3+ ratios of the Huanhe Formation samples range from 0.16 to 3.65, with most values below one, which further supports an predominantly oxic environment during sedimentation. Therefore, the data suggest mainly oxidizing conditions, but with local redox variability.
Paleoclimatic conditions are also important factors influencing sedimentary environments and can be indicated by several geochemical ratios. For example, the Sr/Cu and SiO2/Al2O3 ratios serve as good indicators of paleoclimate. Sr/Cu values above 10 and SiO2/Al2O3 ratios above four are an arid climate. In the Hangjinqi area, all the samples from the Huanhe Formation have Sr/Cu values exceeding 10, reflecting an arid climate (Figure 12d). The SiO2/Al2O3 ratios range from 3.72 to 6.15, with an average of 5.20, further indicating an arid sedimentary environment. Thus, the Sr/Cu and SiO2/Al2O3 ratios indicate an arid tendency. However, these proxies, including Sr/Ba, V/Cr, Ni/Co, Fe2+/Fe3+, CIA and ICV, can be influenced by grain size, carbonate content, detrital input, diagenesis and possible post-depositional alteration.
Minerals 16 00650 g010
Figure 10. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution pattern of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area (Chondrite-normalization values are from Sun and McDonough, 1989 [46]) and (b) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution patterns of intrusive and metamorphic rocks from different geological periods in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan regions, northern Ordos Basin (the data are derived from references [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]).
Figure 10. (a) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution pattern of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area (Chondrite-normalization values are from Sun and McDonough, 1989 [46]) and (b) Chondrite-normalized REE distribution patterns of intrusive and metamorphic rocks from different geological periods in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan regions, northern Ordos Basin (the data are derived from references [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]).
Minerals 16 00650 g010
Minerals 16 00650 g011
Figure 11. (a) TiO2-Al2O3 and (b) F1-F2 discrimination diagrams of Huanhe Formation sandstone in Hangjinqi area (base map from Roser and Korsch, 1988 [64]). Note: F1 = −1.773TiO2 + 0.607Al2O3 + 0.76TFezO3 − 1.5MgO + 0.616CaO + 0.509Na2O − 1.224K2O − 9.09; F2 = 0.445TiO2 + 0.07Al2O3 − 0.25 TFe2O3 − 1.142MgO + 0.438CaO + 1.475Na2O + 1.426K2O − 6.861.
Figure 11. (a) TiO2-Al2O3 and (b) F1-F2 discrimination diagrams of Huanhe Formation sandstone in Hangjinqi area (base map from Roser and Korsch, 1988 [64]). Note: F1 = −1.773TiO2 + 0.607Al2O3 + 0.76TFezO3 − 1.5MgO + 0.616CaO + 0.509Na2O − 1.224K2O − 9.09; F2 = 0.445TiO2 + 0.07Al2O3 − 0.25 TFe2O3 − 1.142MgO + 0.438CaO + 1.475Na2O + 1.426K2O − 6.861.
Minerals 16 00650 g011
The CIA is an important proxy for evaluating the degree of weathering of source rocks and paleoclimate. CIA is defined as 100 × [(Al2O3)/(Al2O3 + Na2O + CaO* + K2O)] (unit: mol%), where CaO* is the amount of CaO in silicates [65]. CIA values between 50 and 60 indicate low weathering and dry and cold climate, whereas values between 60 and 85 suggest moderate weathering and a moist and warm climate, and values between 80 and 100 indicate intense weathering [66]. The CIA values of the Huanhe Formation samples range from 53.18 to 76.00, with an average of 58.75, indicating that this formation formed in a low degree of chemical weathering, with a cold and arid environment (Figure 13), which is consistent with the results reflected by the Sr/Cu ratio.
It should be noted that the depositional cycle experienced by source rocks during weathering, transport, and deposition can make the CIA value inaccurate [67]. Cox et al. (1995) proposed the ICV to determine whether the source rocks underwent multiple depositional cycles [68]. An ICV value higher than one indicates the initial depositional cycle, whereas a value below one suggests multiple depositional cycles [69]. The ICV values of the Huanhe Formation range from 0.81 to 1.69, with an average of 1.22, indicating that the sediments of the Huanhe Formation are dominated by first-cycle deposits, with insignificant depositional cycle. In addition, most zircon grains were angular to subangular and the clastic grains of the Huanhe Formation samples are generally poorly rounded, moderately sorted, and angular to subangular, suggesting short transport distances and brief residence times in intermediate sedimentary repositories. Therefore, we infer that the intermediate sedimentary repositories played only a negligible role in the source to sink system of the study area. However, proxies such as ICV and grain morphology still have certain limitations, and future research can integrate other indicators to further constrain the sedimentary recycling processes.
Minerals 16 00650 g012
Figure 12. Discriminant indicators for paleoenvironment and redox conditions of the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area. (a) Variations of paleoclimate proxies. (b,c) Redox condition proxies. (d) Variations of paleoclimate proxies.
Figure 12. Discriminant indicators for paleoenvironment and redox conditions of the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area. (a) Variations of paleoclimate proxies. (b,c) Redox condition proxies. (d) Variations of paleoclimate proxies.
Minerals 16 00650 g012
Minerals 16 00650 g013
Figure 13. A-CN-K diagram of sandstone of Huanhe Formation (base map from Nesbitt and Young [65]). Note: A = Al2O3; CN = Na2O + CaO*; K = K2O.
Figure 13. A-CN-K diagram of sandstone of Huanhe Formation (base map from Nesbitt and Young [65]). Note: A = Al2O3; CN = Na2O + CaO*; K = K2O.
Minerals 16 00650 g013

5.2. Provenance of the Huanhe Formation

The North China Craton (NCC) is one of the oldest cratons in the world, containing Eoarchean rocks as old as 3.8 Ga [70], and its evolution has undergone multi-stage and complex tectonic processes [71]. The NCC is commonly subdivided into the Eastern, Central, and Western blocks. The basement of the Western Block is mainly exposed in its northern part, including Jining, Daqingshan–Wulashan, Guyang–Wuchuan, Serteng, Helanshan–Qianlishan, and Alxa areas [72], while the Ordos Basin is situated in the southern part of this block. Lei et al. (2017) [73] compiled 3671 previously published zircon U–Pb ages from the northern Western Block and compared them with detrital zircon ages from the Hangjinqi area. Their results show that the Hangjinqi area has the closest affinity with the Daqingshan–Wulashan–Yinshan areas in the northern basin [73], indicating these three areas as potential provenances for the Hangjinqi area.
The Neoarchean zircon ages obtained from the Huanhe Formation samples are relatively scarce, accounting for 9.3% of the total ages. These zircon ages are consistent with the 2.5–2.6 Ga ages reported for TTG gneisses and granulites in the northern part of the Ordos Basin [74], such as the 2.5–2.6 Ga zircon ages from granites and granulites in the Guyang area [47,75], the 2.5–2.7 Ga granitic gneisses from the Wuchuan–Xiwulanbulang area [76], and the ~2.5 Ga TTG gneisses from the Fuping and Wutai areas [77,78]. Therefore, the Neoarchean zircons obtained in this study are likely derived predominantly from the granitic gneisses and granulites in the Yinshan Block.
Paleoproterozoic (2500–1800 Ma) detrital zircon ages account for 37.3% of the valid data and can be divided into two intervals: 2500–2300 Ma and 2000–1800 Ma. The zircon ages of 2500–2300 Ma exhibit a strong correlation with the ages of rock units from the following regions: the early Paleoproterozoic khondalite in the Daqingshan area yields zircon ages of 2.4–2.5 Ga [79], and biotite granite yields an age of 2430 ± 19 Ma [61]; granitic gneiss in the Wulashan area at 2459 ± 6.9 Ma and charnockite at 2430 ± 7.7 Ma [48,80], and some zircons from tonalitic gneisses yield ages of 2307–2478 Ma [47]. The 2000–1800 Ma ages correspond to the gneisses, granulites, and khondalites in the Daqingshan–Wulashan area, as well as the Yinshan gneisses and granodiorites, and the khondalites ages in the Jining and surrounding regions. For example, the ages of khondalites in the Daqingshan, Wulashan, and Jining areas range from 2.0 to 1.81 Ga [81,82]; the biotite granitic gneiss from the eastern segment of the Kuangou fault in Bayan Obo yields an age of 1890 Ma, and granodiorite yields 2018 ± 15 Ma [83,84,85]; garnet monzogranite and charnockite in Liangcheng County show ages of 1904–1921 Ma [49]. Furthermore, statistical analysis of existing zircon age from the khondalite belt in the northern Ordos Basin and the Yinshan Block reveals that the ages are predominantly concentrated in the range of 2000–1800 Ma [86]. Based on the aforementioned analyses, we interpret that the Paleoproterozoic detrital zircons were mainly derived from khondalites in the Daqingshan–Wulashan–Jining region and granites in the Yinshan area, with partial contribution from gneisses and granulites in the Guyang–Wuchuan area.
The Phanerozoic zircon ages (505.9–110.9 Ma) from the Huanhe Formation samples are mainly concentrated in the Paleozoic, a period corresponding to intense tectonic activity in the Yinshan orogenic belt along the northern margin of the North China Block. This tectonic activity was accompanied by multiple volcanic eruptions and large-scale intermediate–acidic magmatic intrusions, resulting in the widespread distribution of Paleozoic intermediate–acidic intrusive rocks [87]. In the Yinshan Block, abundant granites and volcanic rocks of 400–300 Ma have been identified [88], and the ages of intrusive rocks in the Daqingshan, Urat Middle Banner, Guyang, Wuchuan, Siziwang Banner, and Bayan Obo areas are mainly concentrated in the range of 270–280 Ma [73]. Accordingly, the Phanerozoic detrital zircons in the sandstones of the Huanhe Formation are likely derived from the Paleozoic intermediate–acidic intrusive rocks within the Yinshan orogenic belt, which is consistent with the results obtained from the TiO2–Al2O3 and F1–F2 diagrams.
To further constrain the provenance, we compiled the REE data of intrusive and metamorphic rocks from different periods in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan areas in the northern part of the Ordos Basin (Figure 10b), and compared them with those from the study area. The results reveal that the REE distribution patterns of the Huanhe Formation samples are largely consistent with those of the intrusive and metamorphic rocks from the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan areas. Both present the slightly right sloping trends and a weak negative Eu anomaly. This indicates that the provenance of the Huanhe Formation in the study area is mainly derived from the northern part of the basin, which is consistent with the zircon age analysis results described above.
Based on the above analyses, it can be showed that the detrital zircon ages of the Huanhe Formation are highly consistent with the ages of metamorphic rocks and Paleozoic magmatic rocks in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan area. Moreover, REE distribution patterns of the Huanhe Formation sandstones are similar to those of the magmatic and metamorphic rocks in these areas. This indicates that the provenance of the Huanhe Formation is mainly derived from the intermediate–acid igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks in the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan area.

5.3. Implications of Provenance and Paleoenvironment for Uranium Mineralization

Based on the above results of provenance and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, we further discuss their controlling process on uranium enrichment and mineralization. The presence of a uranium-rich source area is an important prerequisite for the formation of sandstone-type uranium, and the ore-forming materials in sandstone-type uranium share the same sedimentary source area as the ore-hosting stratum [2]. The provenance of the Huanhe Formation is mainly derived from the Yinshan–Daqingshan–Wulashan area, where the source area is characterized by widespread Archean and Paleoproterozoic crystalline rock series and granites of various ages, which generally have relatively high U abundances [29]. Intermediate–acidic igneous rocks serve as the primary source of uranium, with the concentration of uranium in granite reaching 3–4 ppm [89]. Statistical analysis of Th and U contents and Th/U ratios of intrusive rocks surrounding the northern part of the basin reveal that the Th/U ratios of intermediate–acidic igneous rocks are significantly higher than five [23]. However, the average Th/U ratio in the Earth’s crust ranges from three to four [90,91], and a Th/U ratio exceeding four in rocks indicates that uranium loss may have occurred, with the released uranium capable of migrating into the basin for enrichment and mineralization [92]. In addition, felsic rocks commonly contain abundant uranium-bearing accessory minerals such as zircon, apatite, and monazite [93,94], which may provide a potential uranium source for the sandstone-type uranium in the Ordos Basin [95]. Therefore, the magmatic and metamorphic rocks in the northern Ordos Basin may be the main source of uranium mineralization in the Huanhe Formation. Moreover, the sandstones of the Huanhe Formation underwent a single sedimentary cycle, which provided a stable sedimentary environment for the storage of uranium. The average whole-rock uranium content of the samples in this study is 37.35 × 10−6, indicating that uranium-bearing detritus generated by the weathering of rocks in the source area was transported by fluids such as surface water to the Hangginqi area for enrichment.
In recent years, new insights have been gained regarding the “red and black beds” coupling formation constraints on the sandstone uranium mineralization [96], which suggests that the combined red-and-black-layer sedimentary filling during the sedimentary period constrains the formation of sandstone-type uranium deposits, emphasizing that the evolution of the sedimentary environment controls the ore-hosting stratum [5]. Most of the Mesozoic continental basins in northern China underwent a transition from reducing to oxidizing environments, which resulted in the conjugate occurrence of the “red and black” sandstone within the basins, creating a paleodepositional environment favorable for the formation of sandstone-type uranium deposits [4,96]. The red layer formed under oxidizing conditions provided a “field” for uranium mineralization, whereas the black layer provided a “obstacle” for the precipitation of uranium [3]. In this study area, the Huanhe Formation can be divided vertically into an upper red oxidation zone, a middle red–green interlayer transitional zone, and a lower green–gray reduction zone [39], with uranium mineralization mainly occurring in the strata of middle transitional zone. From the geochemical characteristics and various trace element ratios discussed earlier, combined with the paleoclimatic evolution of the basin, the Huanhe Formation in the study area was in an arid climate, with oxygen-rich freshwater in the paleowater medium. Long-term dry climate is conducive to the formation of water rich in free oxygen and the leaching and activation of uranium in the source area. Under oxidizing conditions, uranium was oxidized to U6+, forming UO22+, which facilitate the transport of uranium by ore-forming fluids, while the freshwater environment enhanced uranium dissolution [97,98]. During the late Cretaceous to Paleogene, the northeastern Ordos Basin exhibited a structural configuration dipping from the northeast to the southwest, which facilitated the inflow of oxidized atmospheric precipitation into the basin under gravitational force [29,99,100]. Meanwhile, during the Paleocene–Eocene, influenced by neotectonic movements [101], the Hetao Graben began to form, and a series of faults appeared on the northern Ordos Basin, such as the Boerjianghaizi, Sanyanjing, and Wulanjilinmiao faults. These faults not only serve as channels for the ascent of reducing gases from depth, but also act as discharge conduits for groundwater, forming a complete “recharge–runoff–discharge” system, which ensures the sustained progression of interstratal oxidation processes. In summary, the oxygenated and uranium-bearing fluids derived from the source area migrated into the reducing sandstones. Based on the above analysis, we infer that evaporation concentrated the uranium contents in groundwater, and the resulting uranium-rich aqueous solution underwent redox reactions with the reductants in the strata, leading to uranium enrichment and mineralization (Figure 14).

6. Conclusions

(1) Detrital zircon U-Pb ages from the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area exhibit three major age peaks at 2370–2585 Ma, 214–320 Ma, and 1805–2325 Ma, with the 2370–2585 Ma being dominant. Additionally, a certain number of zircons with ages of 340–506 Ma, 1598–1797 Ma, and 110–150 Ma is also present.
(2) The provenance of the Huanhe Formation in the Hangjinqi area is mainly derived from the 2.6–2.5 Ga TTG gneisses and granulites in the Yinshan Block, the Paleoproterozoic (2500–1800 Ma) khondalites and granitic gneisses in the Daqingshan–Wulashan–Jining area, as well as granites in the Yinshan area, together with large-scale intermediate–acidic intrusive rocks and volcanic rocks of the Yinshan orogenic belt, whose ages range from 110.9 to 505.9 Ma (predominantly Paleozoic), which may have provided a reliable source for uranium enrichment and mineralization. The paleoclimate during the sedimentation of the Huanhe Formation was predominantly an arid environment, and the paleowater medium was an oxygen-rich freshwater. The chemical weathering intensity in the sedimentary source area was relatively low, the ore-hosting stratum experienced a single sedimentary cycle, and the intermediate sedimentary repositories played only a negligible role in the source to the sink system of the study area. The combined effects of the paleoenvironments, provenance, and sedimentary characteristics have created favorable geological conditions for uranium enrichment and may have contributed to mineralization in the Huanhe Formation of the northern Ordos Basin.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.L. and T.W.; methodology, N.P.; software, Z.L.; validation, Z.L. and Q.Y.; formal analysis, Z.L. and S.L.; investigation, Z.L. and T.W.; resources, T.W. and J.J.; data curation, Z.L. and Q.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L. and T.W.; writing—review and editing, Z.L.; visualization, Z.L. and T.W.; supervision, T.W.; project administration, T.W. and J.J.; funding acquisition, T.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFC2906701), Deep Earth Probe and Mineral Resources Exploration-National Science and Technology Major Project (2025ZD1006801).

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank Han Xiaozhong from the Special Technology Exploration Center of China National Administration of Coal Geology, and Wu Zhaojian from CGNPC Uranium Resources Co., Ltd., for their guidance and field assistance. We also thank Liu Weiqing from Henan Polytechnic University for his help in the field, and the project team of the No. 208 Geological Party of the China National Nuclear Corporation for providing the drill cores. Furthermore, we are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and to the editor for their insightful suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Major element analytical data of Huanhe Formation sandstones from the Ordos Basin (wB/%).
Table A1. Major element analytical data of Huanhe Formation sandstones from the Ordos Basin (wB/%).
Sample No.SiO2Al2O3TFe2O3FeOCaO MgOK2ONa2OTiO2P2O5MnOLOICIAICVSiO2/Al2O3Fe2+Fe3+Fe2+/Fe3+
ZKYO-15-1065.8213.014.312.012.512.332.263.820.520.150.074.6954.771.245.060.030.031.07
ZKYO-15-964.8013.004.872.402.142.802.143.710.530.130.075.2756.181.344.980.030.031.21
ZKYO-15-858.1114.707.723.801.024.763.142.100.700.170.086.8066.501.623.950.050.041.21
ZKYO-15-762.6612.986.283.062.243.802.172.860.650.170.095.6260.241.564.830.040.041.18
ZKYO-15-667.6412.354.061.852.482.092.173.550.470.120.074.5955.121.215.480.030.031.03
ZKYO-15-558.7113.899.513.011.014.202.712.590.610.130.086.0564.951.694.230.040.080.54
ZKYO-15-471.6212.222.441.202.081.042.233.830.390.080.063.6154.250.945.860.020.011.20
ZKYO-15-368.1712.221.730.834.460.982.182.920.390.100.086.2158.420.815.580.010.011.16
ZKYO-15-269.8112.244.031.641.611.982.183.510.390.090.063.5757.561.185.700.020.030.83
ZKY2024-1-140.687.983.292.3222.111.451.602.050.280.080.3619.8856.361.395.100.030.013.65
ZKY2024-1-271.6212.121.691.112.750.882.303.520.370.090.054.1754.440.855.910.020.012.69
ZKY2024-1-354.858.922.651.8314.211.051.782.610.240.060.1813.1654.011.126.150.030.013.26
ZKY2024-1-472.1212.142.461.262.210.882.483.710.350.080.043.2153.180.915.940.020.011.31
ZKY2024-1-569.3912.853.081.802.421.332.294.080.400.090.043.6953.301.005.400.030.011.85
ZKY2024-1-645.2112.169.641.179.383.912.090.730.530.280.0615.7476.001.653.720.020.100.16
ZKY2024-1-742.858.773.210.6019.781.502.011.420.330.110.1119.4162.441.184.890.010.030.26
ZKY2024-1-868.4612.243.560.741.711.563.152.020.590.140.046.1161.071.045.590.010.030.30
Table A2. Trace element analytical data of Huanhe Formation sandstones from the study area (wB/10−6).
Table A2. Trace element analytical data of Huanhe Formation sandstones from the study area (wB/10−6).
Sample No.ZKYO-15-10ZKYO-15-9ZKYO-15-8ZKYO-15-7ZKYO-15-6ZKYO-15-5ZKYO-15-4ZKYO-15-3ZKYO-15-2ZKY2024-1-1ZKY2024-1-2ZKY2024-1-3ZKY2024-1-4ZKY2024-1-5ZKY2024-1-6ZKY2024-1-7ZKY2024-1-8
Li19.8523.6859.3040.2823.1046.2817.5314.9222.0519.0913.6411.4813.8213.8834.899.7610.44
Be1.661.683.011.971.693.111.281.931.681.651.491.441.631.703.230.971.03
Sc10.3310.1214.6913.119.1212.376.938.848.006.265.987.265.978.6613.305.747.38
V71.4870.05100.60131.2088.78190.8071.21215.6073.5240.5146.8234.6942.1054.6268.3335.1367.94
Cr44.4644.6371.3761.3238.7157.3433.3035.3837.7127.2134.1721.0329.4136.4269.2141.0953.16
Co11.7113.3325.7919.589.3215.525.9211.669.826.826.364.948.696.3120.997.627.89
Ni18.8020.9440.8634.0817.8536.7012.5714.8920.2114.7413.9312.0913.7013.5744.2418.3117.09
Cu12.2211.5537.9931.0010.2914.706.535.3910.706.814.747.057.5512.0134.706.979.34
Zn52.3255.5390.5778.4464.57100.1037.32215.3048.5342.2838.9929.8635.4434.2084.4434.6847.68
Ga18.5520.6625.0724.2616.4224.9413.7113.6416.7112.2613.4011.0313.7915.0620.8311.2115.41
Rb69.0563.09124.4078.1371.34100.6067.4464.7369.4761.4971.1859.9773.4668.4393.0860.1178.41
Sr445.30477.70641.20605.70405.20594.30338.201004.00398.20230.70376.20263.00277.40313.50381.50336.10414.70
Zr246.20281.10191.60248.00170.20265.70123.00160.50130.5099.63127.2090.72107.00113.20118.50120.80273.70
Nb8.509.5913.059.366.9810.445.905.946.194.635.733.685.085.548.064.948.13
Mo0.350.280.320.280.431.620.321.240.520.5031.210.861.071.340.300.190.19
Sn1.441.472.781.821.442.131.291.171.211.111.650.821.191.261.670.720.99
Cs3.733.9912.416.205.6610.144.022.364.034.522.832.703.323.284.001.201.14
Ba569.50510.10460.80525.50507.80439.70561.60709.90517.90389.90593.90441.90629.60590.40502.80607.50930.40
Hf7.438.266.277.485.148.243.714.754.072.893.802.662.953.253.393.257.54
Ta0.710.691.000.710.580.840.460.510.560.380.490.300.430.450.500.300.59
W1.631.502.751.981.702.301.501.561.771.421.721.561.581.581.831.531.31
Tl0.360.370.660.450.370.490.350.450.350.310.530.320.500.390.430.280.39
Pb10.069.5410.1910.2917.2112.5824.9013.2712.649.0013.108.2613.9112.3314.559.1312.23
Bi0.120.120.310.150.130.240.120.090.090.070.080.060.080.100.140.030.03
Th8.809.8613.889.658.4312.856.676.827.004.066.475.905.486.538.887.2314.81
U17.4617.4722.24139.5019.9528.4012.02664.2013.714.338.712.122.303.641.490.932.75
Sr/Ba0.780.941.391.150.801.350.601.410.770.590.630.600.440.530.760.550.45
V/(V + Ni)0.790.770.710.790.830.840.850.940.780.730.770.740.750.800.610.660.80
Ni/Co1.611.571.581.741.922.362.121.282.062.162.192.451.582.152.112.402.17
U/Th1.981.771.6014.462.372.211.8097.361.961.071.350.360.420.560.170.130.19
V/Cr1.611.571.412.142.293.332.146.091.951.491.371.651.431.500.990.851.28
Sr/Cu36.4441.3616.8819.5439.3840.4351.78186.3737.2133.8779.3337.2936.7326.1010.9948.2044.40
Table A3. The REE contents of the sandstone sample from the Huanhe Formation (wB/10−6).
Table A3. The REE contents of the sandstone sample from the Huanhe Formation (wB/10−6).
Sample No.LaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuYREELREEHREELREE/HREEδEu
ZKYO-15-1037.0074.358.3932.365.631.495.000.734.360.812.380.362.350.3718.30193.87159.2334.644.600.84
ZKYO-15-936.4772.078.0530.885.101.304.540.654.000.772.300.352.410.3917.17186.44153.8732.584.720.81
ZKY0-15-848.2087.819.0833.785.361.134.810.694.220.842.570.392.660.4318.19220.15185.3634.795.330.67
ZKY0-15-733.1267.547.5529.635.181.294.380.684.070.772.260.332.260.3415.12174.52144.3030.214.780.80
ZKY0-15-631.7461.596.8026.194.281.073.790.523.130.611.740.261.850.2913.00156.86131.6725.195.230.80
ZKY0-15-542.2682.489.1536.396.581.486.170.955.961.163.340.483.280.5124.74224.92178.3446.583.830.70
ZKY0-15-426.5551.185.4620.483.190.862.830.402.350.441.380.211.420.2310.12127.08107.7119.365.560.85
ZKY0-15-325.2658.987.4330.376.091.775.550.854.980.952.660.362.320.3624.59172.52129.9042.623.050.91
ZKY0-15-224.6748.795.3020.703.551.013.180.482.910.561.650.231.680.2611.84126.80104.0222.784.570.90
ZKY2024-1-116.8231.143.4714.262.690.852.660.432.690.521.440.211.340.2213.5392.2769.2323.043.000.95
ZKY2024-1-222.7944.604.8418.763.050.962.760.402.400.491.400.221.400.2311.39115.6995.0120.694.590.99
ZKY2024-1-316.4631.003.4414.052.620.862.560.422.690.531.520.231.480.2313.1991.2768.4222.852.991.00
ZKY2024-1-423.7746.465.0320.033.240.982.940.412.410.451.330.201.330.2110.69119.4999.5119.984.980.95
ZKY2024-1-524.2047.865.2320.733.441.093.150.452.590.501.460.211.370.2311.35123.84102.5521.304.820.99
ZKY2024-1-647.5682.4210.2242.107.151.826.981.046.591.313.840.563.730.5935.33251.22191.2659.953.190.78
ZKY2024-1-723.5243.604.8619.433.201.042.950.432.620.541.520.221.470.2313.91119.5395.6423.894.001.01
ZKY2024-1-844.1384.688.9633.884.781.344.220.522.760.511.480.211.390.2312.05201.14177.7723.367.610.89
Table A4. Detrital zircon LA-ICP-MS U—Pb dating results of the Huanhe Formation sandstones in the Hangjinqi area of the Ordos Basin.
Table A4. Detrital zircon LA-ICP-MS U—Pb dating results of the Huanhe Formation sandstones in the Hangjinqi area of the Ordos Basin.
SpotContent (ug/g)Th/UIsotope RatioAge (Ma)
ThU207Pb/206PbInt2SE207Pb/235UInt2SE206Pb/238UInt2SE207Pb/206PbInt2SE207Pb/235UInt2SE206Pb/238UInt2SE
ZKYO-15-5-11703010.560.05050.00120.31380.00690.044730.0003921751277.35.2282.12.4
ZKYO-15-5-2191.8200.30.960.166510.0008811.4320.0760.49480.00282522.992558.46.2259112
ZKYO-15-5-362.494.40.660.05130.00250.2980.0130.042050.000592609426410265.53.7
ZKYO-15-5-42375570.430.05170.00110.28470.00720.040250.0006526646253.95.7254.34
ZKYO-15-5-5202195.71.030.113850.000985.1040.0520.32310.00211861151836.58.6180410
ZKYO-15-5-695.5194.10.490.05070.00260.14380.00690.020910.0003123198135.96.2133.42
ZKYO-15-5-7942780.340.118060.000895.5160.0470.33780.00171925141903.17.21876.18.3
ZKYO-15-5-815.3325.90.590.10190.00294.150.110.29520.0037166750166322166918
ZKYO-15-5-91181400.840.05330.00310.3050.0160.040990.0005732010027212258.93.5
ZKYO-15-5-1073.73560.210.116850.000865.130.140.31590.0073190713183522176636
ZKYO-15-5-11108.7165.50.660.05660.00320.16650.00930.021240.00038440110155.38.1135.52.4
ZKYO-15-5-124029310.430.04920.00130.13820.00370.020390.0001715353131.63.3130.11.1
ZKYO-15-5-132403440.700.06750.00260.22620.00910.024470.0003804852077.7155.81.9
ZKYO-15-5-1476.51170.650.0890.00430.6460.0320.052840.0006713789750019331.94.1
ZKYO-15-5-15158.2192.40.820.127840.000836.550.0550.37240.00242067122054.17.2204011
ZKYO-15-5-1687.42340.370.113250.000894.9870.0430.3170.00151854141816.37.317757.1
ZKYO-15-5-1728.262.50.450.04650.0050.1180.0130.017350.000551018011212110.93.5
ZKYO-15-5-1871.298.60.720.10130.00124.1120.0490.2930.00171648221655.29.71656.18.6
ZKYO-15-5-196.3310.460.610.16340.00479.950.320.43950.0071248149242530234632
ZKYO-15-5-2085.13060.280.154060.000898.460.120.39830.006239110228012215928
ZKYO-15-5-2194.61920.490.0640.00410.2380.0180.025530.0008171013021414162.45.1
ZKYO-15-5-2243.184.40.510.10410.00154.250.0610.29520.0022169126168312166711
ZKYO-15-5-231091550.700.06130.00350.15080.00930.018020.00056590120142.48.3115.13.5
ZKYO-15-5-2425.641.90.610.10170.00194.2940.0860.30850.003164236169317173315
ZKYO-15-5-253844200.910.05050.00150.14220.00420.02030.000322162134.83.7129.51.9
ZKYO-15-5-2618.430.10.610.10420.00244.180.10.29270.0036169744166520165618
ZKYO-15-5-272003240.620.050.0020.14670.00580.021060.0002818979138.65.1134.31.8
ZKYO-15-5-281592110.750.16630.001110.8480.0950.47230.003525191125108249516
ZKYO-15-5-2931530.580.05550.00430.3510.0260.0460.001135015030820289.96.6
ZKYO-15-5-3089.81230.730.04840.00320.15210.00950.022760.0004140120142.78.4145.12.5
ZKYO-15-5-313032901.040.05090.00160.29950.00940.04260.0003822765265.27.3268.92.3
ZKYO-15-5-323644920.740.050.00150.1440.00460.020840.0002719862136.44.1132.91.7
ZKYO-15-5-332064620.450.05020.00160.15120.00480.021760.000221668142.74.2138.81.3
ZKYO-15-5-3496.2137.10.700.04570.0030.1240.00750.019220.0003730110118.76.9122.72.3
ZKYO-15-5-3529.337.50.780.10360.00224.2380.0960.29710.0038169538167818167619
ZKYO-15-5-362351201.960.0840.00670.2110.0150.019730.00084114017019212125.95.3
ZKYO-15-5-3771.22000.360.16270.001410.010.190.44230.008248115243518236537
ZKYO-15-5-3862.3144.40.430.05290.00390.1550.0110.021660.00048260130143.99.2138.13
ZKYO-15-5-3925.8241.20.630.10470.0024.3670.0920.30410.0052170735170717171326
ZKYO-15-5-40133.4245.20.540.16250.000939.890.10.44240.00372482.89.42423.49.7236117
ZKYO-15-5-4135.251.30.690.10380.0024.1980.0760.29330.0027169534167315165814
ZKYO-15-5-4299.7182.90.550.05580.00130.5680.0140.073990.0005943554456.18.7460.13.5
ZKYO-15-5-43107.62890.370.05610.00120.5870.0130.076480.000945048468.88.44755.4
ZKYO-15-5-442675430.490.05260.00110.3030.00660.041650.0004229646268.85.22632.6
ZKYO-15-5-453127140.440.051650.000910.29570.0060.041730.0005225640263.24.7263.53.2
ZKYO-15-5-4693.4225.40.410.116430.000835.3990.0470.33740.00191902131885.37.41873.99.1
ZKYO-15-5-474043.70.920.16060.002110.490.150.47050.0047246222247813248721
ZKYO-15-5-482574270.600.050.0020.12680.00470.017840.0002619485121.14.21141.6
ZKYO-15-5-4932.440.90.790.04970.00380.3030.0220.043730.0008222014026817275.85.1
ZKYO-15-5-501633240.500.116260.000824.40.120.26590.0063189813170622151832
ZKYO-15-5-51135.42880.470.119820.000795.6460.0570.34170.003219531219228.8189416
ZKYO-15-5-522957420.400.04820.00130.1390.00410.020970.000211155131.93.7133.81.3
ZKYO-15-5-5375.71210.630.1110.0140.860.130.05020.0016152020056560315.69.7
ZKYO-15-5-5459.25630.110.117850.000555.0840.0570.31520.00331923.18.41832.99.6176516
ZKYO-15-5-55273.47360.370.05010.00120.14830.00360.021450.000219651140.23.2136.81.3
ZKYO-15-5-5642.21980.210.1570.00158.780.180.40720.0057242116231019220426
ZKYO-15-5-57153.31880.820.05540.00210.5680.0240.07410.00164469345715460.89.4
ZKYO-15-5-58145102.41.420.11510.00145.6020.0810.35630.0035188022191412196417
ZKYO-15-5-5950.5101.10.500.04980.00290.15960.00920.02330.000352001101518.1148.52.2
ZKYO-15-5-6010.5920.10.530.09960.00283.440.120.25830.0062159852150728148232
ZKYO-15-8-1106.71920.560.08660.00590.550.0420.045090.00081120014043628284.25
ZKYO-15-8-261.172.40.840.10270.00184.1620.0760.2950.0022167134166415166611
ZKYO-15-8-3136.2175.50.780.112780.000965.2470.0480.33840.00221846161859.37.8187810
ZKYO-15-8-499.480.61.230.15810.001410.320.0930.47770.0032437152463.78.5251713
ZKYO-15-8-52812920.960.05580.00120.5650.0120.073970.0007242248454.384604.3
ZKYO-15-8-620.7729.40.710.11510.00225.2840.0990.33750.0033187433186416187416
ZKYO-15-8-7108.8106.11.030.0530.00230.3070.0130.042270.000553239027210266.83.4
ZKYO-15-8-8109.8177.90.620.11270.00114.880.0540.31820.00211842171798.49.1178010
ZKYO-15-8-962.277.60.800.0990.0110.3460.0450.024250.00057139022028631154.53.6
ZKYO-15-8-1051.693.60.550.15220.00158.5330.0880.40660.00282371172291.29.3219913
ZKYO-15-8-1172.7118.80.610.0520.00250.3190.0150.04460.00062639728011281.33.7
ZKYO-15-8-12291237.71.220.104110.000884.430.0370.31190.00171696161717.96.81749.78.2
ZKYO-15-8-1369.5102.60.680.05410.00230.3550.0150.048350.000693498730811304.44.2
ZKYO-15-8-141051200.880.13740.0027.080.280.3690.011218825212038202652
ZKYO-15-8-15113.32430.470.05740.00140.5750.0140.073290.0008152651462.29455.94.9
ZKYO-15-8-1672270.10.270.05620.00130.5650.0130.073690.0008644751454.38.2458.35.1
ZKYO-15-8-17115.2132.40.870.05680.00260.3250.0150.041870.000754549428511264.34.7
ZKYO-15-8-181852130.870.0540.00170.31090.00950.041860.0004534967275.57.6264.32.8
ZKYO-15-8-1975.3118.10.640.05520.00190.5540.0180.073580.000733817444712457.64.4
ZKYO-15-8-2090.81410.640.05320.00190.3630.0120.049660.000736576314.19.1312.44.3
ZKYO-15-8-2198.31750.560.10880.00114.7290.0430.31840.00171778191771.67.71781.78.5
ZKYO-15-8-2224.3630.390.11020.00174.9030.0730.32920.0024179729180412183412
ZKYO-15-8-233124440.700.05780.00110.5250.0130.06720.001451840427.58.4418.98.2
ZKYO-15-8-24781940.400.04960.00260.15410.0080.022950.00035160100145.57146.32.2
ZKYO-15-8-25158.95140.310.05420.00110.32060.00720.043240.0007437145283.15.5272.94.6
ZKYO-15-8-266888.80.770.1360.0170.5220.0810.026730.000841890210397481705.3
ZKYO-15-8-27165.2154.41.070.11180.00115.030.0560.32830.00231835191823.19.4183011
ZKYO-15-8-283062371.290.115150.000975.3820.0480.3420.00151885151881.27.618967.4
ZKYO-15-8-293628580.420.05370.000760.29940.00430.040850.0004636333266.13.5258.12.8
ZKYO-15-8-30167.32580.650.0530.00190.3210.0120.044520.0005330378282.59.1280.83.3
ZKYO-15-8-31151144.71.040.10820.00234.510.20.29250.0076175338171731165137
ZKYO-15-8-3286.1144.10.600.11320.00115.3710.0630.34490.003185418188110191014
ZKYO-15-8-3348.75100.100.0540.0010.30170.00770.041090.0009836242267.85.9259.56.1
ZKYO-15-8-34881930.460.05190.00240.260.0120.035950.00095280100233.69.8227.65.9
ZKYO-15-8-351733390.510.05280.00120.33150.00770.045630.0004331549290.25.8287.62.7
ZKYO-15-8-3658.41110.530.05330.00240.3350.0150.046330.00062999129211291.93.7
ZKYO-15-8-3720211800.170.06080.0020.3310.0150.039290.000816207329012248.45
ZKYO-15-8-381653240.510.05590.00220.5460.0230.070740.000984278644115440.65.9
ZKYO-15-8-3951.890.60.570.05470.00260.30.0140.040970.000583449626911258.83.6
ZKYO-15-8-4029.4931.130.950.15640.00269.120.180.42780.0047240828234818229722
ZKYO-15-8-412823520.800.05290.00150.3290.010.044930.0004233165290.17.8283.32.6
ZKYO-15-8-42120.9125.50.960.10690.00184.4290.0850.30020.0033174631171716169216
ZKYO-15-8-4399.32890.340.05820.00150.540.0140.067120.0006953955437.59.1418.74.2
ZKYO-15-8-44173.44110.420.05420.00120.34210.00880.045940.000638352299.66.5289.53.7
ZKYO-15-8-45250.26250.400.055750.000850.5280.0110.069270.0009244833430.47.6431.75.6
ZKYO-15-8-461272090.610.06640.00630.4920.0630.05180.001158011037526325.56.8
ZKYO-15-8-4777.22390.320.0510.00170.3180.0120.044320.0009824271279.29.2279.56
ZKYO-15-8-482915100.570.152340.000947.210.120.34050.0054237311213515188826
ZKYO-15-8-4992.21670.550.05330.0020.3360.0130.045040.0006831576295102844.2
ZKYO-15-8-5060.275.90.790.06140.00480.4230.0320.049820.00082560160357233145.2
ZKYO-15-8-5183.81860.450.110950.000954.8180.0430.31250.0021814161788.87.71752.69.7
ZKYO-15-8-5243.92930.150.05770.00140.4950.0150.060.00135045240810375.57.9
ZKYO-15-8-531092970.370.05860.00120.670.0150.081640.0006655044520.29505.93.9
ZKYO-15-8-5443.880.70.540.1560.0038.860.30.40470.0082240534231832218738
ZKYO-15-8-55203.6303.60.670.05940.00130.4810.0140.05850.001658148399.49.836710
ZKYO-15-8-566588700.760.053580.000840.2850.00480.038220.0003534335254.83.9241.82.2
ZKYO-15-8-572852711.050.05480.00220.2520.0170.03370.0021371852271421413
ZKYO-15-8-584137130.580.054880.000980.44970.0080.058730.0003941339376.75.6367.92.4
ZKYO-15-8-5979.5182.80.430.06140.00270.3670.0160.04310.00116159631612271.76.9
ZKYO-15-8-601983810.520.05640.00120.550.0120.070190.0008745446445.38.1437.25.2
ZKY2024-1-3-155.2136.90.400.04990.00180.3180.0120.045080.0005220176280.69.2284.23.2
ZKY2024-1-3-214.7911.431.290.08930.0061.3450.0920.10850.003114601308764066318
ZKY2024-1-3-392.572.21.280.15580.00178.340.140.39270.0055240719226715213426
ZKY2024-1-3-42253900.580.153120.000769.1890.0610.43560.00222381.18.52357.16.22330.89.9
ZKY2024-1-3-554.763.80.860.11380.00145.3410.0750.34170.0028185823187612189513
ZKY2024-1-3-6179.4206.50.870.16750.001211.140.0780.48340.00242534122534.96.4254411
ZKY2024-1-3-7109.780.51.360.12040.00145.9260.070.35810.0032196320196310197315
ZKY2024-1-3-854.883.20.660.16510.001510.770.130.46970.0038251115250211248317
ZKY2024-1-3-960.9471.300.16180.001910.150.140.45610.0034247220244813242215
ZKY2024-1-3-10155.4176.80.880.16150.00119.9140.0710.44630.00192471112426.26.62378.68.3
ZKY2024-1-3-111413510.400.098520.000892.8360.0550.20930.0036159517136514122619
ZKY2024-1-3-122174180.520.05170.00120.32480.00730.045470.0004426551286.35.6286.62.7
ZKY2024-1-3-13114.2170.10.670.17080.001211.6270.0780.49440.00252567112574.26.3259011
ZKY2024-1-3-145075930.850.11730.000465.7330.0370.35480.0021191571935.85.61957.19.8
ZKY2024-1-3-15106.2172.70.610.16260.001310.0140.0770.44590.00212481142435.37.12376.99.2
ZKY2024-1-3-161731900.910.15570.00119.520.130.44450.0054240912238813237225
ZKY2024-1-3-176216950.890.12440.00134.590.120.26690.0053201919174223152327
ZKY2024-1-3-1885.5123.80.690.11940.00135.8820.0550.35480.00181948181957.68.11957.38.5
ZKY2024-1-3-1966.858.41.140.15450.00199.770.140.45730.0047240122241113242721
ZKY2024-1-3-20106.278.41.350.11250.00184.9240.0850.32150.0036184228180815179917
ZKY2024-1-3-2129.434.50.850.1110.00245.260.120.34420.0044180740186119190821
ZKY2024-1-3-22124.91340.930.16750.001111.2680.0820.48540.00252533122544.86.8255211
ZKY2024-1-3-2361.687.70.700.15860.001810.110.130.46060.0034243719244411244315
ZKY2024-1-3-24113.827.374.160.17220.002711.40.210.47550.0063258525255517250827
ZKY2024-1-3-252745260.520.166310.0008910.9190.0810.47270.00332520.292516.66.8249515
ZKY2024-1-3-2627.2121.30.220.05370.00240.340.0140.045880.000563138729410289.23.4
ZKY2024-1-3-2764.772.10.900.11290.00185.1580.0830.33250.0028183829184314185114
ZKY2024-1-3-289288.11.040.15810.00669.650.710.4270.013240769236362228656
ZKY2024-1-3-298862.91.400.1110.00174.5130.0910.3030.0045181129173616170522
ZKY2024-1-3-302615760.450.05220.00120.3330.00910.046450.0007728248291.16.9292.74.8
ZKY2024-1-3-3198.196.81.010.16420.001410.5110.090.4640.00252499152480.88245711
ZKY2024-1-3-32185.9216.90.860.166880.0009611.2750.0730.4890.00262526.69.62547.35.9256811
ZKY2024-1-3-3325.319.071.330.1130.00344.950.160.32250.0035184554181226180117
ZKY2024-1-3-34212.83100.690.167160.0008311.0870.0740.48180.00272529.68.32529.96.2253612
ZKY2024-1-3-357216561.100.112960.000595.0260.0450.32250.00231846.69.51823.57.5180111
ZKY2024-1-3-36214.82081.030.166570.0009311.1920.090.48720.00312522.69.42539.87.7255814
ZKY2024-1-3-378198280.990.05490.00150.3410.00790.045270.000535045297.45.8285.43.1
ZKY2024-1-3-3817.741.10.430.16170.001810.530.210.47110.0071247219248219248631
ZKY2024-1-3-39211.53080.690.05260.00140.36440.0090.050010.0003830256314.86.6314.62.3
ZKY2024-1-3-40116.8182.60.640.16090.001110.0110.0870.45150.00282464112435.58240212
ZKY2024-1-3-411603060.520.166060.0008111.650.160.50840.00662520.18.3257413264828
ZKY2024-1-3-42911140.800.16870.0013120.160.51550.0062254313260412267826
ZKY2024-1-3-4361.6121.40.510.12070.00145.9620.0740.35970.0028196520197111198114
ZKY2024-1-3-44112.192.11.220.11250.00145.2220.0690.33430.00218392318541118599.6
ZKY2024-1-3-452362660.890.134390.000837.8540.0610.42240.00242156112213.87227111
ZKY2024-1-3-4679.4184.90.430.16390.00110.9320.0940.48530.00352496112519.17.9255015
ZKY2024-1-3-4723.3726.40.890.11450.00225.3480.0970.34050.0037186735187616188817
ZKY2024-1-3-48100.11980.510.164180.0009811.2740.0810.49930.00292500102546.16.8261112
ZKY2024-1-3-491843190.580.05630.00180.3560.0130.046080.0004744069309.39.5290.42.9
ZKY2024-1-3-504754061.170.05270.00110.36410.00770.050260.000430147314.85.7316.12.5
ZKY2024-1-3-51652790.230.11380.000715.540.0460.35410.00241861111906.17.2195411
ZKY2024-1-3-521297190.180.052280.000890.30640.00520.042990.0003528738271.24271.32.1
ZKY2024-1-3-53127.52270.560.05350.00150.3980.0120.054890.0007935062341.38.3344.44.8
ZKY2024-1-3-5478711.100.14180.00167.9210.0840.40320.00252249202221.59.6218312
ZKY2024-1-3-55104129.40.800.11880.00115.910.0550.36070.0021939171961.88.11985.39.5
ZKY2024-1-3-56107.2106.41.010.05540.00270.3820.0180.05040.000723899532912316.94.4
ZKY2024-1-3-5730.341.10.740.14880.00239.190.160.44860.0045232526235816238820
ZKY2024-1-3-582504110.610.162890.0009311.920.110.52950.00372485.89.52598.48.4273916
ZKY2024-1-3-594459.80.740.16520.001810.740.120.47130.0036250618250111248916
ZKY2024-1-3-6056.291.20.620.16340.001310.480.10.46690.00332491142477.19.2247015

References

  1. Huang, Y.Q.; Wu, M.Q.; Yang, J.W.; Teng, X.M.; Ao, C.; Bishikwabo, G.K.; Qiu, K.F. Sedimentary and ore-forming characteristics of uranium mineralization in the Shizigou formation from the Southwest Qaidam Basin, Northwest China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 179, 106534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, C.; Wang, S.B.; Yu, R.A.; Cheng, Y.H.; Tu, J.R.; Ao, C.; Teng, X.M.; Feng, P.; Yu, H. Occurrence of uranium minerals in the Xiaomeigou Formation in northern Qaidam Basin, Northwest China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2022, 142, 104692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jin, R.S.; Liu, H.J.; Li, X.G. Theoretical system of sandstone-type uranium deposits in Northern China. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jin, R.S.; Teng, X.M. Large scale sandstone-type uranium mineralization in northern China. North China Geol. 2022, 45, 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cheng, Y.H.; Jin, R.S.; Cuney, M.; Petrov, V.A.; Miao, P.S. The strata constraint on large scale sandstone-type uranium mineralization in Meso-Cenozoic basins, northern China. Acta Geol. Sin. 2024, 98, 1953–1976. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonnetti, C.; Liu, X.D.; Zhaobin, Y.; Cuney, M.; Michels, R.; Malartre, F.; Mercadier, J.; Cai, J.F. Coupled uranium mineralisation and bacterial sulphate reduction for the genesis of the Baxingtu sandstone-hosted U deposit, SW Songliao Basin, NE China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2017, 82, 108–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, Y.H.; Wang, S.Y.; Zhang, T.F.; Teng, X.M.; Ao, C.; Jin, R.S.; Li, H.L. Regional sandstone-type uranium mineralization rooted in Oligo–Miocene tectonic inversion in the Songliao Basin, NE China. Gondwana Res. 2020, 88, 88–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Akhtar, S.; Yang, X.Y.; Pirajno, F. Sandstone type uranium deposits in the Ordos Basin, Northwest China: A case study and an overview. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2017, 146, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jin, R.S.; Teng, X.M.; Li, X.G.; Si, Q.H.; Wang, W. Genesis of sandstone-type uranium deposits along the northern margin of the Ordos Basin, China. Geosci. Front. 2020, 11, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ao, C.; Teng, X.M.; Wei, X.B.; Lei, T.; Wang, D.; Yang, J. Geochemistry of Mudstones/Silty Mudstones from the Qigequan Formation and Shizigou Formation in Yuejin-II Area, Southwestern Area of the Qaidam Basin: Implications for sedimentary environment and sandstone-type uranium mineralization. Minerals 2022, 12, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bonnetti, C.; Cuney, M.; Malartre, F.; Michels, R.; Liu, X.D.; Peng, Y.B. The Nuheting deposit, Erlian Basin, NE China: Synsedimentary to diagenetic uranium mineralization. Ore Geol. Rev. 2015, 69, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nie, F.J.; Yan, Z.B.; Feng, Z.B.; Li, M.G.; Xia, F.; Zhang, C.Y.; Wang, Y.G.; Yang, J.X.; Kang, S.H.; Shen, K.F. Genetic models and exploration implication of the paleochannel sandstone-type uranium deposits in the Erlian Basin, North China—A review and comparative study. Ore Geol. Rev. 2020, 127, 103821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Z.Y.; Chen, D.S.; Gu, K.H.; Wang, Y.J. The regional distribution regularities of ore-hosting horizon, deposit type and mineralization age of China’s sandstone-hosted uranium deposits. Uranium Geol. 2010, 26, 321–330. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun, D.; Xia, F.; Meng, F.M.; Nie, F.J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.W.; Wang, Q. Petrology of the Sandstone-Type Uranium Target Layer and Its Uranium Existence Form in the Telaaobao Mineral Area, Ordos Basin. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 912–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wen, S.B.; Zhu, Q.; Cheng, Y.H. Metallogenic epoch of sandstone type uranium deposits in the Ordos Basin and the temporal and spatial regularity of uranium enrichment. North China Geol. 2023, 46, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheng, Y.H.; Jin, R.S.; Miao, P.S.; Wang, S.Y.; Teng, X.M. Two metallogenic models of sedimentary-hosted uranium deposit: Jingchuan and Tale types. Earth Sci. 2025, 50, 46–57. [Google Scholar]
  17. Peng, Y.B.; Chen, A.P.; Li, Z.Y.; Fang, X.H.; Ou, G.X. A discussion on special features of the Dongsheng sandstone type uranium deposit in Ordos Basin. Mineral. Depos. 2006, 25, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jiao, Y.Q.; Chen, A.P.; Wang, M.F.; Wu, L.Q.; Yuan, H.T.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, C.Z.; Xu, Z.C. Genetic analysis of the bottom sandstone of Zhiluo formation, Northeastern Ordos Basin: Predictive base of spatial orientation of sandstone-type uranium deposit. Acta Sedimentol. Sin. 2005, 23, 371–379. [Google Scholar]
  19. Miao, P.S.; Jin, R.S.; Li, J.G.; Zhao, H.L.; Chen, L.L.; Chen, Y.; Si, Q.H. The First Discovery of a Large Sandstone-type Uranium Deposit in Aeolian Depositional Environment. Acta Geol. Sin. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 94, 583–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mao, N.; Wu, Z.Q.; Liu, K.P.; Yu, H.W.; Wang, K.; Wang, Q.H. Geochemical characteristics and metallogenic exploration of uranium deposits in sandstones of Lower Cretaceous Huanhe formation in Zhenyuan area, Ordos basin. China Manganese Ind. 2022, 40, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sun, D.; Li, H.M.; Xia, F.; Nie, F.J.; Huang, G.W.; Zhang, Z.B.; Meng, F.M.; Pan, J.Y.; Hu, Y.J. Provenance and tectonic setting of the lower cretaceous Huanhe formation in the Northwestern Ordos Basin and its implications for uranium mineralization. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 3324–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wu, Z.Q.; Hu, Y.X.; Liu, K.P.; Wang, X.P.; Liu, C.H.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L.; Pan, J.Y.; Mao, N.; Wang, Q.H. Basic feature of mineralization host rocks and its relation to uranium metallogenesis in Zhenyuan, southern Ordos Basin. Uranium Geol. 2023, 39, 960–969. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, X.; Che, J.F.; Nie, F.J.; Miao, A.S.; Yan, Z.B.; Zhang, C.Y.; Hu, Y.J. Provenance and Uranium Sources in the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation of Northern Ordos Basin: Constraints from Detrital Zircon U–Pb Geochronology and Hf Isotopes. Minerals 2025, 15, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luo, X.N.; Li, Z.Y.; Cai, Y.Q.; Yi, C.; Zhang, Z.L.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y. Provenance and tectonic setting of lower cretaceous huanhe formation sandstones, northwest Ordos Basin, north-central China. Minerals 2021, 11, 1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Z.C.; Li, H.M.; Yan, P.B.; Li, L.; Wang, L.H. Characteristics and ore-controlling factors of uranium mineralization in Telaaobao Area, Northern Ordos Basin. Uranium Geol. 2024, 40, 899–910. [Google Scholar]
  26. Deng, J.; Wang, Q.F.; Gao, B.F.; Huang, D.H.; Yang, L.Q.; Xu, H.; Zhou, Y.H. Evolution of Ordos Basin and its distribution of various energy resources. Geoscience 2005, 19, 538–545. [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu, C.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, D.D.; Zhao, H.G.; Zhao, J.F.; Huang, L.; Wang, W.Q.; Qin, Y. Genesis of rich hydrocarbon resources and their occurrence and accumulation characteristics in the Ordos Basin. Oil Gas. Geol. 2021, 42, 1011–1029. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, R.X.; Li, Y.Z. The geologic features of mineralization at the Dongsheng uranium deposit in the northern Ordos Basin (Central China). Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2011, 52, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yu, R.A.; Jin, R.S.; Li, T.; Yang, T.X.; Zhu, Q.; Tang, Y.X. Analysis of Metallogenic Condition and Key Ore-Controlling Factor of Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Deposits in the Ordos Basin. Acta Geosci. Sin. 2023, 44, 689–706. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Z.Y.; Fang, X.H.; Qin, M.K.B. Sandstone-Hosted Uranium Metallogeny in North Ordos Basin, 1st ed.; Geological Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 4–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhu, Q.; Li, J.G.; Wen, S.B.; Li, G.Y.; Yu, R.A.; Miao, P.S.; Zhang, B. Alteration, uranium occurrence state, and enrichment mechanism of the Cretaceous Luohe Formation, southwestern Ordos Basin, western China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2021, 139, 104486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, Y.; Miao, P.S.; Li, J.G.; Jin, R.S.; Zhao, H.L.; Chen, L.L.; Wang, C.; Yu, H.Y.; Zhang, X.R. Association of sandstone-type uranium mineralization in the Northern China with tectonic movements and hydrocarbons. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, L.; Liu, C.Y.; Lei, K.Y. Green altered sandstone related to hydrocarbon migration from the uranium deposits in the northern Ordos Basin, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2019, 109, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shi, W.; Dong, S.W.; Hu, J.M. Neotectonics around the Ordos Block, North China: A review and new insights. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 200, 102969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, A.Q.; Zou, H.; Ogg, J.G.; Yang, S.; Hou, M.C.; Jiang, X.W.; Xu, S.L.; Zhang, X.X. Source-to-sink of Late carboniferous Ordos Basin: Constraints on crustal accretion margins converting to orogenic belts bounding the North China Block. Geosci. Front. 2020, 11, 2031–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, L.H.; Yan, P.B.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Wu, L.Q.; Zhang, Z.L.; Rong, H.; Zhang, F.; Li, Z.C.; Zhong, W.H. Uranium metallogenic model of the Lower Cretaceous in the northern Ordos Basin. Bull. Geol. Sci. Technol. 2023, 42, 222–233. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, G.; Liu, B.; Bai, Y.M.; Wang, L.H.; Li, H.M.; Lu, S.S. Geological characteristics and metallogenic mechanism of Lower Cretaceous uranium mineralization in northern Ordos basin. World Nucl. Geosci. 2025, 42, 485–503. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yu, R.A.; Zhu, Q.; Wen, S.B.; Tu, J.R.; Peng, S.L.; Si, Q.H.; Tang, Y.X. Tectonic setting and provenance analysis of Zhiluo Formation sandstone of Tarangaole area in the Ordos Basin. Earth Sci. 2020, 45, 829–843. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhong, W.H.; Wu, L.Q.; Wang, L.H.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Zhang, F.; Yue, L.; Xiang, Y.; Zheng, Y.H. The distinctiveness of carbonaceous debris in uranium reservoirs under arid sedimentary backgrounds and its implication for uranium mineralization: A case study of northern Ordos Basin. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 179, 106526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Paton, C.; Hellstrom, J.; Paul, B.; Woodhead, J.; Hergt, J. Iolite: Freeware for the visualisation and processing of mass spectrometric data. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2011, 26, 2508–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Corfu, F.; Hanchar, J.M.; Hoskin, P.W.O.; Kinny, P. Atlas of zircon textures. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2003, 53, 469–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Black, L.P.; Kamo, S.L.; Williams, I.S.; Mundil, R.; Davis, D.W.; Korsch, R.J.; Foudoulis, C. The application of SHRIMP to Phanerozoic geochronology; a critical appraisal of four zircon standards. Chem. Geol. 2003, 200, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, Y.J.; Jing, W.B.; Song, X.Y.; He, B.B.; Wu, H.M.; Wang, R.; Xie, S.J.; Song, K.H.; Ma, Q. Geochemical characteristics and paleoenvironmental significance of Upper Carboniferous sedimentary strata in Malang Sag, Santanghu Basin. Lithol. Reserv. 2021, 33, 63–75. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jones, B.; Manning, D.A.C. Comparison of geochemical indices used for the interpretation of palaeoredox conditions in ancient mudstones. Chem. Geol. 1994, 111, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, T.F.; Sun, L.X.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, Y.H.; Li, Y.F.; Ma, H.L.; Lu, C.; Yang, C.; Guo, G.W. Geochemical characteristics of the Jurassic Yan’an and Zhiluo Formations in the northern margin of Ordos Basin and their paleoenvironmental implications. Acta Geol. Sin. 2016, 90, 3454–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sun, S.S.; McDonough, W.F. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts: Implications for mantle composition and processes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1989, 42, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, W.J.; Li, L.; Geng, M.S. Petrology and dating of Neo-Archean intrusive rocks from Guyang area, Inner Mongolia. Earth Sci. 2000, 25, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, J.H.; Liu, F.L.; Ding, Z.J.; Chen, J.Q.; Liu, P.H.; Shi, J.R.; Cai, J.; Wang, F. Zircon U-Pb chronology, geochemistry and their petrogenesis of Early Paleoproterozoic granitoid gneisses in Ulashan area, North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 485–500. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhong, C.T.; Deng, J.F.; Wan, Y.S.; Mao, D.B.; Li, H.M. Magma recording of Paleoproterozoic orogeny in central segment of northern margin of North China Craton: Geochemical characteristics and zircon SHRIMP dating of S-type granitoids. Geochimica 2007, 36, 585–600. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mo, N.; Guo, L.; Tong, Y.; Wang, T.; Liu, J.; Li, J.B. Geochronology, geochemistry, Hf isotope of Xiaojinggou Pluton in the northern margin of North China Craton and its tectonic implications. Acta Entiarum Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2014, 50, 1021–1034. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, P.H.; Liu, F.L.; Cai, J.; Liu, J.H.; Shi, J.R.; Wang, F. Geochronological and geochemical study of the Lijiazi mafic granulites from the Daqingshan-Wulashan metamorphic complex, the central Khondalite Belt in the North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 462–484. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhang, W.; Jian, P. SHRIMP dating of Early Paleozoic granites from north Damaoqi, Inner Mongolia. Acta Geol. Sin. 2008, 82, 778–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ma, M.Z.; Dong, C.Y.; Xu, Z.Y.; Xie, S.W.; Liu, D.Y.; Wan, Y.S. Anatexis of Early Paleoproterozoic garnet-biotite gneisses (Daqingshan supracrustal rocks) in Daqingshan, Inner Mongolia: Geology, zircon geochronology and geochemistry. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2015, 31, 1535–1548. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhao, Q.Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Wu, X.W.; Chen, X.F. Characteristics and origin of Halaheshao pluton in Daqingshan region, Inner Mongolia. J. Mineral. Petrol. 2007, 27, 46–51. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, W.; Jian, P. SHRIMP dating of the Permian Guyang diorite-quartz diorite-tonalite suite in the northern margin of the North China Craton. Geol. China 2012, 39, 1593–1603. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zeng, J.J.; Zheng, Y.Y.; Qi, J.H.; Dai, F.H.; Zhang, G.Y.; Pang, Y.C.; Wu, B. Foundation and geological significance of adakitic granite at Guyang of Inner Mongolia. Earth Sci. 2008, 33, 755–763. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hou, W.R.; Nie, F.J.; Hu, J.M.; Liu, Y.F.; Xiao, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, K. Geochronology and geochemistry of Shadegai granites in Wulashan area, Inner Mongolia and its geological significance. J. Jilin Univ. (Earth Sci. Ed.) 2011, 41, 1914–1927. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, W.Q.; Xu, Z.Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Zhao, Q.Y.; Jiang, X.J. Early-Middle Permian tectonic evolution of the central-northern margin of the North China Craton: Constraints from zircon U-Pb ages and geochemistry of the granitoids. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 2987–3003. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhang, Y.M.; Zhang, H.F.; Liu, W.C.; Zhou, Z.G. Timing and petrogenesis of the Damiao granodiorite, Siziwangqi, Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2009, 25, 3165–3181. [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu, C.F.; Yang, S.S.; Wu, J.W.; Zhang, H.F. Dating and petrogenesis of Late Permian–Early Triassic peraluminous granites in the Siziwangqi area, Inner Mongolia. Acta Geol. Sin. 2010, 84, 1002–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, C.; Han, B.F.; Liu, S.W.; Ji, J.Q.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, L. SHRIMP U-Pb dating of biotite granites in Daqingshan, Inner Mongolia, and its significance. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2009, 25, 561–567. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, Y.Q.; Wang, T.; Jia, H.Y.; Zhang, Z.X. U-Pb Ages of zircons from the Xi Ulanbulang hypersthene-plagioclase granulite in the North Daqing Mountains, Central Inner Mongolia. Geol. China 2003, 30, 394–399. [Google Scholar]
  63. Luo, H.L.; Wu, T.R.; Li, Y. Geochemistry and SHRIMP dating of the Kebu massif from Wulatezhongqi, Inner Mongolia: Evidence for the Early Permian underplating beneath the North China Craton. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 755–766. [Google Scholar]
  64. Roser, B.P.; Korsch, R.J. Provenance signatures of sandstone-mudstone suites determined using discriminant function analysis of major-element data. Chem. Geol. 1988, 67, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nesbitt, H.W.; Young, G.M. Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites. Nature 1982, 299, 715–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fedo, C.M.; Wayne Nesbitt, H.; Young, G.M. Unraveling the effects of potassium metasomatism in sedimentary rocks and paleosols, with implications for paleoweathering conditions and provenance. Geology 1995, 23, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, X.T.; Shao, L.Y. Limiting factors in utilization of chemical index of alteration of mudstones to quantify the degree of weathering in provenance. J. Palaeogeogr. 2018, 20, 515–522. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cox, R.; Lowe, D.R.; Cullers, R.L. The influence of sediment recycling and basement composition on evolution of mudrock chemistry in the southwestern United States. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 2919–2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cullers, R.L.; Podkovyrov, V.N. Geochemistry of the Mesoproterozoic Lakhanda shales in southeastern Yakutia, Russia: Implications for mineralogical and provenance control, and recycling. Precambrian Res. 2000, 104, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liu, D.Y.; Nutman, A.P.; Compston, W.; Wu, J.S.; Shen, Q.H. Remnants of ≥3800 Ma crust in the Chinese part of the Sino-Korean craton. Geology 1992, 20, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhai, M.G.; Santosh, M. The early Precambrian odyssey of the North China Craton: A synoptic overview. Gondwana Res. 2011, 20, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhao, G.C.; Cawood, P.A.; Wilde, S.A.; Sun, M. Review of global 2.1–1.8 Ga orogens: Implications for a pre-Rodinia supercontinent. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2002, 59, 125–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lei, K.Y.; Liu, C.Y.; Zhang, L.; Wu, B.L.; Wang, J.Q.; Cun, X.N.; Sun, L. Detrital zircon U-Pb dating of Middle-Late Mesozoic strata in the northern Ordos Basin: Implications for tracing sediment sources. Acta Geol. Sin. 2017, 91, 1522–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhao, G.C.; Wilde, S.A.; Cawood, P.A.; Lu, L.Z. Tectonothermal history of the basement rocks in the western zone of the North China Craton and its tectonic implications. Tectonophysics 1999, 310, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jian, P.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, D.Y.; Jin, W.J.; Jia, X.Q.; Qian, Q. SHRIMP dating and geological significance of Late Achaean high-Mg diorite (sanukite) and hornblende-granite at Guyang of Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2005, 21, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  76. Dong, X.J.; Xu, Z.Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Sha, Q. 2.7 Ga granitic gneiss in the Northern Foot of Daqingshan Mountain, Central Inner Mongolia, and its geological implications. Earth Sci. 2012, 37, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  77. Liu, S.W.; Pan, Y.M.; Li, J.H.; Li, Q.G.; Zhang, J. Geological and isotopic geochemical constraints on the evolution of the Fuping Complex, North China Craton. Precambrian Res. 2002, 117, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sun, M.; Guan, H. Zircon U-Pb ages of the Fuping Complex and their implications: Some comments on the geochronological study of the Precambrian high-grade metamorphic terranes. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2001, 17, 145–156. [Google Scholar]
  79. Dong, C.Y.; Wan, Y.S.; Xu, Z.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Yang, Z.S.; Ma, M.Z.; Xie, H.Q. SHRIMP zircon U-Pb dating of late Paleoproterozoic kondalites in the Daqing Mountains area on the North China Craton. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2012, 42, 1851–1862. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang, H.C.; Yuan, G.B.; Xin, H.T. U–Pb single zircon ages for granulites in Cunkongshan area, Guyang Inner Mongolia and enlightenment for it’s geological signification, China. Prog. Precambrian Res. 2001, 24, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  81. Dong, C.Y.; Liu, D.Y.; Li, J.J.; Wang, Y.S.; Zhou, H.Y.; Li, C.D.; Yang, Y.H.; Xie, L.W. Palaeoproterozoic Khondalite Belt in the western North China Craton: New evidence from SHRIMP dating and Hf isotope composition of zircons from metamorphic rocks in the Bayan Ul-Helan Mountains area. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2007, 52, 2984–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xia, X.P.; Sun, M.; Zhao, G.C.; Luo, Y. LA-ICP-MS U–Pb geochronology of detrital zircons from the Jining Complex, North China Craton and its tectonic significance. Precambrian Res. 2006, 144, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, J.; Li, Y.; Ling, M.X.; Sun, W.D. Chronology and geological significance of the basement rock of the giant Bayan Obo REE-Nb-Fe ore deposit. Geochimica 2011, 40, 209–222. [Google Scholar]
  84. Fan, H.R.; Yang, K.F.; Hu, F.F.; Wang, K.Y.; Zhai, M.G. Zircon geochronology of basement rocks from the Bayan Obo area, Inner Mongolia, and tectonic implications. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2010, 26, 1342–1350. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ma, M.Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, H.Q.; Wan, Y.S. SHRIMP U-Pb dating and LA-ICPMS Hf isotope analysis of detrital zircons from medium-to coarse-grained sandstones of the Bayan Obo Group and Sailinhudong Group and its geological significances. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2014, 30, 2973–2988. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang, M.; Luo, J.L.; Li, M.; Bai, X.J.; Cheng, C.; Yan, L.W. Provenance and tectonic setting of sandstone-type uranium deposit in Dongsheng area, Ordos basin: Evidence from U-Pb age and Hf isotopes of detrital zircons. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2013, 29, 2746–2758. [Google Scholar]
  87. Peng, R.M.; Zhai, Y.S.; Han, X.F.; Wang, Z.G.; Wang, J.P.; Shen, C.L.; Chen, X.F. Mineralization response to the structural evolution in the Langshan orogenic belt, Inner Mongolia. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2007, 23, 679–688. [Google Scholar]
  88. Chen, B.; Zhao, G.C.; Simon, W. Subduction-and collision-related granitoids from southern Sonidzuoqi, Inner Mongolia: Isotopic ages and tectonic implications. Geol. Rev. 2001, 47, 361–367. [Google Scholar]
  89. Peiffert, C.; Cuney, M. Uranium in granitic magmas: Part 2. Experimental determination of uranium solubility and fluid-melt partition coefficients in the uranium oxide-haplogranite-H2O-NaX (X = Cl, F) system at 770 °C, 2 kbar. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1996, 60, 1515–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, X.; Griffin, W.L.; Chen, J.; Huang, P.Y.; Li, X. U and Th contents and Th/U ratios of zircon in felsic and mafic magmatic rocks: Improved zircon-melt distribution coefficients. Acta Geol. Sin. Ed. 2011, 85, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, S.C.; Liu, P.; Zhang, B.J. Thorium resources and their availability. World Nucl. Geosci. 2005, 22, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, W.; Liu, C.; Wang, J.Q.; Ma, H.H.; Guan, Y.Z. Characteristics of uranium content and its geological and mineralization significance for the provenance areas, northern northwest China. Earth Sci. Front. 2019, 26, 292–303. [Google Scholar]
  93. Dill, H.G.; Weber, B.; Klosa, D. Morphology and mineral chemistry of monazite–zircon-bearing stream sediments of continental placer deposits (SE Germany): Ore guide and provenance marker. J. Geochem. Explor. 2012, 112, 322–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sun, Y.H.; Wu, L.Q.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Rong, H.; Zhang, F. Alteration and elements migration of detrital zircons from the Daying uranium deposit in the Ordos Basin, China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2021, 139, 104418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sun, C.Y.; Cawood, P.A.; Xu, W.L.; Zhang, X.M.; Tang, J.; Li, Y.; Sun, Z.X.; Xu, T. In situ geochemical composition of apatite in granitoids from the eastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt: A window into petrogenesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2022, 317, 552–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jin, R.S.; Cheng, Y.H.; Li, J.G.; SiMa, X.Z.; Miao, P.S.; Wang, S.Y.; Ao, C.; Li, H.L.; Li, Y.F.; Zhang, T.F. Late Mesozoic continental basin" Red and Black beds" coupling formation constraints on the sandstone uranium mineralization in northern China. Geol. China 2017, 44, 205–223. [Google Scholar]
  97. Li, L.J.; Hu, Z.F.; Guo, W.J.; Xia, H.X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Chen, G.H.; Qiu, M.Q.; Hu, B.W. Recent advances in various adsorbents for the extraction of uranium from saline lakes: A review. J. Mol. Liq. 2024, 395, 123862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Smedley, P.L.; Kinniburgh, D.G. Uranium in natural waters and the environment: Distribution, speciation and impact. Appl. Geochem. 2023, 148, 105534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cheng, Y.H.; Zhang, T.F.; Zeng, W.; Hu, P.; Liu, X.; Yang, J.; Qu, K.; Wang, S.Y.; Cheng, X.Y.; Ao, C.; et al. Driving forces for sandstone-type uranium super-enrichment in Meso-Cenozoic basins, North China. Geotecton. Metallog. 2020, 44, 590–606. [Google Scholar]
  100. Han, X.Z. Advantageous Metallogenic Structure Identification Technology for Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposit. Coal Geol. China 2018, 30, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
  101. Cheng, Y.H.; Petrov, V.; Jin, R.S.; Miao, P.S. Neotectonic controls on large-scale uranium mineralization in the Meso-Cenozioc basins, Northern China. Ore Geol. Rev. 2025, 176, 106393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Minerals 16 00650 g001
Figure 1. (a) Location sketch map of the North China Craton and (b) regional geological map of the Ordos Basin (modified from Yu et al. [29]).
Figure 1. (a) Location sketch map of the North China Craton and (b) regional geological map of the Ordos Basin (modified from Yu et al. [29]).
Minerals 16 00650 g001
Minerals 16 00650 g002
Figure 2. Lithology of strata in the Ordos Basin (Revised by Zhang et al. [23]).
Figure 2. Lithology of strata in the Ordos Basin (Revised by Zhang et al. [23]).
Minerals 16 00650 g002
Minerals 16 00650 g003
Figure 3. Composite columnar diagram of Huanhe Formation from ZKYO-15 and ZKY2024-1 in Hangjinqi area.
Figure 3. Composite columnar diagram of Huanhe Formation from ZKYO-15 and ZKY2024-1 in Hangjinqi area.
Minerals 16 00650 g003
Minerals 16 00650 g004
Figure 4. Geological map of northern Ordos Basin (modified after Wang et al. [37]).
Figure 4. Geological map of northern Ordos Basin (modified after Wang et al. [37]).
Minerals 16 00650 g004
Minerals 16 00650 g005
Figure 5. Core photographs and photomicrographs of sandstones from the Huanhe Formation. Q—quartz; Pl—plagioclase; Lm—metamorphic lithic fragment; Lv—volcanic lithic fragment; Bt—biotite. (a,b) The sandstones of the Huanhe Formation are dominated by quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments. (c) The feldspar is mainly plagioclase, which shows distinct polysynthetic twinning. (d) The quartz is mainly monocrystalline and shows distinct undulatory extinction. (e,f) The lithic fragments are predominantly of volcanic and metamorphic lithic fragments.
Figure 5. Core photographs and photomicrographs of sandstones from the Huanhe Formation. Q—quartz; Pl—plagioclase; Lm—metamorphic lithic fragment; Lv—volcanic lithic fragment; Bt—biotite. (a,b) The sandstones of the Huanhe Formation are dominated by quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments. (c) The feldspar is mainly plagioclase, which shows distinct polysynthetic twinning. (d) The quartz is mainly monocrystalline and shows distinct undulatory extinction. (e,f) The lithic fragments are predominantly of volcanic and metamorphic lithic fragments.
Minerals 16 00650 g005
Minerals 16 00650 g006
Figure 6. CL images of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area.
Figure 6. CL images of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area.
Minerals 16 00650 g006
Minerals 16 00650 g007
Figure 7. Plot of Th/U ratios versus U-Pb ages of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area.
Figure 7. Plot of Th/U ratios versus U-Pb ages of Huanhe Formation sandstones in Hangjinqi area.
Minerals 16 00650 g007
Minerals 16 00650 g014
Figure 14. Schematic diagram showing the provenance and sedimentary environments favorable for uranium enrichment and mineralization in the Huanhe Formation of the Hangjinqi area (revised by Sun et al. [21]).
Figure 14. Schematic diagram showing the provenance and sedimentary environments favorable for uranium enrichment and mineralization in the Huanhe Formation of the Hangjinqi area (revised by Sun et al. [21]).
Minerals 16 00650 g014
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

Li, Z.; Wang, T.; Peng, N.; Jia, J.; Li, S.; Yao, Q. Provenance and Sedimentary Environments of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Enrichment and Mineralization. Minerals 2026, 16, 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16060650

AMA Style

Li Z, Wang T, Peng N, Jia J, Li S, Yao Q. Provenance and Sedimentary Environments of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Enrichment and Mineralization. Minerals. 2026; 16(6):650. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16060650

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zongyan, Tao Wang, Nan Peng, Jianliang Jia, Suping Li, and Qingji Yao. 2026. "Provenance and Sedimentary Environments of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Enrichment and Mineralization" Minerals 16, no. 6: 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16060650

APA Style

Li, Z., Wang, T., Peng, N., Jia, J., Li, S., & Yao, Q. (2026). Provenance and Sedimentary Environments of the Lower Cretaceous Huanhe Formation in the Northern Ordos Basin and Its Implications for Uranium Enrichment and Mineralization. Minerals, 16(6), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16060650

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