The burgeoning global demand for rare earth elements (REEs), driven by rapid technological advancements, has elevated their strategic significance. As a ubiquitous metallic mineral that crystallizes throughout the magmatic and hydrothermal stages, pyrite can potentially record the history of REE enrichment within magmatic–hydrothermal
[...] Read more.
The burgeoning global demand for rare earth elements (REEs), driven by rapid technological advancements, has elevated their strategic significance. As a ubiquitous metallic mineral that crystallizes throughout the magmatic and hydrothermal stages, pyrite can potentially record the history of REE enrichment within magmatic–hydrothermal systems. The Bachu carbonatite-hosted REE deposit in Xinjiang represents a significant rare earth resource base in China. Elucidating its ore-forming mechanism is therefore crucial for understanding regional metallogenesis and guiding future exploration efforts. In this study, pyrite from this deposit is investigated in detail by employing an integrated analytical approach that includes scanning electron microscopy (SEM), electron probe microanalysis (EPMA), laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) trace-element analysis, and in situ sulfur isotope analysis. Based on textural and petrogenetic relationships observed under microscopy, three distinct types of pyrite are identified: (1) pyrite coexisting with hydrothermal minerals such as barite and celestite; (2) pyrite showing evident replacement textures, despite the absence of direct intergrowth with sulfate minerals; and (3) pyrite displaying neither intergrowth nor replacement textures with sulfates. These textural distinctions, combined with variations in Co/Ni ratios, Co-Ni-As ternary plots, and Co/Sb vs. Se/As systematics, enable a clear discrimination between pyrite formed during the magmatic (Py1) and hydrothermal (Py2) stages. Pyrite from the magmatic stage (Py1) is characterized by positive δ
34S values ranging from 0.03‰ to 4.67‰, with a pronounced peak at 1.30‰, which is higher than the mantle δ
34S value (~0‰). This sulfur isotope signature suggests that crustal material was involved in the petrogenesis of the Bachu carbonatite. In contrast, pyrite from the hydrothermal stage (Py2) exhibits a bimodal distribution of δ
34S values. One group, peaking at approximately +0.93‰, indicates a magmatic sulfur source genetically related to Py1. The other group, however, displays distinctly negative values, with a peak around −4.93‰, which may be attributed to sulfur isotope fractionation processes during mineralization. Notably, barite from the hydrothermal stage exhibits consistently positive and elevated δ
34S values, ranging from 10.46‰ to 15.94‰ (average 12.82‰). The contrasting δ
34S values compared to the negative Py2 values manifest a clear “Tower Effect,” strongly suggesting that the extensive precipitation of barite was a primary driver of the negative sulfur isotope values observed in the composition of coexisting hydrothermal pyrite (Py2). The pyrite generations also establish a stage-specific link to REE mineralization: Py1 records the reduced magmatic interval of carbonatite differentiation and primary REE preconcentration, whereas Py2 is associated with the barite–celestine–fluorapatite–monazite assemblage of the REE-rich hydrothermal veins and records the later oxidized fluid overprint. By integrating detailed mineralogical and geochemical evidence, this study successfully distinguishes between magmatic and hydrothermal pyrite populations and provides critical constraints on the sources of ore-forming materials in the Bachu carbonatite-type REE deposit.
Full article