Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T06:51:02.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genesis of the Yarikçi Hydrothermal Clay Deposit Within the Mesozoic Metamorphic Units, Mihaliççik, Eskişehir, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Selahattİn Kadİr*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Engineering, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, TR-26480, Eskişehir, Turkey
Hülya Erkoyun
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Engineering, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, TR-26480, Eskişehir, Turkey
Tacİt Külah
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Engineering, Kütahya Dumlupınar University, TR-43100, Kütahya, Turkey
*
*E-mail address of corresponding author: skadir.icc@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hydrothermal alteration led to development of the Yarıkçı clay deposit within the Mesozoic chlorite-, muscovite-, chlorite-muscovite-schist, and garnet-graphite phyllite units along NW–SE- and N–S-trending faults in Mihalıççık in western central Anatolia. The geological, mineralogical, and geochemical characteristics and genesis of this economically important clay deposit have not been examined in detail previously. The present study has attempted to fill this gap. Green smectitic and cream kaolinitic claystones are abundant with smaller amounts of gray illite, dark brown Fe oxides, and silica phases occurring as stockwork/fracture infill and stain/coating. These units are covered by a dark, hard, sharp-edged, and thick silica cap. Metamorphic units exhibit cataclastic texture due to tectonic activities. Muscovite is mostly degraded to kaolinite, and feldspars show sericitization and argillization. Kaolinite typically has a platy form with irregular margins and locally sub-rounded, book-like texture suggesting hydrolysis during the hydrothermal injections. The association of Fe oxides, cristobalite/tridymite/quartz, gypsum/anhydrite, and jarosite are indicative of intense hydrothermal activities and development of kaolinite under acidic geochemical conditions. The local enrichment of SiO2, Fe2O3, S, Cu, and Au also supports this suggestion. The leaching of Sr, Rb, Ba, and Zr, and the slight increase in LREE/MREE+HREE ratios together with the negative Eu and Ce anomalies suggest the selective dissolution of muscovite, garnet, feldspar, and pyroxene by the hydrothermal fluids. Thus, abundant claystones of smectite and kaolinite were formed via the increase in Al+Fe+Mg/Si and Al±Fe/Si ratios in the alkaline and acidic environment, respectively, under the tectonic control of hydrothermal activity as seen in the alteration of chlorite, muscovite, and feldspar in metamorphic units.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Clay Minerals Society 2021
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Geological map of the study area (modified after Koçak 1975) and locations of the parent rock samples (see Fig. 3 for locations of the altered samples)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Generalized stratigraphic column of the study area (simplified from Kadir et al. 2017)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Profiles of the Yarıkçı clay deposit

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Field view of: a chlorite-muscovite schist; b garnet-graphite phyllite; c Yarıkçı clay deposit and covered/enclosed silica cap and phases along the main fault; d secondary fault in the northern site of the deposit; e main fault and associated silica caps in the northern site of the deposit; f relationship of smectite and kaolinite abundant claystones with silica phase; g–i subvertical Fe oxide and silica veins in the kaolinitic claystone; j relationship of the kaolinite and smectite in claystone; k Fe-oxide veins and stains in smectite-rich claystone; l, m Fe oxides in smectitic claystone; n illitic claystone; o silica cap at the top of the deposit

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Photomicrographs of: a–b chlorite cementing muscovite, feldspar, and quartz crystals; plain-polarized light (YR-52); c calcite crystal associated with muscovite, quartz, and chlorite crystal; plain-polarized light (YR-46); d muscovite associated with quartz showing cataclastic texture; crossed nicols light (YR-51); e, f subparallel muscovite crystal with Fe oxide in muscovite schist; plain-polarized light (YR-51); g euhedral coarse-grained garnet surrounded by graphite in sericite schist; plain-polarized light (YR-50); and h subparallel orientation of graphite with sericite enclosing quartz crystal; plain-polarized light (YR-50)

Figure 5

Table 1. Mineralogical variations in the Yarıkçı clay deposit

Figure 6

Fig. 6. XRD patterns for clayey material samples from Yarıkçı clay deposit. Sme: smectite; Kln: kaolinite; Ilt/Ms: illite/muscovite; Ilt: illite; Ms: muscovite; Chl: chlorite; Crs/Trd: cristobalite/tridymite; Qz: quartz; Fsp: feldspar; Px: pyroxene (mineral-name abbreviations after Whitney and Evans 2010)

Figure 7

Fig. 7. SEM images of: a, b muscovite-book flakes edged by platy kaolinite (YR-24); c irregular platy kaolinite locally showing hexagonal outlines (YR-24); d kaolinite exhibiting sub-rounded book-like structure (YR-1); e chlorite platelets (YR-44); f flaky smectite (YR-1); g sub-rounded disc-shaped hematite and rod-like goethite in pore of kaolinitic materials (YR-28); h enlarged view of g; i rod- and, locally, star-like goethite formed as a thin film on the surface of opaline (YR-25); j, k enlarged view of i; l subhedral jarosite crystals with altered materials (YR-28); m,n condensed, irregular, rod-shaped structures making up gypsum/anhydrite (YR-26)

Figure 8

Fig. 8. EDX analyses of: a muscovite; b kaolinite; c chlorite; d smectite; e goethite/hematite; f silica; g gypsum/anhydrite

Figure 9

Table 2. Major oxide (wt.%), minor element, and trace element (ppm) contents of the parent rocks, claystone, and silica samples in the study area (see Table 1 for the mineralogical compositions of the samples)

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Chondrite-normalized (Taylor and McLennan 1985) REE spider diagrams for the metamorphic and related altered materials from the Yarıkçı deposit

Figure 11

Table 3. Mass gains and losses of major oxides (g) and trace elements (ppm) for the claystone based on the isocon analysis diagram (Grant 1986, 2005; López-Moro 2012)

Figure 12

Fig. 10. Mass changes a–c in the major element (g) and trace element (ppm) contents within the study area based on the isocon analysis diagram (Grant 1986, 2005; López-Moro 2012)

Figure 13

Fig. 11. Elemental variation diagram for Zr/Ni vs. Zr/Co of the Yarıkçı clay deposit samples

Figure 14

Fig. 12. Sketch of genetic model for the Yarıkçı clay deposit