UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS

Instituto de Geociências
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geologia

Joana Reis Magalhães

EVENTOS MAGMÁTICOS E METAMÓRFICOS NO BLOCO GUANHÃES (MG):

Caracterização petrogenética e significado geodinâmico dos registros
estateriano, criogeniano e ediacarano na evolução do Paleocontinente São
Francisco

BELO HORIZONTE
Nº 42
26/02/2019
 Joana Reis Magalhães

Eventos magmáticos e metamórficos no Bloco Guanhães (MG): Caracterização

petrogenética e significado geodinâmico dos registros estateriano,
criogeniano e ediacarano na evolução do Paleocontinente São Francisco

Versão final

Tese de doutoramento apresentada ao

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geologia
do Instituto de Geociências da
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,
como requisito parcial à obtenção do título
de Doutor em Geologia.

Orientador: Prof. Antônio Carlos Pedrosa-

Soares

Co-Orientadores: Prof. Ivo Antônio Dussin,

Prof. Luiz Guilherme Knauer

Orientador na Universidade de Lausanne,

Suíça: Prof. Othmar Müntener
(Estágio-sanduíche, CNPq, Ciência sem Fronteiras):

Belo Horizonte
2019
M188e Magalhães, Joana Reis.
2019 Eventos magmáticos e metamórficos no Bloco Guanhães (MG) [manuscrito] :
caracterização petrogenética e significado geodinâmico dos registros estateriano,
criogeniano e ediacarano na evolução do Paleocontinente São Francisco/ Joana
Reis Magalhães. – 2019.
286 f., enc.: il. (principalmente color.)

Orientador: Antônio Carlos Pedrosa-Soares.

Orientador: Othmar Müntener.
Coorientador: Ivo Antônio Dussin.
Coorientador: Luiz Guilherme Knauer.
Tese (doutorado) – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de
Geociências, 2019.
Área de concentração: Geologia Regional.
Inclui bibliografias.

1. Petrologia – Minas Gerais – Teses. 2. Geoquímica – Teses. 3. Tempo

geológico – Teses. I. Pedrosa-Soares, Antônio Carlos. II. Müntener, Othmar. III.
Dussin, Ivo Antônio. IV. Knauer, Luiz Guilherme. V. Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais. Instituto de Geociências. VI. Título.

CDU: 552 (815.1)

Ficha catalográfica elaborada por Graciane A. de Paula – CRB6 3404
À minha amada avó, que partiu durante
essa etapa da minha vida.
 AGRADECIMENTOS

Agradeço ao meu orientador, Prof. Antônio Carlos Pedrosa Soares, pela

oportunidade, incentivo e suporte necessário para a realização do projeto. Ao Prof. Ivo
Dussin, pelo apoio com os dados geocronológicos e Lu-Hf em zircão. Ao Prof.
Guilherme Knauer, pelas valiosas discussões estaterianas e pelos ensinamentos ao
longo dos meus 15 anos de geologia.
Thanks to Prof. Othmar Müntener, my supervisor at UNIL, for welcoming me in
Lausanne and for the opportunities and help with isotopic analysis. To Anne-Sophie
Bouvier and Lukas Baumgartner for the assistance with δ18O data acquisition and to
Alexey Ulyanov for the assistance in the acquisition and reduction of trace elements in
zircon data. Special thanks to Katharina Marger for all the help, friendship and lab
company, making my days easier. To my colleagues in the office: Mike Jollands and
Suzanne Picazo.
Não tenho palavras para agradecer ao amigo Marco Aurélio Pinheiro, pelas
produtivas discussões, pelo conhecimento compartilhado, pela ajuda na revisão do
trabalho, pela paciência e, sobretudo, pela amizade e motivação.
Ao programa Ciências sem Fronteiras e ao CNPq, pela bolsa de estágio de
pesquisa no exterior e pela taxa de bancada concedida para viabilizar as análises
(202058/2015-8). Ao Projeto Fronteiras de Minas (UFMG-CODEMIG), pelo auxílio
financeiro no desenvolvimento desse projeto.
À CPRM - Serviço Geológico do Brasil, pelo suporte na realização da tese. Ao
Dr. Luiz Carlos da Silva pela ajuda junto à CPRM. À gerência da SUREG-BH, Márcio
Silva e Marcelo Marinho, pelo apoio e compreensão nos momentos em que precisei
me ausentar. Aos colegas da casa, em especial, Joanna Araújo e Raianny Ramos,
pelo incentivo, paciência e amizade.
Agradeço também aos colegas da pós-graduação na UFMG, sobretudo à
Mahyra Tedeschi, pelo companheirismo na Suíça e pelas valiosas sugestões no
desenvolvimento do trabalho. À Cristina Araújo, pela ajuda na preparação das
amostras. À Prof. Rosaline Figueiredo e Silva, coordenadora da pós-graduação, e ao
William Campos, secretário, pelo auxílio e atenção. Aos profs. da UFOP, Cristiano
Lana e Gláucia Queiroga, e ao geólogo Marco Paulo de Castro pela ajuda com as
análises de microssonda eletrônica.
 Agradeço às minhas amigas geólogas, Tatiana Dias e Estefânia Fernandes,
por me escutarem e me apoiarem incondicionalmente. Aos Drs. Bruno Drummond e
Débora Lopes, por me manterem sã nessa caminhada. Ao Carlos, pelo carinho e pela
compreensão em aceitar tantos vales-finais de semana.
De uma maneira muito especial, agradeço à minha avó Creusa e à minha mãe
Ana, que sempre me deram suporte e estiveram ao meu lado. Ao meu irmão Lucas,
pelo carinho e pela torcida. À tia Gi, pelo incentivo e apoio incondicional.
Agradeço ao Maior Geólogo de todos, que me permitiu, com todas as
dificuldades, chegar até aqui.
 “A porta da verdade estava aberta,
mas só deixava passar
meia pessoa de cada vez.

Assim não era possível atingir toda a verdade,

porque a meia pessoa que entrava
só trazia o perfil de meia verdade.

E sua segunda metade

voltava igualmente com meio perfil.
E os dois meios perfis não coincidiam.

Arrebentaram a porta. Derrubaram a porta.

Chegaram a um lugar luminoso
onde a verdade esplendia seus fogos.
Era dividida em duas metades,
diferentes uma da outra.

Chegou-se a discutir qual a metade mais bela.

As duas eram totalmente belas.
Mas carecia optar. Cada um optou conforme
seu capricho, sua ilusão, sua miopia.”

Carlos Drummond de Andrade

 RESUMO

O Bloco Guanhães inclui uma extensão do embasamento do Cráton do São Francisco

e registra uma longa e complexa evolução pré-cambriana. Este bloco é dominado por
complexos TTG arqueanos, está recoberto por unidades supracrustais, e inclui
intrusões graníticas, e corpos metamáficos e metaultramáficos. A região noroeste do
Bloco Guanhães é caracterizada pela unidade metavulcano-sedimentar Alto Rio
Guanhães, que ocorre em faixas descontínuas e tectonicamente imbricadas no
embasamento. Esta unidade inclui metariolitos e rochas metamáficas (xistos máficos
e ortoanfibolitos), intercalados com quartzitos, quartzitos ferruginosos, xistos pelíticos,
rochas calcissilicáticas e formações ferríferas. Ortoanfibolitos da unidade Alto Rio
Guanhães representam basaltos toleiíticos intraplaca, gerados pela fusão do manto
litosférico subcontinental enriquecido, envolvendo processos de cristalização
fracionada e assimilação crustal. Este magmatismo bimodal forneceu idades U-Pb
(MC-LA-ICP-MS e SHRIMP) em zircão de 1725 ± 4 Ma (ortoanfibolito), 1748 ± 3 Ma
(metariolito) e 1740 ± 8 Ma (metagranito). Dados litoquímicos e isotópicos (Lu-Hf e
δ18O) e de elementos traços em zircões indicam que as rochas ácidas vulcânicas e
plutônicas originaram-se em ambiente anorogênico intraplaca, a partir de fusão parcial
da crosta inferior dominantemente arqueana, relacionada à ascensão de magmas
básicos (underplating). O evento magmático estateriano (1750-1710 Ma), largamente
dominado por rochas ígneas félsicas no Sistema Espinhaço – Chapada Diamantina e
Bloco Guanhães, caracteriza uma grande província ígnea silícica (SLIP – silicic large
igneous province) possivelmente relacionada ao Supercontinente Columbia. Na
porção central do bloco, associações metavulcano-sedimentares, com idade máxima
de deposição estateriana, encaixam corpos metaultramáficos com características
químicas que apontam para magmas precursores ricos em Mg e Al, formados por altas
taxas de fusão mantélica. Essas rochas metaultramáficas registram metamorfismo
progressivo da fácies xisto verde à fácies granulito, a partir de rochas precursoras
altamente hidratadas, cujos produtos são granofelses a olivina-serpentina, anfibólio-
clorita, anfibólio-olivina-clorita, ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina com espinélio verde e
ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-clinopiroxênio-olivina com espinélio verde. Estas paragêneses
registram solubilidade máxima de Al na clorita em torno de 2.4 apfu, passando a
subsidiar a geração de hercinita com o incremento metamórfico. No anfibólio, o Al
atinge seu valor máximo em torno de 1.4 apfu (XAl: 14 wt%), antes da geração de
clinopiroxênio às suas custas. O Al alcança saturação no ortopiroxênio em torno de
0.11 apfu (XAl: 3.0 wt, %), com exsolução de lamelas de hercinita. Os minerais do
grupo do espinélio saturam-se na molécula de hercinita até a fácies granulito, havendo
um reequilíbrio da alumina com as fases silicatadas. Análises de U-Pb de zircão (LA-
ICPMS) em granofels ultramáfico e ortopiroxênio hornblendito restringem a idade dos
protólitos ígneos em torno de 650 Ma, estando relacionado a um evento criogeniano.
Os grãos de zircão metamórficos extraídos de uma rocha metassedimentar rica em
ferro apresentam idades entre 605 a 509 Ma, registrando o metamorfismo regional
relacionado ao orógeno Araçuaí. Dados isotópicos de oxigênio e elementos terras
raras em grãos de zircão apontam a natureza crustal dos mesmos. A geração dos
granofelses ultramáficos a partir de protólitos hidratados está relacionada a um
ambiente extensional relacionado à rifte e afinamento crustal, impulsionado pela
subida da astenosfera. Desta forma, o Bloco Guanhães guarda evidências de dois
eventos ígneos anorogênicos correspondentes a grandes bacias sedimentares: i) o
evento estateriano (1750–1710 Ma) associado ao Supergrupo Espinhaço e a Suíte
Borrachudos, e ii) o evento criogeniano, relacionado ao rifte III do Grupo Macaúbas,
cujos principais correlativos são a Província Alcalina do Sul da Bahia (730–670 Ma) e,
na Faixa Congo Ocidental, o vulcanismo das formações Diamictito Inferior (694 Ma) e
La Louilla (ca. 713 Ma).

Palvras-chave: Província ígnea siliciclástica. Magmatismo estateriano. Rochas

metaultramáficas. Magmatismo criogeniano. Eventos tafrogênicos. Bloco Guanhães.
Paleocontinente São Francisco.
 ABSTRACT

The Guanhães block represents an extension of the São Francisco craton basement
and records a long and complex Precambrian evolution. This block is characterized by
Archean TTG complexes, covered by supracrustal units, and includes granitic
intrusions, and meta-mafic and metaultramafic bodies. In the northwest region of the
Guanhães block, the metavolcano-sedimentary rocks of the Alto Rio Guanhães unit
occurs as discontinuous and tectonically imbricated lenses in the Archean basement.
This unit includes meta-rhyolites and meta-mafic rocks (mafic schists and ortho-
amphibolites), interleaved with quartzites, ferruginous quartzites, pelitic schists, calc-
silicate rocks and iron formations. The ortho-amphibolites of the Alto Rio Guanhães
unit represent intraplate tholeiitic basalts, generated by melting of enriched
subcontinental lithospheric mantle, with the involvement of fractional crystallization and
crustal assimilation processes. This bimodal magmatism yielded zircon U-Pb (LA-
ICPMS and SHRIMP) ages of 1725 ± 4 Ma (ortho-amphibolite), 1748 ± 3 Ma (meta-
rhyolite) and 1740 ± 8 Ma (meta-granite). Whole-rock geochemistry data, and isotopes
(Lu-Hf and δ18O) and trace elements in zircon suggest that volcanic and plutonic acid
rocks are related to an anorogenic intraplate environment, derived by partial melting of
Archean lower crustal materials by underplating of melts derived from the mantle. The
Statherian magmatic event (1750 Ma-1710 Ma), which is largely dominated by felsic
igneous rocks along the Espinhaço – Chapada Diamantina rift system and Guanhães
block, characterizes a siliceous large igneous province (SLIP) possibly related to the
Columbia supercontinent. In the central region of the block, other metavolcano-
sedimentary associations (regionally included in the Guanhães Group), with Statherian
maximum depositional age, host metaultramafic bodies with chemical attributes
suggesting precursor magmas rich in Mg and Al, generated by high rates of mantelic
partial melting. These metaultramafic rocks record changes in their mineral content
related to progressive metamorphism from greenschist to granulite facies conditions,
imposed on highly hydrated precursor rocks. The resulting metaultramafic rocks
include several granofelses with olivine-serpentine, chlorite-amphibole, chlorite-
olivine-amphibole, olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene-green spinel and olivine-
clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene-green spinel. The Al-solubility in amphibole,
orthopyroxene and chlorite is very sensitive to the metamorphic grade. The maximum
Al-solubility in chlorite is about 2.4 apfu, just before it breaks down to hercynite, while
the maximum Al-solubility in amphibole is 1.4 apfu (XAl: 14 wt %), before the generation
of clinopyroxene in the granulite facies conditions. The maximum Al-solubility in
orthopyroxene is around 0.11 apfu (XAl: 3.0 wt %) up to exsolution lamella of hercynite
appear at its margins. The spinel group minerals increase in spinel molecule saturation
up to the granulite facies conditions, followed by re-equilibration within silicate phases.
Zircon U-Pb analyses (LA-ICPMS) for an ultramafic granofels (J67) and an
orthopyroxene hornblendite constrain the age of the protoliths around 650 Ma, related
to a Cryogenian event. Metamorphic zircon grains extracted from a metasedimentary
iron-rich siliceous rock show ages between 605 to 509 Ma, recording the regional
metamorphism related to the Araçuaí orogen. Oxygen isotopic data and rare earth
elements in zircon grains indicate the crustal nature of them. The generation of the
ultramafic granofelses after hydrated ultramafic protoliths is related to a rift-extensional
setting associated with a stretched crust, driven by mantle uprising. Therefore, the
Guanhães block records evidence of two anorogenic igneous events related to large
sedimentary basins: i) the Statherian SLIP event (1750 –1710 Ma) associated with the
Espinhaço Supergroup; and ii) the Cryogenian event related to the rifte II of the
Macaúbas Group, that might be correlated with the South Bahia Alkaline Province
(730–670 Ma), and the volcanisms associated with the Lower Diamictite (694 Ma) and
La Louilla (ca. 713 Ma) formations in the Western Congo belt.

Keywords: Siliceous large igneous province. Statherian magmatism. Metaultramafic

rocks. Cryogenian magmatism. Taphrogenic events. Guanhães block. São Francisco
paleocontinent.
 Lista de figuras

Figura 1-1: Localização da área de estudo no centro-oeste do estado de Minas

Gerais. ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figura 3-1: Localização do Bloco Guanhães (BG) em relação ao cráton do São
Francisco (Alkmim et al. 2007). SE: Cinturão de Cavalgamentos da Serra do
Espinhaço Meridional; CA: Zona de Cisalhamento da Chapada Acauã; S: Zona de
dobramentos de Salinas; MN: Corredor transpressivo de Minas Novas; RP: Saliência
do Rio Pardo e zona de interação com o Aulacógeno do Paramirim; DS: Zona de
Cisalhamento de Dom Silvério; I: Zona de Cisalhamento de Itapebi; NC: núcleo
cristalino; OC: Faixa Oeste-Congolesa. .................................................................... 52
Figura 3-2: A) Configuração geotectônica do cráton São Francisco (CSF) no
contexto do Gondwana Ocidental (modificado de Alkmim et al. 2006); B) Mapa
geológico simplificado da borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional e Bloco
Guanhães, na borda leste do cráton São Francisco (modificado de Pinto & Silva
2014). ........................................................................................................................ 58
Figura 4-1: (A) Geotectonic configuration of the São Francisco–Congo craton in the
context of West Gondwana (after Alkmim et al. 2006). (B) Simplified geological map
highlighting the Espinhaço rift system and the Guanhães block in the eastern border
of the São Francisco Craton. Modified from Alkmim (2004) and Pinto and Silva
(2014). ....................................................................................................................... 80
Figura 4-2: Simplified geologic map of northern region of the Guanhães block and
southern area of the Espinhaço Ridge (modified from Pinto and Silva 2014). .......... 83
Figura 4-3: (A, B) fine-grained ortho-amphibolite samples composed essentially by
hornblende, plagioclase, and quartz; (C, D) medium-grained ortho-amphibolite
sample also characterized by hornblende, plagioclase and quartz; (E, F) quartz-
feldspar porphyritic meta-rhyolite with a fine-grained matrix composed by microcline,
quartz, plagioclase and biotite; (G, H) biotite granite coarse-grained. ....................... 89
Figura 4-4: Chemical classification of the (A) amphiboles (after Leake et al. 1997)
and (B) feldspars from the orthoamphibolite and meta-rhyolite samples. .................. 90
Figura 4-5: Primitive mantle and chondrite-normalized element spidergrams for: (A,
B) mafic rocks and (C, D) felsic rocks from the Guanhães block. The normalization
values are from Sun and McDonough (1989). For the meta-granites and meta-
rhyolites, besides this work, data were compiled from Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-
Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al.(1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer
and Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and Silveira-Braga (2012). .......................... 92
Figura 4-6: Granite tectonic discrimination diagrams for the felsic magmatism: (A)
A/CNK vs. A/NK diagram (Shand 1943); (B) SiO2 vs. FeOt/(FeOt + MgO) and (C)
SiO2 vs. Na2O + K2O-CaO from Frost et al. (2001). Additional data from Chemale Jr.
(1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al. (1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et
al. (1994), Knauer and Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and Silveira-Braga (2012).
.................................................................................................................................. 93
Figura 4-7: Representative cathodo-luminescence (CL) images for the zircons from
the ortho-amphibolite sample J02, the meta-rhyolite sample J03 and the granitic
sample LC-40, showing the location and the diameter of the spots for U-Pb, Lu-Hf
and oxygen isotopes, and also rare earth elements (REE) analyses. ....................... 94
Figura 4-8: LA-ICPMS zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams of samples: (A) J02 —
ortho-amphibolite, (B) J03 — metarhyolite, (C) LC40 — biotite granite..................... 96
Figura 4-9: Schematic diagrams for Lu-Hf isotopic evolution vs. U-Pb age (A) and for
δ18O isotopic evolution vs. U-Pb age (B) for zircons from ortho-amphibolite and
meta-rhyolite samples. The values of mantle zircons are from Valley et al. (1998) and
Valley (2003). ............................................................................................................ 97
Figura 4-10: Representative rare earth elements (REE) patterns of zircon grains
determined by in situ analysis (LA-ICP-MS) for the ortho-amphibolite (A) and meta-
rhyolite (B) normalized to chondrite (McDonough and Sun 1995). Plots (C) and (D)
show geochemical discriminant diagrams with continental and ocean crust zircon
fields.The values of continental and ocean crust zircons are from Grimes et al.
(2007). ....................................................................................................................... 99
Figura 4-11: Trace element variation diagrams for the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic
suite. (A) Ni vs. Zr/Nb. (B) Assimilation and fractional crystallization (AFC) model for
Zr vc Nb. The AFC curve (red squares) shows ranges of 10% (between 0 and 90%).
The arrow indicates that the tendency of the magmatic evolution of the analyzed
mafic rocks (green diamond) is the same of the AFC curve, indicating values up to
30% AFC. The continental crust chemical data is from Taylor and McLennan (1985),
and the mineral/melt partition coefficients for basaltic liquids are after the compilation
of Rollinson (1993). (C) (La/Sm)N vs. (Tb/Yb) diagram to determine the source of the
mafic magmas. The horizontal dashed line separates the fields for melting of garnet-
bearing peridotite and of spinel-bearing peridotite Wang et al. (2002). Normalization
values of the chondrite C1 after Sun and McDonough (1989). (D) Zr vs. Zr/Y
discrimination plot (Pearce and Norry 1979). .......................................................... 101
Figura 4-12: (A) Comparison of primitive mantle-normalized incompatible trace
element spidergrams for the amphibolites of the Alto Rio Guanhães suite, with that of
oceanic island basalts (OIB), E-type and N-type MORBs. Patterns for OIB, E-MORB
and N-MORB are from Sun and McDonough (1989). (B) Nb/Yb vs. Th/Yb
discrimination diagram from Pearce (2008). ............................................................ 103
Figura 4-13: Trace element variation diagrams for the meta-granites and meta-
rhyolites in the Guanhães block showing different fractional crystallization trends: (A)
Sr vs. Rb; (B) SiO2 vs. K/Rb; (C) SiO2 vs. Rb-Sr. (D) Nb-Y-3Ga discrimination
diagrams for the subdivision of the A-type granites by Eby (1992). (E) Y+Nb vs. Rb
and (F) Y vs. Nb tectonic classification diagrams from Pearce et al. (1984). Additional
data from Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al. (1990), Dussin
(1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer and Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and
Silveira-Braga (2012). ............................................................................................. 105
Figura 4-14: Paleogeographic reconstruction models involving the paleocontinent
São Francisco-Congo in the context of Columbia at 1.78 Ga: (A) D’Agrella-Filho and
Cordani (2017); (B) Hou et al. (2008); (C) Cederberg et al. (2016). Laurentia (LAU),
Baltica (BA), Proto-Amazonia (PAm), West Africa (WA), Siberia (SI), Mawson
continent (MC—South Australia plus East Antarctica), North Australia (NAu), West
Australia (WAu), North China (NC), India (IN), Rio de la Plata (RP), Kalahari (KAL),
São Francisco-Congo (SFC), Borborema/Trans-Sahara block (BTS), Pará de Minas
(PM). ....................................................................................................................... 109
Figura 4-15: Trace element patterns of the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite (this
study), Pará de Minas dyke swarm (Chaves 2001), the Xiong’er volcanic rocks (Zhao
et al. 2002, Peng et al. 2008, He et al. 2009, Wang et al. 2010), the Taihang dykes
(Hou et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2004, 2008, Peng 2015, Wang et al. 2004, 2007, 2008):
(A) normalized to E-MORB; (B) normalized to Primitive Mantle. The normalization
values are from Sun and McDonough (1989). ......................................................... 110
Figura 4-16: Schematic model for the Statherian magmatism related to the
Espinhaço rift system. ............................................................................................. 113
Figura 5-1: Geological setting of the Guanhães block: A) The studied region in
relation to the Araçuaí orogen and São Francisco craton (SFC). B) Geological sketch
map of the Araçuaí orogen and surroundings (modified from Pedrosa-Soares et al.
2011). ...................................................................................................................... 128
Figura 5-2: Geological map of the studied area in the central Guanhães block
(modified from Pinto and Silva 2014). ..................................................................... 131
Figura 5-3: NW-SE geological cross section in the Candonga region. A) outcrop of
olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; B) contact between ferruginous quartzite
and olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; C) hand specimen of olivine-
amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; D) contact between olivine-amphibole-
orthopyroxene granofels and ferruginous quartzite; E) detail of ferruginous quartzite;
F) contact between ferruginous quartzite and serpentinite; G) hand specimen of
ferruginous quartzite; H) detail of serpentinite; I) and J) saprolite of quartz-rich
banded metasedimentary rock; K) feldspar-rich quartzitic rock; L) hand specimen of
Iron-rich siliceous rock; M) outcrop of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; N)
detail of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels. .............................................. 133
Figura 5-4: Hand specimens of: A) chlorite -amphibole granofels (J67A); B) chlorite-
olivine-amphibole granofels (J67B); C and D) olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene
granofels (J71); E and F) coarse-grained olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels
(J81); G) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82); and H) orthopyroxene hornblendite (J72). . 134
Figura 5-5: A) Ultramafic rock displaying metamorphic banding defined by variable
contents of olivine, amphibole and chlorite (J67); B) olivine serpentinite body (withe
arrow, sample J109) surrounded by the regional orthogneiss; C) intrusive contact
between the olivine serpentinite (J109) and a banded orthogneiss; D) olivine
serpentinite showing granular texture; and E) detail of banding of the orthogneiss.
Mineral abbreviations recommended by Whitney and Evans (2010)....................... 136
Figura 5-6: A) Reliquiar mosaic aggregates of highy serpentinized olivine (J109;
PPL); B) partially serpentinized xenoblastic amphibole (J109; PPL); C) Brown spinel
pseudomorph after magnetite (J109; PPL); D) amphibole and chlorite rich domains
(J67A; XPL); E) aggregate of amphibole, talc, chlorite and olivine (J67B, XPL); F)
olivine with early chlorite inclusions (J67B, XPL)..................................................... 142
Figura 5-7: A) Orthopyroxene after amphibole (J71; PPL); b) Coarse-grained
orthopyroxene granoblast rimmed by spinel exsolution and symplectites (J81; XPL);
C) Tabular coarse-grained orthopyroxene rimmed by spinel and amphibole
(J81;PPL); D) Relict chlorite grain among coarse-grained olivine and orthopyroxene
(J81; XPL); E) Equigranular aggregates of clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene and
amphibole after coarse-grained textured ol-amp-opx rock with green spinel
recrystallization (J107, PPL); and, F) Equigranular mosaic aggregates of
clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, olivine and amphibole (J107, XPL). ........................ 145
Figura 5-8: A) Zoned garnet grains over a quartz-hornblende rich matriz of iron-rich
siliceous rock (J82) (XPL); B) coarse-grained aggregates of zoned garnet of iron-rich
siliceous rock (J82) (XPL); C) coarse-grained elongated orthopyroxene blast from
Opx hornblendite (J72). ........................................................................................... 146
Figura 5-9: Binary diagrams of olivine: A) mode of olivine (%) vs forterite molecule
(%); B) NiO (wt%) vs forterite molecule; C) MnO (wt, %) vs forterite molecule; D)
MnO (wt, %) vs NiO (wt, %); E) Al2O3 (wt, %) vs enstatite molecule (wt, %); and F)
enstatite molecule (%) vs forterite molecule (%). .................................................... 147
Figura 5-10: A) Amphibole classification (after Leake et al. 1997, Hawthorne et al.
2012). Binary diagrams of amphiboles: B) AlIV (apfu) vs AlVI (apfu); C) AlIV (apfu) vs
Na+K; and AlIV (apfu) vs ALVI+Fe3++Ti (apfu). ......................................................... 149
Figura 5-11: A) Spinel prism multi-component system (after Deer et al., 1992;
Haggerty, 1991; Stevens, 1944); B) ternary diagram of Cr#, Al# and Fe 2+; and, C)
binary diagram of hercynite molecule (%) vs spinel molecule (%)........................... 151
Figura 5-12: Binary diagrams of garnet molecules from core and rim of selected
grains: A) grossular vs pyrope and B) grossular vs almandine................................ 152
Figura 5-13: Binary diagrams: A) MgO (wt%) vs SiO2; B) MgO (wt%) vs Al2O3; C)
TiO2/Al2O3 vs MgO (wt%); D) Ni (ppm) vs MgO (wt%); E) Al2O3 vs Cr (ppm); F)
MnO (wt%) vs Ni (ppm). .......................................................................................... 153
Figura 5-14: Primitive Mantle normalized spidergrams of trace and minor elements
and Rare Earth Elements for: A and B) Metaultramafic rocks; C and D) Iron-rich
siliceous rock (J72) and Opx hornblendite (J82). Normalized values from
McDounough and Sun 1995. ................................................................................... 155
Figura 5-15: Binary diagram: A) Zr (ppm) vs MgO (wt%); B) Nb (ppm) vs Th (ppm);
C) Yb/Th vs Al2O3 (wt%); D) Ni (ppm) vs Zr (ppm); E) Lu/Sm vs CaO/Al2O3; F)
(Yb/Th)PM vs ZrPM (Pimitive mantle normalization values from McDounough and
Sun 1995). ............................................................................................................... 157
Figura 5-16: Cathodoluminescense images of analyzed zircon grains of A) chlorite-
olivine-amphibole granofels (J67B), B) olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels
(J79), C) orthopyroxene hornblendite (J72) and D) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82). .. 160
Figura 5-17: Concordia diagrams (2σ ellipses error) for zircon U-Pb (MC-LA-ICPMS)
analyses: A) chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels (J67B), (B) orthopyroxene
hornblendite (J72), (C) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82) with detail of metamorphic ages,
and (D) Concordia age of the main metamorphic cluster of the Iron-rich siliceous
rock. ........................................................................................................................ 161
Figura 5-18: Trace elements in zircon (chondrite normalizing values from Sun and
Mcdonough 1989): A) sample J67B; B and C) sample J82. Plots (D) and (E) show
geochemical discriminant diagrams with continental and ocean crust zircon fields (cf.
Grimes et al. 2007). ................................................................................................. 163
Figura 5-19: A) Mineral stability diagram for the composition of sample J109; B)
tetragonal (SiO2-CaO-MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral assemblage of olivine
serpentinite J109; and, C) mineral assemblage topology of olivine serpentinite J109.
................................................................................................................................ 168
Figura 5-20: A) tetragonal (SiO2-CaO-MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral
assemblage of chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels with talc (J67B); and, B) mineral
assemblage topology of chlorite-amphibole granofels (dashed line) and chlorite-
olivine-amphibole granofels. The cross is the bulk rock composition. ..................... 169
Figura 5-21: A) Mineral stability diagram for the composition of sample J67B (Chl-Ol-
Amp granofels); B) Mineral temperature path for the composition of sample J67B at 2
kbar. ........................................................................................................................ 170
Figura 5-22: A) Tetragonal (SiO2-CaO-MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral
assemblage of ol-amp-opx granofelses and mineral stable topologies. B and C)
mineral bulk assemblage topology of Olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels with
spinel. The shaded area is the bulk rock composition area. .................................... 171
Figura 5-23: A) Binary diagram of Mg (apfu) vs Al (apfu) of chlorites showing it
maximum Al solubility and break down; B) Binary diagram of Al2O3 (wt, %) vs
Enstatite molecule (%) of orthopyroxenes showing it maximum Al solubility and
consequence spinel exsolution; C) Diagram of AlIV (apfu) vs AlVI (apfu) of
amphiboles showing its maximum Al saturation and break down; and, D) Spinel
group mineral chemical modifications path according with metamorphic grade
increment................................................................................................................. 174
Figura 5-24: A) Magnetite inclusion within high forsterite olivine (olivine sepentinite;
J109); B) pseudomorphic substitution of spinel on magnetite (olivine sepentinite;
J109); C) hercynite with magnetite inclusions (iron excess) generated after chlorite
break down (ol-amp-opx granofels; J79); D) pseudomorphic substitution of hercynite
on magnetite (ol-amp-opx granofels; J79); E) blasts of hercynite (ol-amp-opx
granofels; J81); F) dissolution of hercynite (spinel componet) in ol-cpx-amp-opx
granofels (J107). ..................................................................................................... 176
Figura 5-25: Geotectonic correlation map of the Araçuaí – West Congo orogenic
system (modified from Alkmim et al. 2006), highlighting the main occurrence areas of
Early Cryogenian anorogenic rocks (SBAP, South Bahia Alkaline Province, c. 725 –
670 Ma; and volcanic rocks of the LD, Lower Diamictite Formation, c. 694 Ma, and
LL, La Louilla Formation, c. 713 Ma), now including the studied Guanhães
metaultramafic rocks (GU, c. 715 Ma). .................................................................... 179
Figura 5-26: Schematic geodynamic overview for the ultramafic magmatism related
to the Guanhães block. ........................................................................................... 180
Figura 5-27: Petrogenetic evolution of metaultramafic rocks in the Guanhães block.
................................................................................................................................ 181
Figura 6-1: Diagramas de variação de elementos traços para metagranitos e
metariolitos no Bloco Guanhães mostrando diferentes tendências de
cristalização fracionada. Diagramas de discriminação de (A) Nb-Y-3Ga para a
subdivisão dos granitos do tipo A por Eby (1992). Diagramas de classificação
tectônica de Pearce et al. (1984): (B) Y + Nb vs. Rb e (C) Y vs. Nb. Dados
adicionais de Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al.
(1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer e Grossi-Sad (1997),
Oliveira (2002) e Silveira-Braga (2012).............................................................. 192
Figura 6-2: (A) Comparação dos padrões de elementos incompatíveis
normalizados para condrito dos anfibólitos da região do Alto Rio Guanhães
em comparação com basaltos de arcos de ilhas (OIB) e cadeia meso-
oceânica (MORB) tipo E e N. Padrões para OIB, E-MORB e N-MORB são
aqueles de Sun & McDonough (1989). (B) Diagrama de discriminação Nb /
Yb versus Th / Yb de Pearce (2008). ................................................................ 193
Figura 6-3: Diagrama normalizado ao manto primitivo (A) e condrito (B) das
rochas máficas do Alto Rio Guanhães. Os valores de normalização são de Sun &
McDonough (1989)................................................................................................... 193
Figura 6-4: Diagramas de variação de elementos traços para a suíte máfica Alto Rio
Guanhães. Diagrama (A) (La / Sm) N vs. (Tb / Yb) para determinar a fonte dos
magmas máficos. A linha tracejada horizontal separa os campos para a fusão do
peridotito com granada e do peridotito que contém espinélio (Wang et al. 2002).
Valores de normalização condríticos após Sun e McDonough (1989); (B) Zr vs Zr / Y
diagrama de discriminação de ambiente tectônicos (Pearce & Norry 1979). .......... 194
Figura 6-5: (A) Configuração geotectônica do cráton do São Francisco – Congo
no contexto do Gondwana Ocidental (modificado de Alkmim et al. 2006). (B)
Mapa geológico simplificado com destaque para o sistema do rifte do
Espinhaço e o Blobo Guanhães na fronteira leste do cráton do São Francisco.
Modificado de Alkmim (2004) e Pinto e Silva (2014). ........................................ 198
Figura 6-6: Modelo esquemático para o magmatismo estateriano associado
so rifte Espinhaço. ............................................................................................... 199
Figura 6-7: Modelos de reconstruções paleogeográficas envolvendo o
paleocontinente São Francisco-Congo no contexto dp Columbia, ca. 1.78 Ga: (A)
D'Agrella-Filho & Cordani (2017); (B) Hou et al. (2008); (C) Cederberg et al. (2016).
Laurentia (LAU), Báltica (BA), Proto-Amazônia (PAm), África Ocidental (WA), Sibéria
(SI), continente Mawson (MC - Austrália do Sul mais Antártica Oriental), Austrália do
Norte (NAu), Austrália Ocidental (WAu ), Norte da China (NC), Índia (IN), Rio de la
Plata (RP), Kalahari (KAL), São Francisco-Congo (SFC), Bloco Borborema / Trans-
Saara (BTS), Pará de Minas (PM) ........................................................................... 200
Figura 6-8: Padrões de elementos traços do conjuntodas rochas máficas da
Suíte Alto Rio Guanhães (este estudo), do enxame de diques de Pará de
Minas (Chaves 2001), das rochas vulcânicas de Xiong'er (Zhao et al. 2002,
Peng et al. 2008, He et al. 2009, Wang et al., 2010), dos diques de Taihang
(Hou et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2004, 2008, Peng 2015, Wang et al. 2004, 2007,
2008): (A) normalizado para E-MORB, (B) normalizado para o manto primitivo.
Os valores de normalização são de Sun e McDonough (1989). ...................... 201
 Lista de tabelas

Tabela 2-1: Relação das amostras analisadas e métodos analíticos utilizados. ...... 39

Tabela 5-1: Summary details and applied analytical methods for the meta-ultramafic
samples of the Guanhães block. ............................................................................. 141
 Sumário

1 Introdução ............................................................................................... 25

1.1 Apresentação ..................................................................................... 25

1.2 Localização da área e acessos .......................................................... 27

1.3 Natureza do problema e relevância .................................................... 28

1.4 Objetivos ............................................................................................ 29

1.4.1 Metamáficas e metafélsicas do Alto Rio Guanhães: ..................... 30

1.4.2 Metaultramáficas da região central do Bloco Guanhães: .............. 30

1.5 Estrutura da tese ................................................................................ 31

1.6 Referências bibliográficas .................................................................. 32

2 Materiais e Métodos ................................................................................ 38

2.1 Levantamentos bibliográficos ............................................................. 38

2.2 Trabalhos de campo ........................................................................... 38

2.3 Análises petrográficas ........................................................................ 39

2.4 Análises em microscópios eletrônico de varredura (MEV) acoplado

com EDS (Energy dispersive x-ray detector)......................................................... 40

2.5 Análises de química mineral através de microssonda eletrônica ....... 40

2.6 Preparação de amostras .................................................................... 41

2.6.1 Para análises de geoquímica em rocha total ................................ 41

2.6.2 Para análises isotópicas e de elementos traço em zircão............. 42

2.7 Análises litogeoquímicas .................................................................... 43

2.8 Geocronologia U-Pb via LA-ICPMS (Laser ablation - Inductively

coupled plasma mass spectrometry) ..................................................................... 44

2.9 Análises de elementos traços em zircões por ablação a laser (LA-ICP-

MS) ........................................................................................................... 46
 2.10 Análises de isótopos de oxigênio em zircões via SIMS (Secondary
Ion Mass Spectrometer) ......................................................................................... 46

2.11 Análises isotópicas Lu-Hf via LA-ICP-MS...................................... 47

2.12 Geotermobarometria clássica e modelagem termodinâmica tipo

pseudo-seção ........................................................................................................ 48

2.13 Referências bibliográficas ............................................................... 49

3 Contextualização geológica regional .................................................... 52

3.1 Apresentação ..................................................................................... 52

3.2 Histórico do conhecimento ................................................................. 53

3.3 Geologia do Bloco Guanhães ............................................................. 57

3.4 Arcabouço estratigráfico da borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço

Meridional ........................................................................................................... 62

3.5 Corpos plutônicos e vulcânicos .......................................................... 64

3.6 Evolução geológica ............................................................................ 67

3.7 Referências bibliográficas .................................................................. 69

4 First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon signatures from the
Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province (Eastern Brazil): geotectonic
implications of a silicic large igneous province ................................................. 78

4.1 Abstract .............................................................................................. 79

4.2 Introduction......................................................................................... 79

4.3 Geological Setting .............................................................................. 81

4.4 Analytical methods ............................................................................. 84

4.4.1 A1. Mineral chemical compositions ............................................... 84

4.4.2 Whole rock major and trace elements ........................................... 84

4.4.3 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS dating ..................................................... 84

4.4.4 Zircon U–Pb SHRIMP dating ........................................................ 85

4.4.5 In situ zircon Hf isotopic analysis .................................................. 85

4.4.6 In situ zircon oxygen isotopic analysis .......................................... 86

 4.4.7 In situ zircon trace elements ......................................................... 87

4.5 Results ............................................................................................... 87

4.5.1 Sample petrography and mineral chemistry .................................. 87

4.5.2 Whole-rock geochemistry.............................................................. 91

4.5.3 Magmatic zircon data .................................................................... 93

4.6 Discussion .......................................................................................... 99

4.6.1 Petrogenesis ................................................................................. 99

4.6.2 Statherian geochronological framework of rift-related magmatism of

the São Francisco block.................................................................................... 106

4.6.3 Tectonic implications and global inferences ................................ 108

4.7 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 114

4.8 Acknowledgement ............................................................................ 114

4.9 References ....................................................................................... 115

5 Artigo: Ultramafic magmatism and regional metamorphism in the

Guanhães block, SE Brazil: Further evidence for a Late Cryogenian rift system
in the São Francisco – Congo paleocontinent.................................................... 124

5.1 Abstract ............................................................................................ 125

5.2 Introduction....................................................................................... 126

5.3 Geological Setting ............................................................................ 127

5.4 Filed observations and relationships ................................................ 130

5.5 Analytical methods ........................................................................... 136

5.5.1 Mineral chemistry ........................................................................ 136

5.5.2 Whole rock litochemistry ............................................................. 137

5.5.3 Zircon U-Pb (LA-ICPMS) dating .................................................. 138

5.5.4 In situ zircon oxygen isotopic analysis ........................................ 139

5.5.5 Trace elements in zircon grains .................................................. 139

5.5.6 Mineral stable assemblage modelling ......................................... 139

5.6 Results ............................................................................................. 140

 5.6.1 Mineral set and textural relationship............................................ 141

5.6.2 Mineral chemistry ........................................................................ 146

5.6.3 Lithochemistry ............................................................................. 153

5.6.4 U-Pb geochronology ................................................................... 157

5.6.5 Oxygen Isotopes ......................................................................... 161

5.6.6 Trace elements in zircon grains .................................................. 162

5.6.7 Mineral assemblages and metamorphic P-T conditions .............. 164

5.7 Discussion ........................................................................................ 176

5.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 182

5.9 Acknowledgement ............................................................................ 182

5.10 References .................................................................................... 183

6 Integração e discussão dos dados ..................................................... 191

6.1 Borda oeste do Bloco Guanhães ...................................................... 191

6.1.1 Rochas metafélsicas ................................................................... 191

6.1.2 Rochas metamáficas................................................................... 192

6.1.3 Idades U-Pb ................................................................................ 194

6.1.4 Expressão do magmatismo estateriano e seu significado .......... 196

6.1.5Magmatismo Estateriano: Implicações tectônicas e inferências

globais ............................................................................................................. 199

6.2 Região Central do Bloco Guanhães ................................................. 202

6.2.1 Magmatismo Criogeniano e suas correlações ............................ 202

6.2.2 Metamorfismo progressivo dos metaultamafitos ......................... 204

6.3 Referencias bibliográficas ................................................................ 209

7 Conclusões............................................................................................ 217

8 Apêndice A - First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon

signatures from the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province (Eastern
Brazil): geotectonic implications of a silicic large igneous province ............... 219
 9 Apêndice B - Ultramafic magmatism and regional metamorphism in
the Guanhães block. SE Brazil: Further evidence for a Late Cryogenian rift
system in the São Francisco – Congo paleocontinent ...................................... 246
 25

1 Introdução

1.1 Apresentação

A evolução do planeta Terra sempre foi objeto de intenso interesse. As

informações que permitem avançar no entendimento da evolução geodinâmica
planetária pré-4.0 Ga tradicionalmente advêm de remanescentes antigos
preservados (e.g., Maas et al. 1992, Nutman et al. 1996, Ryder et al. 2000, Wilde et
al. 2001, Wyche et al. 2004, Lizuka et al. 2006) ou a partir de modelagens
envolvendo a diferenciação química dos reservatórios mantélicos global (e.g., Arndt
& Chauvel 1998, Vervoot et al. 1996, Snow & Schmidt 1998, Albarède et al. 2000,
Nutman et al. 2001, Sobolev et al. 2016).
A formação dos continentes e seus diversos blocos crustais reconhecidos
foram gerados em sua maioria durante o arqueano (4.0 – 2.5 Ga) (Rudnick & Gao
2003). Subsequentes processos de consumo, reciclagem e aglutinação dessas
unidades litosféricas, continuadamente desenvolvidas ao longo do tempo, são
atribuídos as mais diversas causas, desde controlados por atividades magmáticas
mantélicas (Condie 2004, Ernst & Buchan 2003, 2004, Mueller et al. 2010, Rozel et
al. 2017), processos de delaminação crustal (Kay & Kay 1993, Zagers & Keken
2001, Jhonson et al. 2014), impactos de meteoritos (Gilkson 2004, Simonson et al.
2004) ou mesmos processos acrescionários envolvendo ambientes de subdução
(Kusky et al. 2004).
O estabelecimento da tectônica global, como um processo ordenado de
consumo, criação e conjunção de blocos, reordenou de forma dramática a geometria
e organização dos continentes de no mínimo 2.5 Ga (Rogers 1996, Dilek &
Newcomb 2003, Dilek & Robinson 2003, Kusky et al. 2004, Condie 2007, 2016, Dilek
et al. 2007, Dilek & Furnes 2011).
Nas últimas décadas, com o advento de métodos e técnicas analíticas
modernas voltadas para processos petrogenéticos de formação e reciclagem de
crosta, assim como para reconstrução dos mais diversos cenários e panoramas
geodinâmicos, envolvendo peças crustais e os elementos de suas conjunções e
separações, as informações e dados avolumaram-se. Tal volume, que se encontra
 26

facilmente disponível, possibilitou um avanço sem precedentes nas mais diversas

áreas de investigações dos sistemas terrestres.
Reflexos diretos recaíram sobre o ciclo de formação e consumo da litosfera,
seus elementos associados e a participação astenosférica em sua evolução, com
severas consequências para o entendimento dos eventos cíclicos terrestres e
biológicos (Rogers 1996, Condie 1998, Barley et al 2005, Rogers & Santosh 2004,
Reddy et al. 2009, Condie & Aster 2010).
O refinamento na precisão e acurácia dos métodos analíticos na detecção de
elementos menores, traços e isotópicos permitiram identificar, agrupar e
correlacionar objetos geológicos à processos e ambientes tectônicos ao longo do
tempo de uma maneira mais coerente e efetiva, assim como reconhecer seus
análogos modernos pré-cambrianos (Polat et al. 1999, Condie 2004, 2015, Pearce
2008, Velikoslavinsky & Krylov 2014, Saccani 2015, Verma et al. 2015, Safonova et
al. 2016, Schaltegger & Davies 2017, Horan et al. 2018).
O extenso uso e proliferação das informações obtidas a partir de isótopos
radiogênicos expandiram e ramificaram o avanço no entendimento petrogenético,
desvendando a composição dos reservatórios mantélicos e os processos associados
na geração de magmas e reciclagem crustal no decorrer dos períodos geológicos
(e.g., DePaolo 1981, Dickin 1995, Blichert-Toft et al. 1997, Vervoort & Blichert-Toft
1999, Chauvel & Blichert-Toft 2001, Jackson et al. 2004, Matteini et al. 2010,
Whitehouse & Kemp 2010). O desenvolvimento das abordagens químico-isotópica
aplicadas em minerais acessórios, principalmente o zircão, ampliaram o nível de
entendimento sobre a evolução geodinâmica associada aos diversos ambientes
tectônicos. Sua crescente utilização difundiu sua aplicação as mais diversas áreas
das geociências (Hoskin & Schaltegger 2003, Harley & Kelly 2007).
Ainda, as incontáveis abordagens envolvendo modelagens numéricas (Abbott
et al. 1994, Pearce 2005, Gale et al. 2014, Sizova et al. 2015, Ganne & Feng 2017),
petrologia experimental (Herzberg& Ohtani 1988, Herzberg et al. 2007, Herzberg &
Asimow 2008, Hirschmann et al. 2008) e modelagens termodinâmicas e diagramas
de equilíbrio de fases (Berman 1991, Powell & Holland 2008, de Capitani &
Petrakakis 2010, Lanari & Duesterhoeft 2019) permitiram simular ambientes e
condições específicas de períodos remotos. Tais perspectivas permitiram
estabelecer as condições de variados cenários geodinâmicos nos diversos
ambientes terrestres, do Pré-Cambriano ao Cenozoico.
 27

O Bloco Guanhães, tido como uma exposição do substrato do

Paleocontinente São Francisco (Alkmim et al. 2006, 2017, Noce et al. 2007, Silva et
al. 2016), é um exemplo de como abordagens multidisciplinares envolvendo química
elemental e isotópica em rocha total e in situ em minerais auxiliam na caracterização
e elucidação de processos geodinâmicos. Neste contexto, são diversas as
ocorrências de rochas e associações das mais diversas composições e naturezas
cujos registros petrogenéticos ao longo do tempo deixam rastros de uma história
policíclica de acresção e retrabalhamento crustal do Arqueano ao Cambriano (e.g.,
Dussin 1994, Grossi-Sad 1997, Fernandes 2001, Carvalho et al. 2014, Silveira-
Braga et al. 2015, Barrote et al. 2017).
Neste trabalho, as informações obtidas a partir de levantamentos
litoestratigráficos em escala de detalhe e informações sistemáticas obtidas em
campo foram confrontadas com dados e resultados analíticos provenientes de
metodologias modernas. A conjunção das análises petrográficas, química mineral,
litogeoquímica refinada de elementos traços e terras raras, isotópicas U-Pb, Lu-Hf,
δ18O e elementos traços em zircão, permitiu reconhecer componentes bimodais de
um magmatismo intraplaca de ampla magnitude atuante no Bloco Guanhães durante
o Estateriano, assim como remanescentes supracrustais vulcanossedimentares com
registros de magmatismo no criogeniano. A utilização de informações microtexturais
complementadas por análises químicas de alta precisão em minerais e modelagem
de diagramas de estabilidade mineral revelaram os desdobramentos químicos e
minerais registrados nos metaultramafitos criogenianos, decorrente do
metamorfismo Brasiliano imposto na conjunção do Gondwana Ocidental (e.g.,
Pedrosa- Soares & Alkmim 2011, Heilbron et al. 2017).

1.2 Localização da área e acessos

Este trabalho compreende o estudo das ocorrências de rochas máfico-

ultramáficas e félsicas metamorfisadas e rochas metassedimentares e metavulcano-
sedimentares associadas na região centro-oeste do Bloco Guanhães.
A área de estudo situa-se no centro-leste do Estado de Minas Gerais e
contém as cidades de Sabinópolis e Guanhães como as principais. Essa região
localiza-se em parte na folha Guanhães (SE-23-Z-B-V, Carta do Brasil, escala
1:100.000) e em parte na folha Serro (SE-23-Z-B-IV, Carta do Brasil, escala
 28

1:100.000), abrangendo os municípios de Materlândia, Correntinho e Divinolândia de

Minas. O acesso à área de trabalho pode ser realizado de duas maneiras diferentes
a partir de Belo Horizonte (Figura 1-1):
• MG-010 (via Serra do Cipó) em direção Lagoa Santa, Conceição do
Mato Dentro, Serro e Sabinópolis. A quilometragem total é de 272 km.
• BR-381 e BR-120 em direção à Santa Maria de Itabira até a sede do
município de Guanhães, totalizando 270 km.

Figura 1-1: Localização da área de estudo no centro-oeste do estado de Minas Gerais.

1.3 Natureza do problema e relevância

O Bloco Guanhães é um importante alvo para a investigação de eventos

magmáticos e bacias que sobre ele se instalaram após a amalgamação do
paleocontinente São Francisco-Congo, bem como de processos tafrogênicos
anteriores à formação do Orógeno Araçuaí. Dessa forma, as rochas metaígneas e
metavulcanossedimentares associadas que ocorrem na região são bons alvos para
a compreensão da evolução desses processos.
No entanto, a área possui apenas cartografia básica na escala 1:100.000, da
década de 90, e carece de dados de maior detalhe e estudos sistemáticos. O acervo
de dados geológicos para a extensa área do Bloco Guanhães é extremamente
restrito quando comparado às informações existentes para áreas adjacentes, como
para as regiões do Orógeno Araçuaí, do Supergrupo Espinhaço e do Quadrilátero
 29

Ferrífero, que mesmo contando com amplos estudos geológicos, persistem grandes
incertezas nas relações das unidades litológicas, idades, características dos eventos
tectono-magmáticos e separação de fragmentos crustais.
Dessa forma, por se tratar de uma região pouco estudada, os dados
disponíveis na literatura para as rochas máfico-ultramáficas e de caráter
vulcanossedimentar inseridas no Bloco Guanhães são resultados de observações de
campo e petrográficas, carentes de análises litogeoquímicas e isotópicas. Ademais,
o posicionamento estratigráfico dessas sequências é incerto. As obliterações
tectono-deformacionais de texturas e estruturas primárias, bem como as escassas
relações com as rochas encaixantes, dificultam a elucidação petrogenética dessas
associações. Essas rochas são objetos de discussões, frequentemente em campos
controversos. Knauer & Grossi-Sad (1997) e Noce et al. (2007), dentre outros
autores, sugerem que essas rochas sejam parte de uma sequência greenstone belt
arqueana, enquanto que, Danderfer & Meireles (1987), ao trabalhar em uma
sequencia metavulcanossedimentar na região oeste do Bloco Guanhães,
caracterizam a mesma como possíveis lascas de crosta oceânica em uma zona de
sutura.
Além do exposto, o conhecimento geocronológico está restrito a um pequeno
número de determinações nas rochas do embasamento e intrusivas ácidas (e.g.,
Fernandes 2001, Silva et al. 2002). Na região adjacente, atenção vem sido dada
somente às formações ferríferas bandadas (e.g., Barrote et al. 2017).
Dessa forma, trabalhos de detalhe com suporte geoquímico e isotópico, que
preveem a solução de questões pouco esclarecidas e que tem sido motivo de
debates, permitem estudar os processos relacionados às fases dos magmatismos e
fontes associadas, bem como avaliar a ambiência geotectônica desses corpos,
evidenciando processos de fraturamento crustal, sedimentação e vulcanismo no
Proterozóico.

1.4 Objetivos

O objetivo principal da tese é contribuir para o entendimento dos eventos

magmáticos registrados no Bloco Guanhães. Desse modo, a tese versa a
caracterização do magmatismo máfico-ultramáfico e félsico, das sequências
supracrustais associadas a esses eventos magmáticos e a identificação dos
 30

processos pós-magmáticos. O plano de trabalho envolveu a realização de estudos

de campo, petrográficos, geoquímicos (litoquímica de rocha total, química mineral e
elementos traços em zircão), isotópicos (U-Pb, Lu-Hf e δ18O em zircão) das
sequências máfico-ultramáficas e do magmatismo félsico.

1.4.1 Metamáficas e metafélsicas do Alto Rio Guanhães:

O estudo detalhado focou na idade e nos processos envolvidos nas gerações

dos magmatismos máfico e félsico, e na comparação com eventos magmáticos
cronocorrelatos. Os objetivos e abordagens utilizadas estão listados a seguir:
• Caracterização das rochas metamáficas e metafélsicas, e também das
rochas metassedimentares associadas, através de estudos de campo e
petrográficos.
• Investigação da gênese dos magmatismos de natureza máfica e félsica, dos
processos evolutivos envolvidos e de suas fontes geradoras, através da petrografia,
análises litoquímicas em rocha total e análises U-Pb, Lu-Hf, δ18O e elementos traços
em zircão.
• Determinação da idade dos magmatismos máfico e félsico pela
geocronologia U-Pb LA-ICPMS em zircão.
• Identificação da ambiência geotectônica desses corpos através de estudos
de campo e geoquímicos, auxiliando na construção da história geodinâmica do
Bloco Guanhães.
• Comparações e correlações geoquímicas e geocronológicas entre os
eventos magmáticos identificados e os eventos magmáticos existentes nas áreas
adjacentes ao Guanhães e listados na literatura, na tentativa de elucidar as
semelhanças e diferenças entre os processos e suas implicações petrogenéticas,
visando contribuir para reconstruções geotectônicas da área.

1.4.2 Metaultramáficas da região central do Bloco Guanhães:

Uma investigação petrológica detalhada focou nas modificações petrográficas

e variações composicionais nos corpos de natureza ultrabásica e estimativas P-T.
Os objetivos específicos e abordagens utilizadas encontram-se detalhados a seguir:
 31

• Caracterização dos corpos metaultramáficos e das rochas

metassedimentares associadas, através de estudos de campo e petrográficos.
• Caracterização textural e investigação das modificações dos corpos
metaultramáficos durante a evolução tectono-metamórfica regional, através de
estudos petrográficos e química mineral.
• Determinação das condições P-T através de métodos termobarométricos
clássicos e diagramas de estabilidade mineral.
• Investigação dos líquidos formadores das rochas metaultramáficas através
de análises litogeoquímicas.
• Determinação da idade do magmatismo ultrabásico e da idade do evento
metamórfico imposto, através da geocronologia U-Pb em zircão.
• Determinação da idade máxima de sedimentação de rocha metassedimentar
associada aos metaultramafitos, através da geocronologia U-Pb LA-ICPMS em
zircão.

1.5 Estrutura da tese

A presente tese se divide em oito seções abaixo relacionadas, cada uma

finalizada com as referências bibliográficas consultadas durante sua elaboração:
• Capítulo 1 - Introdução: neste capítulo é apresentada uma introdução ao
tema desta pesquisa, a localização da área, os principais objetivos e a forma de
apresentação deste volume da tese.
• Capítulo 2 - Materiais e métodos: neste capítulo estão detalhados todos os
métodos utilizados no projeto desta tese, com destaque às metodologias analíticas.
• Capítulo 3 - Contexto geológico regional: neste capítulo é apresentado o
contexto geológico no qual a área de estudo se insere, juntamente com uma breve
descrição das unidades estratigráficas e uma revisão dos diversos trabalhos
publicados sobre a área de estudo.
• Capítulo 4 - First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon signatures from
the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province (Eastern Brazil): geotectonic
implications of a silicic large igneous province: neste capítulo é apresentado o artigo
publicado no Brazilian Journal of Geology (Magalhaes et al. 2018). Esse trabalho
caracteriza os eventos magmáticos estaterianos relacionados aos processos
tafrogênicos da abertura do rifte Espinhaço.
 32

• Capítulo 5 - Ultramafic magmatism and thermal metamorphism in the

Guanhães block, SE Brazil: Further evidence for Early Cryogenian rifting in the São
Francisco – Congo paleocontinent. O manuscrito aborda a investigação de idades de
cristalização e idades de metamorfismo em grãos de zircões, processos
petrogenéticos e metamórficos e condições P-T registradas em rochas meta-
ultramáficas na região central do Bloco Guanhães.
• Capítulo 6 – Discussão e integração dos dados: neste capítulo é
apresentada uma discussão integrada de todos os dados obtidos nesta tese e as
implicações tectônicas dos resultados na evolução do Bloco Guanhães e do
Paleocontinente São Francisco.
• Capítulo 7 – Conclusões: síntese das interpretações e conclusões obtidas.
• Capítulos 8 e 9 - anexos com os arquivos suplementares dos artigos
escritos.

1.6 Referências bibliográficas

Abbott, D., Burgess, L., Longhi, J., Smith, W. H., 1994. An empirical thermal history of the
Earth's upper mantle. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99(B7), 13835-
13850.
Albarède, F., Blichert-Toft, J., Vervoort, J. D., Gleason, J. D., Rosing, M., 2000. Hf–Nd
isotope evidence for a transient dynamic regime in the early terrestrial mantle. Nature,
404(6777), 488.
Alkmim F.F., Kuchenbecker M., Reis H.L.S., Pedrosa-Soares A.C. 2017. The Araçuaí Belt.
In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F., Eds.. São Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil:
Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent, Brazil, Springs, pp. 255-276.
Alkmim, F.F., Marshak, S., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Peres, G.G., Cruz, S.C.P., Whittington, A.
2006. Kinematic evolution of the Aracuaí–West Congo orogen in Brazil and Africa:
nutcracker tectonics during the Neoproterozoic assembly of Gondwana. Precambrian
Research, 149, 43–64.
Arndt, N., Chauvel, C., Czamanske, G., Fedorenko, V., 1998. Two mantle sources, two
plumbing systems: tholeiitic and alkaline magmatism of the Maymecha River basin,
Siberian flood volcanic province. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 133(3),
297-313.
Barley, M. E., Bekker, A., Krapež, B., 2005. Late Archean to Early Paleoproterozoic global
tectonics, environmental change and the rise of atmospheric oxygen. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 238(1-2), 156-171.
Barrote, V. R., Rosiere, C. A., Rolim, V. K., Santos, J. O. S., Mcnaughton, N. J., 2017. As
formações ferríferas bandadas proterozoicas de Guanhães, borda sudeste do Cráton
São Francisco, Brasil: evidências de contaminação detrítica. Geologia USP. Série
Científica, 17(2), 303-324.
 33

Berman, R. G., 1991. Thermobarometry using multi-equilibrium calculations; a new

technique, with petrological applications. The Canadian Mineralogist, 29(4), 833-855.
Blichert-Toft, J., Albarède, F., 1997. The Lu-Hf isotope geochemistry of chondrites and the
evolution of the mantle-crust system. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 148(1-2),
243-258.
Carvalho, R. P., Rosière, C. A., Rolim, V. K., de Carvalho Lana, C., Santos, J. O. S., 2014. A
sequência orosiriana-estateriana e geometria transpressiva na região de Santa Maria
de Itabira, Minas Gerais. Geologia USP. Série Científica, 14(2), 111-120.
Chauvel, C., Blichert-Toft, J., 2001. A hafnium isotope and trace element perspective on
melting of the depleted mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 190(3), 137-151.
Condie, K. C., 1998. Episodic continental growth and supercontinents: a mantle avalanche
connection?. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 163(1-4), 97-108.
Condie, K. C., 2004. Supercontinents and superplume events: distinguishing signals in the
geologic record. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 146(1-2), 319-332.
Condie, K. C., 2007. Accretionary orogens in space and time. MEMOIRS-GEOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 200, 145.
Condie, K. C., 2015. Changing tectonic settings through time: indiscriminate use of
geochemical discriminant diagrams. Precambrian Research, 266, 587-591.
Condie, K. C., Aster, R. C., 2010. Episodic zircon age spectra of orogenic granitoids: the
supercontinent connection and continental growth. Precambrian Research, 180(3-4),
227-236.
Condie, K. C., Aster, R. C., van Hunen, J., 2016. A great thermal divergence in the mantle
beginning 2.5 Ga: geochemical constraints from greenstone basalts and komatiites.
Geoscience Frontiers, 7(4), 543-553.
Dandefer, A.F. & Meireles, H. P. 1987. Mapeamento geológico da Região do Alto Rio
Guanhães (MG. Trabalho de Graduação. Univ. Fed. Minas Gerais. Centro de Geologia
Eschwege. Diamantina. 94 p.
de Capitani, C., Petrakakis, K., 2010. The computation of equilibrium assemblage diagrams
with Theriak/Domino software. American Mineralogist, 95(7), 1006-1016.
DePaolo, D.J., 1981. A neodymium and strontium isotopic study of the Mesozoic calc-
alkaline granitic batholiths of the Sierra Nevada and Peninsular Ranges. California
Journal Geophysical Research 86, 10470–10488.
Dickin, A. P., 2000. Crustal formation in the Grenville Province: Nd-isotope evidence.
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 37(2-3), 165-181.
Dilek, Y., 2003. Ophiolite pulses, mantle plumes and orogeny. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 218(1), 9-19.
Dilek, Y., Furnes, H., 2011. Ophiolite genesis and global tectonics: Geochemical and tectonic
fingerprinting of ancient oceanic lithosphere. Bulletin, 123(3-4), 387-411.
Dilek, Y., Furnes, H., Shallo, M., 2007. Suprasubduction zone ophiolite formation along the
periphery of Mesozoic Gondwana. Gondwana Research, 11(4), 453-475.
Dilek, Y., Newcomb, S., Eds.., 2003. Ophiolite concept and the evolution of geological
thought (Vol. 373. Geological Society of America.
Dussin, T. M. 1994. Associacions vulcano- plutoniques de l'Espinhaço Meridional (SE -
Brésil., PhD Thesis), L'Université D'Orléans, France
Eriksson, P. G., Altermann, W., Nelson, D. R., Mueller, W. U., Catuneanu, O., Catuneanu,
O., Eds.), 2004. The Precambrian Earth: tempos and events (Vol. 12. Elsevier.
 34

Ernst, R. E., Buchan, K. L., 2004. Igneous rock associations in Canada 3. Large Igneous
Provinces (LIPs) in Canada and adjacent regions: 3 Ga to present. Geoscience
Canada, 31(3.
Ernst, R. E., Buchan, K. L., 2003. Recognizing mantle plumes in the geological record.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 31(1), 469-523.
Fernandes, M.L.S. 2001. O Granito Borrachudos na região entre Guanhães e Dores de
Guanhães, MG (Plutonito Morro do Urubu): gênese e evolução., PhD Thesis.
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
Gale, A., Dalton, C. A., Langmuir, C. H., Su, Y., Schilling, J. G., 2013. The mean composition
of ocean ridge basalts. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(3):489-518.
Ganne, J., Feng, X., 2017. Primary magmas and mantle temperatures through time.
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18(3), 872-888.
Glikson, A., 2004. An Alternative Earth: Comment. Earth Science Reviews, 15, 1-73.
Grossi-Sad, J. H., 1997. Geologia da Folha Guanhães. In: Grossi-Sad, J. H.; Lobato, L. M.;
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C. & Soares-Filho, B. S., Eds.. Projeto Espinhaço em Cd-Rom
(textos, mapas e anexos. Belo Horizonte, COMIG – Companhia Mineradora de Minas
Gerais. p. 2317-2435.
Harley, S. L. & Kelly, N. M., 2007. Zircon tiny but timely. Elements, 3(1), 13-18.
Heilbron, M., Cordani, U. G., Alkmim, F. F., 2017. The São Francisco Craton, Its Margins. In:
São Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil (pp. 3-13. Springer International Publishing.
Herzberg, C. & Asimow, P. D., 2008. Petrology of some oceanic island basalts: PRIMELT2.
XLS software for primary magma calculation. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems,
9(9).
Herzberg, C., Asimow, P. D., Arndt, N., Niu, Y., Lesher, C. M., Fitton, J. G., ... & Saunders,
A. D., 2007. Temperatures in ambient mantle and plumes: Constraints from basalts,
picrites, and komatiites. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8(2).
Herzberg, C. T. & Ohtani, E., 1988. Origin of komatiite at high pressures. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 88(3-4), 321-329.
Hirschmann, M. M., 2010. Partial melt in the oceanic low velocity zone. Physics of the Earth
and Planetary Interiors, 179(1-2), 60-71.
Horan, M. F., Carlson, R. W., Walker, R. J., Jackson, M., Garçon, M., and Norman, M., 2018.
Tracking Hadean processes in modern basalts with 142-Neodymium. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 484, 184-191.
Hoskin, P. W. & Schaltegger, U., 2003. The composition of zircon and igneous and
metamorphic petrogenesis. Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, 53(1), 27-62.
Iizuka, T., Horie, K., Komiya, T., Maruyama, S., Hirata, T., Hidaka, H., Windley, B. F., 2006.
4.2 Ga zircon xenocryst in an Acasta gneiss from northwestern Canada: Evidence for
early continental crust. Geology, 34(4), 245-248.
Jackson, T. A., Muir, D. C., Vincent, W. F., 2004. Historical variations in the stable isotope
composition of mercury in Arctic lake sediments. Environmental science & technology,
38(10), 2813-2821.
Johnson, T. E., Brown, M., Kaus, B. J., VanTongeren, J. A., 2014. Delamination and
recycling of Archaean crust caused by gravitational instabilities. Nature Geoscience,
7(1), 47.
Kay, R. W., Kay, S. M., 1993. Delamination and delamination magmatism. Tectonophysics,
219(1-3), 177-189.
 35

Knauer, L., Grossi-Sad, J. H., 1997. Geologia da Folha Serro (SE-23-ZB-IV). Projeto
Espinhaço. Belo Horizonte: COMIG, 1.
Kusky, T. M., 2004. Precambrian ophiolites and related rocks (Vol. 13). Elsevier.
Lanari, P. & Duesterhoeft, E., 2018. Modeling Metamorphic Rocks Using Equilibrium
Thermodynamics and Internally Consistent Databases: Past Achievements, Problems
and Perspectives. Journal of Petrology, 60(1), 19-56.
Maas, R., Kinny, P. D., Williams, I. S., Froude, D. O., Compston, W., 1992. The Earth's
oldest known crust: a geochronological and geochemical study of 3900–4200 Ma old
detrital zircons from Mt. Narryer and Jack Hills, Western Australia. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 56(3), 1281-1300.
Magalhães, J. R., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Dussin, I., Muntener, O., Silva, L. C., Pinheiro, M.
A. P., Knauer, L. G., Bouvier, A. S., Baumgartner, L., 2018. First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace
elements in zircon signatures from the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province
(Eastern Brazil): Geotectonic implications. Brazilian Journal of Geology. 48(4), 735-759.
Matteini, M., Dantas, E. L., Pimentel, M. M., Bühn, B., 2010. Combined U-Pb and Lu-Hf
isotope analyses by laser ablation MC-ICP-MS: methodology and applications. Anais
da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 82(2), 479-491.
Mueller, P. A., Wooden, J. L., Mogk, D. W., Henry, D. J., Bowes, D. R., 2010. Rapid growth
of an Archean continent by arc magmatism. Precambrian Research, 183(1), 70-88.
Noce C.M., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Silva, L.C., Alkmim, F.F. 2007. O embasamento
arqueano e paleoproterozóico do Orógeno Araçuaí. Genomos, 15(1): 17-23.
Nutman, A. P., Friend, C. R., Bennett, V. C., 2001. Review of the oldest (4400-3600 Ma)
geological and mineralogical record: glimpses of the beginning. Episodes, 24(2), 93-
101.
Nutman, A. P., McGregor, V. R., Friend, C. R., Bennett, V. C., Kinny, P. D., 1996. The Itsaq
gneiss complex of southern West Greenland; the world's most extensive record of early
crustal evolution (3900-3600 Ma. Precambrian Research, 78(1-3), 1-39.
Pearce, J. A., 2005. Mantle preconditioning by melt extraction during flow: Theory,
petrogenetic implications. Journal of Petrology, 46(5), 973-997.
Pearce, J. A., 2008. Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic basalts with applications to
ophiolite classification, The search for Archean oceanic crust. Lithos, 100(1):14-48.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., de Alkmim, F. F., 2011. How many rifting events preceded the
development of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogen? Revista Geonomos, 19(2):244-251.
Polat, A., Kerrich, R., Wyman, D. A., 1999. Geochemical diversity in oceanic komatiites,
basalts from the late Archean Wawa greenstone belt, Superior Province, Canada: trace
element, Nd isotope evidence for a heterogeneous mantle. Precambrian Research,
94(3):139-173.
Powell, R. & Holland, T. J. B., 2008. On thermobarometry. Journal of Metamorphic Geology,
26(2), 155-179.
Reddy, S. & Evans, D. A. D., 2009. Palaeoproterozoic supercontinents and global evolution:
correlations from core to atmosphere. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 323(1), 1-26.
Rogers, J. J., 1996. A history of continents in the past three billion years. The journal of
geology, 104(1), 91-107.
Rogers, J. J. & Santosh, M., 2004. Continents and supercontinents. Oxford University Press.
 36

Rozel, A. B., Golabek, G. J., Jain, C., Tackley, P. J., Gerya, T., 2017. Continental crust
formation on early Earth controlled by intrusive magmatism. Nature, 545(7654), 332.
Rudnick, R. L. & Gao, S., 2003. Composition of the continental crust. Treatise on
geochemistry, 3, 659.
Ryder, G., Koeberl, C., Mojzsis, S. J., 2000. Heavy bombardment of the Earth at~ 3.85 Ga:
The search for petrographic and geochemical evidence. Origin of the Earth and Moon,
475.
Saccani, E., 2015. A new method of discriminating different types of post-Archean ophiolitic
basalts, their tectonic significance using Th-Nb, Ce-Dy-Yb systematics. Geoscience
Frontiers, 6(4):481-501.
Safonova, I., Maruyama, S., Kojima, S., Komiya, T., Krivonogov, S., Koshida, K., 2016.
Recognizing OIB and MORB in accretionary complexes: A new approach based on
ocean plate stratigraphy, petrology, geochemistry. Gondwana Research, 33:92-114.
Schaltegger, U. & Davies, J. H., 2017. Petrochronology of zircon, baddeleyite in igneous
rocks: Reconstructing magmatic processes at high temporal resolution. Reviews in
Mineralogy, Geochemistry, 83(1):297-328.
Silva, L. C., Armstrong, R., Noce, C.M., Carneiro, M.A., Pimentel, M.M., Pedrosa-Soares,
A.C., Leite, C.A.S., Vieira, V.S., Silva, M.A., Paes, V.J.C., Cardoso Filho, J.M. 2002.
Reavaliação da evolução geológica em terrenos pré-cambrianos brasileiros, com base
em novos dados U-Pb SHRIMP, Parte II: orógeno Araçuaí, Cinturão Mineiro e Cráton
São Francisco Meridional. Revista Brasileira de Geociências 32 (4):513-528.
Silva, L. C., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Armstrong, R., Pinto, C. P., Magalhães, J. T. R.,
Pinheiro, M. A. P., Santos, G. G. 2016. Disclosing the Paleoarchean to Ediacaran
history of the São Francisco craton basement: The Porteirinha domain (northern
Araçuaí orogen, Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 68: 50-67.
Silveira Braga, F.C., Rosière, C.A., Queiroga, G.N., Rolim, V.K., Schneider Santos, J.O.,
Mcnaughton, N.J. 2015. The Statherian itabirite-bearing sequence from the Morro
Escuro Ridge, Santa Maria de Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences, v58: 33-53
Simonson, B. M. & Glass, B. P., 2004. Spherule layers—Records of ancient impacts. Annu.
Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 32, 329-361.
Sizova, E., Gerya, T., Stüwe, K., Brown, M., 2015. Generation of felsic crust in the Archean:
a geodynamic modeling perspective. Precambrian Research, 271, 198-224.
Snow, J. E., Schmidt, G., 1998. Constraints on Earth accretion deduced from noble metals in
the oceanic mantle. Nature, 391(6663), 166.
Sobolev, A. V., Asafov, E. V., Gurenko, A. A., Arndt, N. T., Batanova, V. G., Portnyagin, M.
V., Garbe-Schönberg, D., Krasheninnikov, S. P., 2016. Komatiites reveal a hydrous
Archaean deep-mantle reservoir. Nature, 531(7596), 628.
Velikoslavinsky, S. D. & Krylov, D. P., 2014. Geochemical discrimination of basalts formed in
major geodynamic settings. Geotectonics, 48(6):427-439.
Verma, S. K., Oliveira, E. P., Verma, S. P., 2015. Plate tectonic settings for Precambrian
basic rocks from Brazil by multidimensional tectonomagmatic discrimination diagrams,
their limitations. International Geology Review, 57(11-12):1566-1581
Vervoort, J. D., Patchett, P. J., Gehrels, G. E., Nutman, A. P., 1996. Constraints on early
Earth differentiation from hafnium and neodymium isotopes. Nature, 379(6566), 624.
Vervoort, J. D., Blichert-Toft, J., 1999. Evolution of the depleted mantle: Hf isotope evidence
from juvenile rocks through time. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 63(3-4), 533-556.
 37

Wilde, S. A., Valley, J. W., Peck, W. H., Graham, C. M., 2001. Evidence from detrital zircons
for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature,
409(6817), 175.
Whitehouse, M. J. & Kemp, A. I. S., 2010. On the difficulty of assigning crustal residence,
magmatic protolith and metamorphic ages to Lewisian granulites: constraints from
combined in situ U–Pb and Lu–Hf isotopes. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 335(1), 81-101.
Wyche, S., Nelson, D. R., Riganti, A., 2004. 4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern
Cross Granite-Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early
evolution of the Yilgarn Craton. Australian journal of Earth sciences, 51(1), 31-45.
Zegers, T. E., van Keken, P. E., 2001. Middle Archean continent formation by crustal
delamination. Geology, 29(12), 1083-1086.
 38

2 Materiais e Métodos

O projeto da tese de doutorado envolveu a realização de estudos de campo,

petrográficos, geoquímicos (litoquímico e química mineral) e isotópicos (Lu-Hf, δ18O
e U-Pb em zircão) principalmente de rochas metamáficas, metaultramáficas e
metafélsicas que intrudem o Bloco Guanhães.
Foi realizado um estágio sanduíche no exterior vinculado ao programa
Ciência sem Fronteiras, entre Janeiro/2016 e Dezembro/2016, no Instituto das
Ciências da Terra (Institut des sciences de la Terre) da Universidade de Lausanne
(Université de Lausanne), na cidade de Lausanne, Suíça. Esse período sanduíche
contou com a supervisão do pesquisador Dr. Othmar Müntener, especialista em
petrologia ígnea e geoquímica, juntamente com a colaboração e cooperação de
outros especialistas da universidade.

2.1 Levantamentos bibliográficos

A revisão bibliográfica foi realizada ao longo de todo o período de trabalho,

através de artigos científicos, mapas geológicos e relatórios associados, trabalhos
apresentados em congressos e simpósios, além de monografias, dissertações e
teses sobre a geologia da região do Bloco Guanhães e da borda leste da Serra do
Espinhaço, bem como sobre os métodos analíticos a serem utilizados.

2.2 Trabalhos de campo

A primeira etapa de campo foi realizada na região de Materlândia, Euxenita e

Sabinópolis (MG), durante o ano de 2014, para reconhecimento regional, realização
de seções litoestruturais e coleta de amostras dos litotipos máfico-ultramáficos e
félsicos estudados ao longo do vale do rio Guanhães (noroeste do Bloco Guanhães),
utilizando a folha topográfica Serro (SE-23-Z-B-IV), escala 1:100.000 – IBGE (1978).
Os demais trabalhos de campo, que foram divididos em outras duas etapas
realizadas no ano de 2015, foram concentrados nas ocorrências de rochas máfico-
ultramáficas da região central do Bloco Guanhães para reconhecimento e
amostragem. Foram realizados perfis de detalhe para o estabelecimento das
 39

relações entre os litotipos ultramáficos e rochas metassedimentares associadas, nas

proximidades dos municípios de Materlândia, Guanhães e Divinilândia de Minas
(MG), com auxílio da folha topográfica Guanhães (SE-23-Z-B-V), escala 1:100.000 –
IBGE (1980).
A tabela 2-1, a seguir, sumariza as amostras que foram coletadas e as
análises laboratoriais realizadas. Foram excluídas da listagem as amostras
coletadas com fins exclusivos de descrição petrográfica.

Tabela 2-1: Relação das amostras analisadas e métodos analíticos utilizados.

Análises
Element 18
Química U-Pb em δ O em Lu-Hf em Geotermo-
Amostra Litotipo Litoquímica os traços
Mineral zircão zircão zircão barometria
em zircão
J02 Anfibolito x x x x x x
J02A Anfibolito x x
J03 Metariolito x x x x x x
J12 Anfibolito x x
J15 Anfibolito x x
J17B Talco-anfibólio xisto x x
J20 Anfibolito x x
J21 Metariolito x x
J24 Anfibolito x x
J25B Anfibolito x x
J25D Anfibolito x x
J27 Granada granito x x
J33 Anfibolito x x
J34B Anfibolito x x
J36 Anfibolito x x
J38 Anfibolito x x
J39 Anfibolito x x
J67B Anfibólio-olivina-clorita granofels x x x x x x
J71 Ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina granofels x x x
J72 Ortopiroxênio hornblendito x x x
J79A Ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina granofels x x x
J81 Ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina granofels x x x
J82 Rocha silicática rica em ferro x x x x x x
J93 Granada granito x
J107 Ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-clinopiroxênio-olivina granofels x x
J109A Olivina serpentinito x x x
J109B Granada gnaisse x x
LC40 Anfibólio-biotita sienogranito x x

2.3 Análises petrográficas

Dos corpos selecionados para estudo, foram confeccionadas setenta e seis

seções delgadas e polidas preparadas nos laboratórios de laminação da
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais e Université de Lausanne. As lâminas foram
descritas visando à identificação mineralógica, determinação das relações texturais
e reações metamórficas, utilizando o microscópio óptico Olympus modelo BX 51,
 40

trinocular com implementos para as observações de propriedades ortoscópicas e

conoscópicas, nos laboratórios de Petrografia da CPRM-Serviço Geológico do Brasil
(SUREG-BH) e da Université de Lausanne (Suíça). As fotomicrografias foram
obtidas a partir de um adaptador Olympus Universal Infinity System para captura de
imagens acoplada ao microscópio, com resolução de 3.2 megapixel. As abreviações
minerais seguiram aquelas adotadas por Whitney & Evans (2010) e os valores para
a definição da granulação fina, média e grossa da rocha são, respectivamente: fina
<1mm, média >1 e <5mm, e grossa >5mm. Nas ilustrações através de
fotomicrografias, os diâmetros do campo de visão equivalem a 10mm, 8mm, 5mm,
2mm e 1mm quando utilizados as oculares de 10x de aumento, em objetivas de 2x,
2,5x, 4x, 10x e 20x respectivamente, e a quantificação modal dos constituintes
baseou-se em estimativas visuais.

2.4 Análises em microscópios eletrônico de varredura (MEV) acoplado com

EDS (Energy dispersive x-ray detector)

Identificação de fases minerais acessórias e estudos microtexturais de alta

resolução de seções polidas foram realizados através de imagens de elétrons
retroespalhados (back-scattered electron imaging-BSE). Imagens de elétrons
secundários (imagens SE) e imagens de catodoluminescência (imagens CL) foram
realizadas em grãos de zircões para estudos texturais, como identificação de
zoneamento composicional. As imagens foram obtidas através de microscópio
eletrônico de varredura (MEV), modelos Tescan Mira LMU e CamScan MV2300 no
Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de Lausanne (Suíça), e no modelo
Quanta 250 (FEI Company) do Laboratório Multiusuário (MULTILAB) da
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

2.5 Análises de química mineral através de microssonda eletrônica

Análises químicas minerais quantitativas foram realizadas em vinte e sete

seções polidas preparadas para o item 2.3. Foram dosados, majoritariamente,
elementos maiores em cristais de olivina, ortopiroxênio, clinopiroxênio, espinélio,
anfibólio, clorita, serpentina, magnetita, talco, plagioclásio e biotita. As seções
polidas foram analisadas através da microssonda eletrônica JEOL JXA-8200 no
 41

Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de Lausanne (Suíça), operando em

tensão de 15 kV, 20 nA de corrente de feixe, com diâmetro do feixe entre 3-5 μm. Os
tempos de contagem foram 20s no pico e 10s no fundo. Os padrões utilizados foram
wolastonita (Si), ortoclásio (K), anortita (Al, Ca), albita (Na), forsterita (Mg),
almandina (Fe), tefrite (Mn) e ilmenita (Ti). Medições de padrões analíticos no início
de cada sessão forneceram precisões <2% para os óxidos analisados. Efeitos de
correção da matriz foram realizados segundo Armstrong (1995).
Análises minerais complementares foram obtidas pela microssonda JEOL
JXA-8230 do Laboratório de Microanálises da Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto.
As condições de operação foram: tensões de aceleração de 15 kV, diâmetro de feixe
de 5 μm e corrente de feixe de 20 nA. Foram utilizados os seguintes padrões:
quartzo (Si), gahnite (Al), anortoclásio (Na), olivina (Mg), microclina (K), Fe (Fe),
diopsídio (Ca), rutilo (Ti) e MnO2 (Mn). Os resultados obtidos são apresentados nos
apêndices deste volume.

2.6 Preparação de amostras

2.6.1 Para análises de geoquímica em rocha total

Para o estudo de litogeoquímica, foram selecionados os espécimes mais

representativos dos afloramentos mais significantes, levando-se em conta a
distribuição dos corpos estudados. A intensidade dos processos intempéricos e
metamórfico-deformacionais foram consideradas para a seleção das amostras. Parte
das amostras selecionadas foi preparada no Laboratório de britagem e moagem do
Instituto de Geociências, da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. As amostras
foram inicialmente lavadas e porções alteradas da rocha foram retiradas.
Posteriormente, as amostras foram britadas manualmente em frações inferiores a 5
mm com auxílio de uma marreta. As britas foram novamente lavadas com água e
secas em estufa. Em seguida, as britas foram quarteadas manualmente e, então,
pulverizadas até atingir fração inferior a 200 mesh utilizando moinho de discos. As
amostras pulverizadas foram acondicionadas em recipientes de plástico esterilizados
e posteriormente analisadas no Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de
Lausanne (Suíça), através da confecção de pastilhas fundidas. As etapas de
 42

preparação das pastilhas vítreas envolveram nova pulverização das amostras em

moinho de ágata e secagem em estufa a 100°C. Cerca de 1.2 g de amostra foi
misturada com 6 g de tetraborato de lítio e fundida por cerca de 5 minutos em
cadinhos de platina a 1300°C.
O restante das amostras foi preparado pelo laboratório ACME Analytical
Laboratories Ltd. (Canadá), de acordo com a rotina do pacote PRP70-250, que
envolve britagem até fragmentos de 2 mm e pulverização até 75 µm.

2.6.2 Para análises isotópicas e de elementos traço em zircão

As amostras separadas para análises geocronológicas foram submetidas a

processos de britagem, moagem e separação mineral por métodos convencionais no
Laboratório de Tratamento de Amostras e no de Laboratório de Separação Mineral
do Centro de Pesquisas Geocronológicas (CPGeo) do Instituto de Geociências da
Universidade de São Paulo (USP). As amostras, previamente lavadas e secas em
estufa, foram fragmentadas manualmente com auxílio de uma marreta. Em seguida,
foram britadas em britador primário de mandíbulas de aço para cominuição das
amostras em fragmentos menores do que 1 centímetro e posterior moagem em
moinho de disco de tungstênio e peneiramento para a separação de frações de
granulação entre 100 e 200 μm e porções de grãos menores do que 200 μm. Os
mineirais densos foram concentrados por pressão de água e vibração em mesa de
concentração Wiffley. Posteriormente, houve separação dos minerais magnéticos,
como a magnetita, através do imã de mão e nova separação em separador
magnético do tipo Frantz, a corrente de 1,0, 0,8 e 0,7 A. A porção não magnética foi
levada para capela de exaustão para separação dos minerais mais densos do que o
bromofórmio (2,89 g/cm3). Essa porção de minerais mais densos que 2,89 g/cm 3 foi
levada ao separador magnético tipo Frantz e submetida a corrente de 0,5 A.
Posteriormente, dentro a fração não magnética, são separados os minerais mais
densos que o iodeto de metileno (3,32 g/cm 3) e obtida uma concentração de
minerais mais densos, como o zircão (4,7 g/cm3).
Todos os zircões selecionados foram montados sobre a superfície de um
cilindro, em epoxy, com 2,5 cm de diâmetro e 6 mm de altura. Após seca, a
superfície foi polida com pasta diamantada até os grãos ficarem expostos,
 43

permitindo assim as análises isotópicas U-Pb e Lu-Hf e a determinação dos

elementos traço nos grãos de zircão.
Para as análises de isótopos de oxigênio, a fim de minimizar os efeitos de
fracionamento instrumental devido a irregularidade da superfície topográfica dos
mounts em epoxy, os mesmos foram recortados em peças menores com 2 mm de
altura e re-montados em discos de alumínio preenchidos por índio. Utilizando uma
prensa hidráulica, as peças contendo os zircões a serem analisados foram
prensadas nos discos de alumínio de 2.5 cm preenchidos por índio, sem necessitar
de novo polimento. Os grãos de zircões utilizados como padrão (~ 2 mm) também
foram prensados no mount de índio.

2.7 Análises litogeoquímicas

Análises litogeoquímicas para determinação dos elementos maiores, menores

e traços, incluindo terras raras, em amostras selecionadas foram conduzidas no
Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de Lausanne (Suíça) e no ACME
Analytical Laboratories (Canadá), após preparação descrita no item 2.6.1.
Na Université de Lausanne, as composições dos elementos maiores foram
obtidas através de espectrometria de fluorescência de raios –x em pastilhas fundidas
utilizando o espectômetro Philips PW2400. Os materiais de referência SY-2, NIMN,
NIMG, BHVO e BE-N (Govindaraju 1994) foram utilizados para controle da exatidão
analítica. As incertezas em análises de XRF estão na faixa de 0,5% em peso (2
sigma) para elementos maiores como SiO2 a <0,01% em peso para elementos
menores. As concentrações dos elementos traços foram determinadas através da
análise de fragmentos das pastilhas fundidas via LA-ICPMS, utilizando um
espectrômetro Agilent 7700 conectado a um sistema de ablação a laser GeoLas
200M, operando em condições de taxa de repetição de 10 Hz e energia de ~160mJ,
equivalente a 12 J/cm–2. O diâmetro do feixe variou ente 75 e 100 µm. Os tempos de
leitura de background e de aquisição foram 100 e 50-55, respectivamente. Dwell
times variaram entre 10-20 ms. As concentrações absolutas dos elementos traços
foram determinadas usando a composição de CaO, previamente medida por XRF,
como um padrão interno e NIST SRM 612 como um padrão externo (Jochum et al.
2011). Os dados foram processados usando o software LAMTRACE (Jackson 2008).
 44

As análises conduzidas no ACME Analytical Laboratories Ltd seguiram a

rotina do laboratório contratado segundo pacote LF202. A análise dos elementos
maiores foi realizada por ICP-AES após fusão da amostra com
metaborato/tetraborato de lítio e digestão multiácida. Os elementos menores e
traços foram analisados por ICP-MS. Os materiais de referência utilizados para
testes de exatidão foram DS10, OREAS45EA e SO-18. Os erros analíticos não
ultrapassaram 5% para a maioria dos óxidos e cerca de 10% para a maioria dos
elementos menores e elementos de terras raras.
No tratamento dos dados de litogeoquímica, foram utilizados os softwares
Geochemical Tool Kit, em plataforma R, desenvolvido por Janoušek et al. (2006) e o
IgPet, desenvolvido por Carr (1995). Os resultados obtidos são apresentados nos
apêndices deste volume.

2.8 Geocronologia U-Pb via LA-ICPMS (Laser ablation - Inductively

coupled plasma mass spectrometry)

Análises geocronológicas U-Pb foram realizadas in situ em grãos de zircões

de representantes de rochas de natureza máfica, ultramáfica, félsica e calci-silicática
em três sistemas LA-ICP-MS.
As amostras de rocha máfica J02 e rocha félsica J03 foram analisadas
através do espectrômetro multicoletor Neptune-Plus Plasma (Thermo Fisher
Scientific) acoplado a um sistema de ablação a laser Excimer Laser 193 nm - ATLEX
(Photon Machine) pulsado com ArF, no Laboratório Multiusuário (MULTILAB) da
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Os dados isotópicos foram adquiridos
pelo modo estático com diâmetro do feixe de laser de 25 µm, potência de saída do
laser de 8-9 mJ/ cm2, taxa de repetição de 10 Hz e potência no spot de 30-40%. As
leituras dos diversos picos, das diferentes massas, foram efetuadas
simultaneamente em 50 ciclos de 1,048s de tempo de integração. A configuração
206
dos coletores permitiu a medida simultânea dos isótopos Pb, 208Pb, 232
Th, 238U,
202 204 207
Hg, Pb e Pb. Fracionamento de elementos por indução do laser e
discriminação de massa instrumental foram corrigidos com a utilização do zircão de
referência GJ-1 (Jackson et al. 2004). Erros externos foram calculados com a
propagação do erro das medidas individuais do padrão GJ-1 e das medidas
individuais de cada amostra de zircão. Chemale Jr. et al. (2012) descrevem com
 45

detalhe o método utilizado. Para controlar a qualidade de dados, foram analisados

para cada conjunto de amostras e padrão GJ-1, grãos do padrão secundário
204
Plešovice (Sláma et al. 2008). O valor do Pb foi corrigido para a presença do
204
Hg, assumindo-se que a razão de 202Hg/204Hg é igual a 4,31.
As amostras dos metaultramafitos J67 e J79, do metamafito J72 e da rocha
calci-silicática J82 foram analisadas com um multicoletor Thermo-Finnigan Neptune
ICP-MS a um sistema de ablação a laser CETAC LSX-213 G2 da Universidade
Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP) seguindo o procedimento descrito em Santos et al.
(2017). Os parâmetros de configuração do instrumento envolveram diâmetro do feixe
de laser de 20 μm, frequência de 6 Hz, 10% de energia com uma intensidade de 0,3
mJ. Os dados de U-Pb foram padronizados usando o zircão GJ-1 (Jackson et al.
2004) como padrão primário e testados usando o zircão Plešovice (Sláma et al.
2008) como padrão secundário. Erros externos foram propagados considerando a
reprodutibilidade interna das razões individuais, a reprodutibilidade do padrão GJ-1,
a incerteza a longo prazo do material de validação, as incertezas do padrão de
referência e a incerteza da razão Pb comum (Lana et al. 2017).
Análises complementares das amostras do metamafito J72 e da rocha calci-
silicática J82 foram realizadas no Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de
Lausanne (Suíça), utilizando um espectrômetro Element XR acoplado a um sistema
de ablação a laser NewWave UP-193FX. As condições de operação são similares as
descritas em Ulianov et al. (2012), incluindo um diâmetro do feixe de laser de 25 μm,
densidade de energia de 2,2 - 2,3 J / cm2, taxa de repetição de 5 Hz. O padrão de
zircão GJ-1 (Jackson et al. 2004) foi usado para padronização externa. O segundo
padrão de zircão, Plešovice (Sláma et al. 2008), foi analisado em conjunto com os
zircões amostrados em uma rotina para controlar a precisão dos resultados. As
incertezas relatadas para todas as idades calculadas estão no nível de incerteza de
2σ (95%).
A redução dos dados foi realizada por planilhas desenvolvidas pelos
laboratórios e o programa Isoplot (Ludwing 2003) foi utilizado para o cálculo das
idades e diagramas concórdia. Análises com discordância maior do que 10% e Pb
comum maior do que 3% foram desconsideradas. Os resultados são apresentados
nos apêndices deste volume.
 46

2.9 Análises de elementos traços em zircões por ablação a laser (LA-ICP-

MS)

Análises de elementos traços, incluindo terras raras, in situ em grãos de

zircões foram realizadas em diferentes amostras de rochas de natureza máfica,
ultramáfica, félsica e calci-silicática. As análises por LA-ICPMS foram realizadas no
Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de Lausanne, utilizando um
espectrômetro Element XR (Thermo Scientific) acoplado a um sistema de ablação a
laser ArF NewWave UP-193. Os zircões foram analisados com feixe de laser de 35
µm de diâmetro. Sempre que possível, as análises foram realizadas nos mesmos
domínios das análises U-Pb, considerando as imagens de catodoluminescência. O
material de referência NIST SRM 612 (Pearce et al. 1996) foi utilizado para controle
dos resultados analíticos, sendo medido duas vezes no início e duas vezes no final
de uma sequência analítica com 12 zircões de interesse. Os tempos de aquisição do
background e de ablação da amostra foram de aproximadamente 100s e 50s,
respectivamente. Dwell times variaram entre 10 a 20ms. Para a redução dos dados
foi utilizado o programa LAMTRACE (Jackson 2008), assumindo SiO2 = 31.57 wt%.
Os resultados são apresentados nos apêndices deste volume.

2.10 Análises de isótopos de oxigênio em zircões via SIMS (Secondary Ion

Mass Spectrometer)

18
Análises precisas de razões O/16O in situ em zircões de rochas de natureza
máfica, ultramáfica, félsica e calci-silicática foram realizadas utilizando a sonda
iônica Cameca IMS 1280-HR, no Institut des sciences de la Terre da Université de
Lausanne. As medidas foram realizadas com um feixe focado de Cs+ de 10kV com
uma intensidade de cerca de 2 nA de corrente e diâmetro de 15 µm. Cada análise
levou cerca de 4 minutos, incluindo pré-sputtering (60 segundos). Os isótopos de
oxigênio foram analisados em um modo multicoletor utilizando copos de Faraday. A
calibração de massa foi realizada no início de cada sessão e o fator de
fracionamento instrumental de massa foi corrigido usando o padrão internacional de
zircão Plengai (Li et al. 2010). As análises do padrão foram realizadas rotineiramente
quatro vezes no início da sessão e, subsequentemente, a cada 13 zircões de
interesse. Em média, a reprodutibilidade para o zircão Plengai foi de 0,3% (2SD) e
 47

as variações ao longo de toda a sessão estiveram entre 0,18 e 0,37% (2SD). Após
as análises, todas os spots foram reexaminadas através de imagens obtidas no
microscópio eletrônico de varredura (MEV). Os resultados são apresentados nos
apêndices deste volume.

2.11 Análises isotópicas Lu-Hf via LA-ICP-MS

Os isótopos de Lu-Hf foram obtidos em rocha metamáfica e metafélsica por

meio de um espectrômetro Neptune (Thermo Scientific) acoplado a um sistema de
ablação a laser NdYAG 193 nm (Photon Machine), nas dependências do Laboratório
de Geologia Isotópica (LGI) do Instituto de Geociências (IG) da Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). As análises foram realizadas com spot de 50 µm,
sempre que possível no mesmo local onde foi realizada a aquisição isotópica U-Pb,
com tempo de ablação de 60 segundos. O material de referência utilizado foi o
zircão Temora-2 (Black et al. 2004). A intensidade típica do sinal foi
180 172 173 175
aproximadamente 12 V para o isótopo Hf. Os isótopos Yb, Yb e Lu foram
monitorados simultaneamente para correção de interferência isobárica dos isótopos
176 176
de Lu e Yb com massa 176. Yb and Lu foram calculados utilizando o valor da
176 173 176
razão Yb/ Yb = 0,796218 (Chu et al. 2002) e Lu/175Lu como 0,02658. A
correção das interferências e mass bias utilizou lei exponencial, com valor da razão
179
Hf/177Hf = 0,7325 (Patchett & Tatsumoto 1980). Geralmente, a interferência de
mass bias dos isótopos de Yb difere ligeiramente da dos isótopos de Hf por um
desvio típico de βHf/βYb de cerca de 1,04 a 1,06, quando se utiliza o valor de
172
Yb/173Yb = 1,35274 (Chu et al. 2002). Este desvio foi determinado para cada
sessão analítica pela média de βHf/βYb de múltiplas análises da solução JMC-475 e
todas as análises de ablação a laser (tipicamente n> 50) do zircão TEMORA com
173
Yb com intensidade de sinal > 60 mV. O comportamento do mass bias do Lu foi
assumido para seguir o do Yb. As razões isotópicas Yb e Lu foram corrigidas
utilizando-se o βHf das etapas individuais de integração de cada análise divididas
pelo fator médio de offset da sessão analítica completa. Os resultados são
apresentados nos apêndices deste volume.
 48

2.12 Geotermobarometria clássica e modelagem termodinâmica tipo pseudo-

seção

Geotermômetros convencionais e modelagem pseudo-seção foram aplicados

principalmente nas amostras metaultramáficas abordadas, de forma a restringir as
temperaturas mínimas e os valores de pressão a que estas rochas foram
submetidas.
Como os geotermômetros mais utilizados para sistemas ultramáficos são
baseados em rochas contendo clinopiroxênio e granada e estão associados a
experimentos construídos considerando condições mantélicas, os valores obtidos
foram limitados pela modelagem tipo pseudo-seção. Além disso, as diversas versões
publicadas de termômetros podem mostrar uma discrepância sistemática de mais de
centenas de graus centígrados (por exemplo: Brey & Kohler 1990, Witt-Eickschen &
Seck 1991).
Neste trabalho, as condições mínimas de temperatura associadas os
metaultramafitos foram obtidas utilizando os geotermômetros: clinopiroxênio-
ortopiroxênio (Bertrand & Mercier 1985, 1986; Brey & Kohler 1990; Herzberg &
Chapman 1976; Wells 1977; Wood & Banno 1973), Ca-em-ortopiroxênio (Brey &
Kohler 1990), Al-Cr-em-ortopiroxênio (Witt-Eickschen & Seck 1991) e olivina-
espinélio (Fabriès et al. 1979).
A modelagem termodinâmica tipo pseudo-seção foi realizada utilizando o
programa Theriak-Domino (de Capitani & Brown 1987, de Capitani & Petrakakis
2010) com o banco de dados termodinamicamente consistente desenvolvido por
Berman (1988), no sistema químico CaO-FeO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2-H2O (CFMASH). A
fim de restringir a faixa de estabilidade P-T da assembleia mineral do
metaultramafito da amostra J67B (anfibólio-olivina-clorita granofels), o diagrama de
equilíbrio de fase foi calculado através da composição litogeoquímica dessa rocha.
As fases minerais consideradas foram: anfibólio, olivina, clorita, talco e magnetita..
Os modelos de solução sólida são de Berman (1988).
A quantidade de ferro férrico foi controlada especificando a quantidade
adequada de oxigênio extra necessária para manter estável o volume modal das
fases com Fe3+. Para isso, o teor extra de oxigênio foi calculado através de
diagramas isobáricos de oxigênio vs. temperatura, em pressão constante de 2,0
kbar. O teor de H2O foi estimado por modelagem termodinâmica em diagramas
 49

isobáricos de temperatura (°C) vs. H (mol%), com pressão constante de 2,0 kbar
para a amostra J67 e 3,5 kbar para a amostra J81. Isopletas de composição de Al
em clorita e teor de Fo em olivina foram usadas para restringir as condições
estáveis. O conteúdo de H2O necessário para estabilizar a assembleia mineral foi
estimado considerando o valor de LOI. A modelagem P-T foi conduzida a um
intervalo de temperatura entre 500–900 °C e pressão entre 1–8 kbar para cobrir as
condições de facies hornfels, anfibolito e granulito.

2.13 Referências bibliográficas

Armstrong, J.T., 1995. CITZAF - a package of correction programs for the quantitative
electron microbeam X-ray analysis of thick polished materials, thin-films and particles.
Microbeam Analysis, 4(3), 177–200.
Berman, R.G., 1988. Internally-consistent thermodynamic data for minerals in the system
Na2O-K2O-CaO-MgO-FeO-Fe2O3-Al2O3-SiO2-TiO2-H2O-CO2. Journal of petrology,
29(2), 445-522.
Black, L.P., Kamo, S. L., Allen, C.M., Davis, D.W., Aleinikoff, J.N., Valley, J.W., Mundil, R.,
Campbell, I.H., Korsch, R.J.,; Williams, I.S, Foudoulis, C., 2004. Improved 206 Pb/238
U microprobe geochronology by the monitoring of a trace-element-related matrix effect;
SHRIMP, ID–TIMS, ELA–ICP–MS and oxygen isotope documentation for a series of
zircon standards. Chemical Geology, 205(1), 115-140.
Bertrand, P., and Mercier, J.C.C., 1985/86, The mutual solubility of coexisting ortho- and
clinopyroxene: toward an absolute geothermometer for natural system?: Earth &
Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 76, no. l/2, 109-122.
Brey, G.P., & Köhler, T., 1990. Geothermobarometry in four-phase lherzolites II. New
thermobarometers, and practical assessment of existing thermobarometers. Journal of
Petrology, 31(6), 1353-1378.Carr M. 1995. IgPet for Windows. Terra Software,
Somerset, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Chemale, Jr., F., Kawashita, K., Dussin, I. A., Ávila, J.N., Justino, D., Bertotti, A., 2012. U-Pb
zircon in situ dating with LA-MC-ICP-MS using a mixed detector configuration. Anais da
Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 84(2), 275-295.
Chu, N.C., Taylor R.N., Chavagnac, V., Nesbitt, R.W., Boella, R.M., Milton, J.A., German
C.A, Bayon G., Burton K., 2002. Hf isotope ratio analysis using multi-collector
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: an evaluation of isobaric interference
corrections. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 17(12), 1567-1574.
de Capitani, C. & Brown, T.H., 1987. The computation of chemical equilibrium in complex
systems containing non-ideal solutions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 51(10),
2639-2652.
de Capitani, C. & Petrakakis, K., 2010. The computation of equilibrium assemblage diagrams
with Theriak/Domino software. American Mineralogist, 95(7), 1006-1016.
Fabries, J. 1979. Spinel-olivine geothermometry in peridotites from ultramafic complexes.
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 69: 329-336 Govindaraju 1994
Hammarstrom, J.M. & Zen, E., 1986. Aluminium in hornblende: an empirical igneous
geobarometer: Am. Mineral, 71:1297-1313.
 50

Herzberg, C.T. & Chapman, N.A., 1976. Clinopyroxene geothermometry of spinel-

lherzolites. Am. Mineral.;(United States), 61(7/8).
Hollister, L. ., Grissom, G. ., Peters, E. ., Stowell H. ., Sisson V. ., 1987. Confirmation of the
empirical correlation of Al in hornblende with pressure of solidification of calc-alkaline
plutons: American Mineralogist, 72(3-4),231-239.
Jackson, S.E. 2008. LAMTRACE data reduction software for LA-ICP-MS. Laser ablation ICP-
MS in the Earth sciences: current practices and outstanding issues. Mineralogical
Association of Canada, Short Course Series, 40, 305-307.
Jackson, S.E., Pearson, N.J., Griffin, W.L., Belousova, E.A., 2004. The application of laser
ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon
geochronology. Chemical Geology, 211(1-2), 47-69.
Janoušek, V., Farrow, C. ., Erban, V. 2006. Interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in
igneous geochemistry: introducing Geochemical Data Toolk it (GCDkit). Journal of
Petrology, 47(6),1255-1259.
Jochum, K.P., Weis, U., Stoll, B., Kuzmin, D., Yang, Q., Raczek, I., Günther, D., 2011.
Determination of reference values for NIST SRM 610–617 glasses following ISO
guidelines. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 35(4), 397-429.
Lana, C., Farina, F., Gerdes, A., Alkmim, A., Gonçalves, G. O., Jardim, A. C., 2017.
Characterization of zircon reference materials via high precision U–Pb LA-MC-ICP-MS.
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 32(10), 2011-2023.
Li X.H., Long W. G., Li Q.L., Liu Y., Zheng Y.F., Yang Y.H., Tao H., 2010. Penglai zircon
megacrysts: a potential new working reference material for microbeam determination of
Hf–O isotopes and U–Pb age. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 34(2), 117-
134.
Ludwig, K., 2003. User’s manual for Isoplot, v. 3.0, a geochronological toolkit for Microsoft
Excel: Berkeley Geochronological Center. Special Publication, (4).
Patchett, P.J. & Tatsumoto, M., 1980. Hafnium isotope variations in oceanic
basalts. Geophysical Research Letters, 7(12), 1077-1080.
Pearce, N. J., Westgate, J. A., & Perkins, W. T., 1996. Developments in the analysis of
volcanic glass shards by laser ablation ICP-MS: quantitative and single internal
standard-multielement methods. Quaternary International, 34, 213-227.
Santos, M.M., Lana, C., Scholz, R., Buick, I., Schmitz, M.D., Kamo, S.L., Storey, C.D., 2017.
A New Appraisal of Sri Lankan BB Zircon as a Reference Material for LA-ICP-MS U-Pb
Geochronology and Lu-Hf Isotope Tracing. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research,
41(3), 335-358.
Schmidt, M.W. 1992. Amphibole composition in tonali te as a function of pressure: An
experimental calibration of the Al in hornblende barometer. Contributions to Mineralogy
and Petrology, 110, 304-310.
Sláma, J., Košler, J., Condon, D.J., Crowley, J.L., Gerdes, A., Hanchar, J.M., Horstwood,
M.S.A., Morris, G.A., Nasdala, L., Norberg, N., Schaltegger, U., Schoene, B., Tubrett,
M.N., Whitehouse, M.J., 2008. Plešovice zircon—a new natural reference material for
U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chemical Geology, 249(1), 1-35.
Ulianov, A., Müntener, O., Schaltegger, U., Bussy, F., 2012. The data treatment dependent
variability of U-Pb zircon ages obtained using monocollector, sector field, laser ablation
ICPMS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom, 27, 663-676.
Wells, P.R.A., 1977. Pyroxene thermometry in simple and complex systems. Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 62, 129-13.
 51

Whitney, D. L., Evans, B. W., 2010. Abbreviations for names of rock-forming minerals.
American mineralogist, 95(1), 185-187.
Witt-Eickschen, G., & Seek, H. A., 1991, Solubility of Ca and Al in orthopyroxene from spine1
peridotite: na improved version of an empirical geothermometer: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 106(4), 431-439.
Wood, B.J. & Banno, S., 1973. Garnet-orthopyroxene and orthopyroxenechnopyroxene
relationships in simple and complex systems: Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 42(2), 109-124.
 52

3 Contextualização geológica regional

3.1 Apresentação

O Bloco Guanhães corresponde à região localizada a leste da Serra do

Espinhaço Meridional, na zona limítrofe entre o cráton do São Francisco e o orógeno
Araçuaí (e.g., Pedrosa-Soares et al. 1994, Alkmim et al. 2007, Noce et al. 2007)
(Figura 3-1), no Estado de Minas Gerais. Este bloco é considerado como parte do
embasamento arqueano/paleoproterozoico cratônico retrabalhado pelos eventos
tectônicos neoproterozoicos durante a edificação do Orógeno Araçuaí (e.g., Alkmim
et al. 2006, 2017, Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2007).

Figura 3-1: Localização do Bloco Guanhães (BG) em relação ao cráton do São Francisco (Alkmim et al.
2007). SE: Cinturão de Cavalgamentos da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional; CA: Zona de Cisalhamento da
Chapada Acauã; S: Zona de dobramentos de Salinas; MN: Corredor transpressivo de Minas Novas; RP:
Saliência do Rio Pardo e zona de interação com o Aulacógeno do Paramirim; DS: Zona de Cisalhamento
de Dom Silvério; I: Zona de Cisalhamento de Itapebi; NC: núcleo cristalino; OC: Faixa Oeste-Congolesa.

Embora a área do projeto de tese esteja inserida inteiramente dentro do Bloco

Guanhães, para fins de comparação estratigráfica e, especialmente, geocronológica,
 53

será apresentada a seguir uma súmula do conhecimento da geologia regional do

Bloco Guanhães e da borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional, posicionada a
oeste deste bloco.
De uma maneira geral, os trabalhos geológicos desenvolvidos no Bloco
Guanhães são oriundos de projetos de mapeamento de cunho regional. Em
contraste, a Serra do Espinhaço Meridional foi alvo de inúmeras abordagens nas
mais diversas escalas, envolvendo projetos de mapeamento local e regional, teses,
dissertações e publicações diversas.

3.2 Histórico do conhecimento

Trabalhos de mapeamento geológico na região do Bloco Guanhães (BG) e na

da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional (SdEM) vêm sendo executados desde o século
XIX, em especial devido as ocorrências de diamantes em seus domínios e os
registros de ouro ao sul de Guanhães.
Os primeiros trabalhos geológicos caracterizando a Serra do Espinhaço são
creditados a Von Eschwege (1822, 1832, 1833 in Renger 1979), o primeiro a propor
uma coluna estratigráfica para a região. Do início do século passado até o início da
década de 1960, diversas publicações abordam a estratigrafia, geologia econômica
e evolução da Serra do Espinhaço. Destacam-seos trabalhos de Harder &
Chamberlin (1915), Moraes (1929), Moraes & Guimarães (1930), Freyberg (1932) e
Barbosa (1954). Este último em seu trabalho “Evolução do Geossinclinal Espinhaço”
propõe o primeiro modelo geodinâmico da Serra do Espinhaço, utilizando a teoria
geossinclinal.
No Bloco Guanhães, merecem destaque os trabalhos pioneiros de Hussak
(1906) sobre metamorfismo de contato no itabirito dolomítico nas proximidades de
corpos graníticos, os estudos de Alburquerque (1926 in Grossi-Sad 1997) e Dorr &
Barbosa (1963) sobre magmatismo granítico e os trabalhos estratigráficos de
Barbosa (1949).
Entre as décadas de 60 e 70, a SdEM e o Bloco Guanhães foram alvos de
mapeamentos em escala regional, iniciados por Pflug (1963, 1965) e seus
colaboradores (e.g., Pflug et al. 1969, Pflug & Renger 1973). Através de
mapeamento sistemático na escala 1:1.000.000 das unidades da SdEM e do BG,
Pflug (1965) individualizou três fácies denominadas: Diamantina (miogeossinclinal),
 54

Itabira (transição) e Guanhães (eugeossinclinal). Na Serra do Espinhaço Meridional,

estudos de Pflug (1967, 1968) subdividiram a fácies Diamantina em oito unidades
estratigráficas fundamentais, que até hoje são utilizadas. Outros trabalhos de cunho
estratigráfico na borda leste da serra que merecem destaque são os de Grossi Sad
& Vaz de Melo (1969) e Renger (1972).
Nos anos 70, a CPRM desenvolveu dois projetos de natureza geológico-
geofísico abrangendo parte da borda leste da SdEM e a região oeste do BG: o
Projeto Espinhaço Meridional (Heineck et al. 1972) e o projeto de Integração
Geológico-Geofísico Espinhaço Central (Paulino et al. 1979). O primeiro apresenta
dados de reconhecimento geológico-radiométrico e o segundo interpretações de
dados de levantamentos aerogeofísicos e 21 mapas na escala 1:100.000.
No final da década de 70 e durante os anos 80, uma profusão de trabalhos
são executados na região. Destacam-se os mapeamentos em escala 1:25.000,
teses e publicações diversas sobre a SdEM, como os de Schöll & Fogaça (1979),
Paternoster (1979), Assis (1981, 1982), Uhlein (1981, 1982), Bastos Neto (1981,
1982), Fogaça e Almeida-Abreu (1982), Assis & Marini (1983), Dossin (1983),
Herrgesell (1984) Dossin & Dardene (1984), Knauer (1984), Fogaça & Schöll (1984),
Uhlein (1984), Almeida-Abreu & Knauer (1985), Fogaça et al. (1985), Dossin et al.
(1987), Almeida-Abreu et al. (1987), Almeida-Abreu et al. (1989).
No âmbito da borda leste da serra, os trabalhos de Assis (1981, 1982), Uhlein
(1981, 1982), Dussin (1984) e Almeida-Abreu et al. (1989) merecem destaque por
apresentarem discussões estratigráficas e modelos tectônicos.
O primeiro trabalho geocronológico detalhado da região foi realizado por Brito-
Neves et al. (1979). Estes autores apontaram idade estateriana (ca 1.7 Ga) para o
desenvolvimento das cunhas basais de sedimentação da bacia Espinhaço e
perturbações isotópicas no Ediacarano. No final da década de oitenta, dados
geocronológicos mais precisos foram apresentados por Machado et al. (1989),
confirmando as idades obtidas anteriormente.
No Bloco Guanhães, os trabalhos estratigráficos pioneiros remetem aos de
Borges et al. (1979), que propôs o empilhamento das rochas supracrustais do BG
com auxílio de furos de sondagem. Dallwing et al. (1983) caracterizam as máfico-
ultramáficas ao sul da cidade de Guanhães e Oliveira et al. (1984) os diques máficos
de provável idade riaciana nos arredores de Virginópolis. Investidas crono-
estratigráficas são executadas por Müller et al. (1986), Danderfer & Meireles (1987)
 55

e Grossi-Sad et al. (1989), com estes últimos defininfo o Grupo Guanhães o qual
abrange três formações (inferior, média e superior).
Trabalhos de mapeamento regional (Fontes et al. 1978, Drumond 1985)
descortinaram diversas unidades da infraestrutura do bloco e reconheceram
diversos segmentos supracrustais associados, os quais foram atribuídos a
remanescentes vulcanossedimentares de idade arqueana.
O BG foi alvo de diversas campanhas de pesquisa mineral voltadas
principalmente para minério de ferro, executadas em sua maioria pela Rio Doce
Geologia e Mineração S/A – DOCEGEO e Companhia Vale do Rio Doce – CVRD
(Borges et al. 1979). Ainda, estudos voltados para os depósitos de cromita e
ocorrências de platina foram executados na região da Serra do Espinhaço e áreas
adjacentes, avançando no conhecimento geológico da região (Uhlein 1982, Uhlein et
al. 1983), ouro (Fogaça 1982; Chaves & Uhlein 1985), diamante (e.g., Dossin et al.
1985, Haralyi & Svisero 1986), ferro (Dossin 1985) e manganês (e.g., Dossin 1983).
Na década de 90, diversas publicações sobre a caracterização geotectônica e
evolução geológica da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional posicionam a região sob a
ótica da tectônica global e estratigrafia de sequencias, apresentando novos
elementos geodinâmicos (Knauer 1990, Uhlein 1991, Rolim 1992, Trompete et al.
1992, Almeida-Abreu 1993, Almeida-Abreu & Pflug 1994, Dussin I. 1994, Silva &
Toledo 1994). Destaca-se os trabalhos estratigráficos de Martins-Neto (1995a,
1995b) e Silva (1995) que reorganizam as mais diversas unidades
metassedimentares da região com seus respectivos ambientes deposicionais em
abordagem moderna.
Neste interim, no Bloco Guanhães, Grossi-Sad (1990a, 1990b) caracterizam
quimicamente duas suítes graníticas de derivação crustal e os pacotes de formações
ferríferas associados, enquanto que, Teixeira et al. (1990) apresentam dados
geocronológicos das rochas do embasamento.
Posteriormente, no mapa geológico do estado de Minas Gerais lançado em
1994, Pedrosa-Soares et al. (1994) reuniram as rochas gnáissicas-migmatíticas do
embasamento do BG e as denominaram de Complexo Guanhães.
A partir das metade dos anos 90 avolumaram-se os trabalhos executados na
região. Essas abordagens, direcionadas para os mais diversos aspectos
compreendem os de Almeida-Abreu (1995, 1996), Dussin & Dussin (1995), Uhlein et
 56

al. (1995), Martins-Neto (1998, 1999), Knauer (1999), Almeida-Abreu et al. (2001),
Almeida-Abreu & Renger (2002).
Em 1997 é publicado o “Projeto Espinhaço” (UFMG-COMIG), apresentando
mapeamento geológico na escala de 1:100.000 de 23 folhas localizadas na SdEM e
BG. Este projeto representa um marco na contribuição geológica da região,
apresentando novos dados, interpretações e propostas geológicas. Grossi-Sad
(1997) e Knauer & Grossi-Sad (1997) agruparam as unidades do Bloco Guanhães
em: Complexo Basal, definido pelo embasamento arqueano granito-gnáissico, e
Grupo Guanhães, constituído pelas sequências metavulcano-sedimentares de
provável idade arqueana
Destacam-se ainda os trabalhos de Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al. (1994),
Chemale Jr. et al. (1998), Dussin (2000), Dussin et al. (2000) e Fernandes (2001),
caracterizando os magmatismos pré-cambrianos, especialmente aqueles de idade
estateriana na borda leste da SdEM e no BG.
Trabalhos voltados para os corpos metaultramáficos ricos em cromita
aflorantes na borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional, a oeste do Bloco
Guanhães, foram realizados por Angeli & Carvalho (1996), Zapparoli (2001), Angeli
(2005), Angeli et al. (2009), Angeli et al. (2010). Tais trabalhos discutem a gênese
deste magmatismo ultrabásicos e mineralização associada.
Na primeira década do século XXI, ressaltam-se os trabalhos
sedimentológicos e geocronológicos de Sano et al. (2002), a súmula estratigráfica de
Knauer (2007) para toda região da Serra do Espinhaço e as investigações
estratigráficas e estruturais de Lopes-Silva (2006) e Cordeiro (2008).
Com a popularização e acesso ao métodos analíticos, estudos
cronoestratigráficos vêm sendo executado de maneira ampla nos últimos 20 anos.
Na SdEM, os trabalhos de Chemale Jr. et al. (2012), Santos et al. (2013) e
Guadagnin & Chemale (2015) ganharam relevância após dividirem as rochas do
Supergrupo Espinhaço em duas bacias: uma estateriana (em torno de 1700 Ma) e
outra esteniana (ca. 1200 Ma). Na borda leste da serra, Rolim et al. (2016)
propuseram uma coluna estratigráfica para a área, identificando duas sequências
portadoras de formações ferríferas bandadas: uma orosiriana e outra estateriana. O
trabalho de Silveira (2016) nas unidades da borda leste da SdEM definiu as
sequencias portadoras de formação ferrífera da região e obteve idades estaterianas
para tais sucessões metassedimentares.
 57

No BG investigações estratigráficas e geocronológicas com foco nas unidades

contendo formações ferríferas bandadas também identificaram bacias orosirianas e
estaterianas, correlacionáveis àquelas da borda leste da SdEM (Carvalho et al.
2014, Siveira-Braga et al. 2015, Barrote et al. 2017).
Pinto & Silva (2014), em uma bordagem cartográfica geológico-geofísico, em
escala regional, apresentam uma atualização da distribuição areal das unidades do
Bloco Guanhães e sugere que as rochas supracrustais sejam agrupadas no
denominado Grupo Serra Negra, ao invés de Grupo Guanhães.

3.3 Geologia do Bloco Guanhães

O Bloco Guanhães, definido por Dussin et al. (1992), é um segmento crustal

arqueano recoberto por unidades supracrustais de origem sedimentar e vulcano-
sedimentar, de idades predominantemente paleoproterozoicas (Figura 3-2). Corpos
ácidos, máficos e ultramáficos intrudem suas unidades e registram uma série de
fenômenos geotectônicos de distintas naturezas e períodos (Grossi-Sad 1997, Noce
et al. 2007, Barrote et al. 2017, Teixeira et al. 2017).
O embasamento arqueano, individualizado como Complexo Basal por Grossi-
Sad (1997), e como Complexo Guanhães por Pedrosa-Soares et al. (1994), possui
caráter autóctone a para-autóctone. Ele representa parte do núcleo arqueano do
embasamento do cráton do São Francisco e é delineado pelas orogenias marginais
paleoproterozoicas (p.e.x., Cinturão Mineiro - Noce et al. 2007). Esse domínio
infracrustal é constituído por gnaisses leucocráticos que varia de throndhjemito a
granito, aparentemente dominando por granodioritos, migmatizados ou não, por
vezes bandados (Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997). Os gnaisses migmatíticos são
constituídos por mobilizados leucossomáticos grossos a pegmatóides, bordejados
por uma estreita faixa de melanossoma biotítico. O paleossoma tem composição
tonalítica a granodiorítica, enquanto o leucossoma apresenta composição granítica.
Os gnaisses encontram-se variavelmente cisalhados, sendo descritos em alguns
locais milonito-gnaisse ou milonito-xisto a quartzo e mica (Grossi-Sad 1997).
Ocorrem também intercalações de rochas metabásicas (anfibolito e
metagabro), metapiroxenito e pegmatitos, normalmente concordantes com o
bandamento gnáissico (Grossi-Sad 1997). As relações de contato dessas rochas
com as supracrustais do Grupo Guanhães não são bem estabelecidas.
 58

Figura 3-2: A) Configuração geotectônica do cráton São Francisco (CSF) no contexto do Gondwana
Ocidental (modificado de Alkmim et al. 2006); B) Mapa geológico simplificado da borda leste da Serra do
Espinhaço Meridional e Bloco Guanhães, na borda leste do cráton São Francisco (modificado de Pinto &
Silva 2014).

Idades U-Pb SHRIMP em zircões, entre 3150 e 2710 Ma, foram obtidas em
gnaisses e granitóide do Complexo Guanhães, de acordo com estudos de Silva et al.
(2002), Peixoto et al. (2015) e Barrote (2016). Os dados de Barrote (2016) mostram
três grupos de idades principais, aproximadamente 3140, 2900 e 2750 Ma, para os
mesmos litotipos. Texturas de sobrecrescimento nos grãos de zircões das rochas do
Complexo Guanhães revelam eventos metamórficos no Riaciano e Ediacarano-
 59

Cambriano. O primeiro evento é caracterizado pela idade em torno de 2056 Ma

(Peixoto et al. 2015), sendo associado à orogênese riaciana-orosiriana, enquanto o
evento posterior é atribuído ao período entre 560 e 506 Ma (Machado et al. 1989,
Fernandes 2001, Silva et al. 2002, Noce et al. 2007, Piuzanna et al. 2008, Peixoto et
al. 2015, Silveira-Braga et al. 2015), relacionado ao orógeno Araçuaí-Congo
Ocidental (630-490 Ma; Pedrosa -Soares et al. 2008, Silva et al. 2016, Alkmim et al.
2017).
O Bloco Guanhães também engloba rochas supracrustais de natureza
vulcano-sedimentar e sequências metassedimentares portadoras de formações
ferríferas bandadas, que anteriormente foram correlacionadas às unidades do
Quadrilátero Ferrífero por diversos autores (e.g., Uhlein 1981, Assis & Marini 1983).
O contato desses litotipos com os gnaisses do Complexo Guanhães é usualmente
tectonizado.
Essas sequências de rochas ocorrem como faixas estreitas e descontínuas
intercaladas no complexo gnáissico e foram sistematizadas por Grossi-Sad et al.
(1989) como Grupo Guanhães (Figura 3-2), que pode ser dividido em três
formações: Inferior, Média e Superior. A Formação Inferior é constituída por xistos
verdes (metabásicos e metaultrabásicos) e xistos pelíticos, contendo lentes de
itabirito, quartzito e formação manganesífera. Os xistos pelíticos ocorrem na base
desta sequência, apresentando composição variada com quartzo, biotita, clorita,
moscovita, sericita, grafita, granada, cianita e plagioclásio, e magnetita e pirita como
fases acessórias.
As rochas de natureza máfico-ultramáfica ocorrem recobrindo os xistos
pelíticos, sendo caracterizadas por anfibolitos e piroxenitos formados por olivina,
enstatita, hercinita, diopsídio, tremolita opacos, talco e carbonato, quimicamente
associados à komatiítos (Grossi-Sad 1997).
A Formação Média comporta, em sua base, formações ferríferas com ou sem
bandamento, variando entre quartzo-magnetita a magnetita-carbonato-diopsídio
(Grossi-Sad et al. 1990b). Quartzitos ferruginosos que trancisionam para formações
ferríferas são recobertos por mármores calcíticos e dolomíticos silicatados, rochas
cálcio-silicáticas e xistos carbonáticos. Localmente, níveis discretos de material
metamáfico e/ou metaultramáfico podem ser encontrados no topo dos itabiritos. A
Formação Superior ou Formação Serra Negra é formada por paragnaisses ricos em
 60

intercalações anfibolíticas e, subordinadamente, quartzito, quartzo xisto e formação

ferrífera.
As associações litológicas do Grupo Guanhães apresentam exposição restrita
e ocorrem intemperizadas e, em geral, em complexas zonas de cisalhamento.
Segundo Grossi-Sad (1997) estas rochas foram depositadas sobre uma crosta
continental inicial fragmentada, em ambiente marinho, e possuem idade arqueana.
Estudos de Barrote (2016) e Barrote et al. (2017) na sequência supracrustal
portadora de formação ferrífera, que é correlacionável a Formação Média, mostram
idades máximas de sedimentação riacianas, em torno de 2180 Ma, com a ocorrência
de uma idade estateriana de 1737 Ma, obtidas por datação U-Pb SHRIMP em
zircões detríticos dos quartzitos associados. Barrote et al. (2017) atribuem um
ambiente marinho raso para a associação de camadas de formações ferríferas com
sucessões quartzíticas. O autor ainda correlaciona essa sequência com o Grupo
Serra da Serpentina (Figura 3-2), definido por Rolim et al. (2016), que registra
importantes pacotes de formação ferrífera na borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço
Meridional e apresenta idade máxima de sedimentação orosiriana (1990 Ma).
Barrote (2016) posiciona no Estateriano, os quartizitos do topo da sequência
supracrustal portadora de formação ferrífera do Grupo Guanhães, e sugere que o
único zircão de idade estateriana levanta a possibilidade de toda a sequência ser
ainda mais nova.
De acordo com Barrote (2016), os zircões das rochas do Grupo Guanhães
evidenciam apenas sobrecrescimento metamórfico durante o Ediacarano-
Cambriano. Para o autor, essa sequência supracrural foi afetada por duas fases
deformacionais relacionadas ao mesmo evento compressional, associado ao
orógeno Araçuaí-Congo Ocidental.
No sul do Bloco Guanhães, outra sequência portadora de formação ferrífera
com metaconglomerados e quartzitos associados, a sequência Serra do Morro
Escuro, foi estudada por Silveira-Braga (2012), Carvalho (2013) e Silveira-Braga et
al. (2015), que sugerem idades máximas de sedimentação U-Pb SHRIMP
estateriana, em torno de 1668 Ma (Silveira-Braga et al. 2015). Também na região sul
do BG, Carvalho et al. (2014), obtiveram a idade orosiriana de 2021 Ma em um
pacote quartzítico informalmente denomidade de Unidade Quartzítica Serra da
Pedra Branca.
 61

Buscando simplificar a nomenclatura das unidades aflorantes no Bloco

Guanhães para o mapa do estado de Minas Gerais, Pinto & Silva (2014)
renomearam o Grupo Guanhães (Grossi-Sad et al.1989) para Grupo Serra Negra.
À leste da cidade de Guanhães, Danderfer & Meireles (1987) e Dussin I.
(1994) descrevem uma sequência de rochas de grande variedade litológica
denominada por eles de Sequência do Alto Rio Guanhães. Essa sequência foi
definida como de natureza vulcano-sedimentar e interpretada como possível vestígio
de uma zona de sutura.
Uma subdivisão para essa faixa foi proposta por Danderfer & Meireles (1987),
que definem três unidades: a primeira é denominada "Sequência metavulcano-
sedimentar", sendo caracterizada por itabiritos, quartzitos ferruginosos, quartzo
xistos, quartzo-mica xistos, xistos grafitosos e xistos aluminosos, com eventuais
intercalações de rochas metamáficas e metaultramáficas. A segunda é constituída
por rochas metamáficas com raras intercalações de rochas metassedimentares; e a
terceira é formada por rochas metamáficas, com intercalações subordinadas de
xistos grafitosos, aluminosos e quartzo-micáceos e raras intercalações
manganesíferas. Dussin, I. (1994) atribui uma idade mínima de 1700 Ma (idade dos
granitos da Suíte Borrachudos) a essas rochas. Segundo Knauer & Grossi-Sad
(1997), esta divisão não é passível de aplicação para todo o Grupo Guanhães.
Do ponto de vista estrutural, o BG é limitado a oeste pelo cinturão de
cavalgamentos da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional e a leste, pela zona de
cisalhamento de Dom Silvério (Alkmim et al. 2006, 2007). Os domínios oeste e leste
do bloco são caracterizados por falhas reversas e de empurrão, de orientação N-S.
A oeste, o BG é colocado sobre as rochas estaterianas da borda leste da SdEM,
enquanto que, a leste, é recoberto pelas rochas criogenianas do Grupo Macaúbas.
O domínio central do bloco é individualizado por zonas de cisalhamento, de direção
preferencial NS, que provavelmente apresentavam sentido reverso, mas foram
reativadas e acomodadas com movimento normal a movimentos normais-dextrais
(Peres et al. 2004, Alkmim et al. 2006, 2007).
O metamorfismo regional, de baixo a alto grau, aumenta de oeste para leste,
em direção ao orógeno Araçuaí, desde a isógrada da clorita até a da sillimanita
(Grossi-Sad 1997, Barrote 2016). As rochas expostas no domínio central
experimentaram condições metamórficas superiores às dos demais domínios do
Bloco Guanhães, entre condições de fácies anfibolito e granulito, e ainda mostram
 62

evidências locais de metamorfismo termal. Nos domínios leste e oeste, as rochas

foram metamorfisadas entre as fácies xisto verde e anfibolito superior (Borges et al.
1979, Grossi-Sad 1997, Fernandes et al. 2000, Barrote et al. 2017). Trabalhos de
Grossi-Sad et al. (1990) sugerem dois processos metamórficos no Bloco Guanhães:
evento metamórfico regional, atingindo fácies anfibolito; evento metamórfico termal,
ocorrendo de maneira localizada e atingindo a fácies piroxênio hornfels.

3.4 Arcabouço estratigráfico da borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço

Meridional

A estratigrafia dos terrenos que constituem a borda leste da Serra do

Espinhaço Meridional já foi alvo de inúmeros debates e controvérsias, devido,
principalmente, ao forte tectonismo que a mascara (e.g., Uhlein 1982, Knauer 1990,
Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997, Almeida-Abreu & Renger 2002). No entanto, após
trabalhos estratigráficos, estruturais e geocronológicos de detalhe, Rolim (2016) e
Rolim et al. (2016) posicionaram hierarquicamente as sequências descritas a seguir.
Na borda leste da SdEM estão registradas rochas do embasamento arqueano
do Complexo Guanhães, e sequências de rochas metassedimentares
paleoproterozoicas do Grupo Serra da Serpentina, do Grupo Serra de São José e do
Supergrupo Espinhaço, além de rochas intrusivas diversas (Rolim et al. 2016)
(Figura 3-2).
Como apresentado anteriormente, o Complexo Guanhães compreende
gnaisses e migmatitos TTG intrudidos por granitóides também arqueanos. Estas
rochas encontram-se intensamente deformadas e ocorrem como faixas imbricadas
tectonicamente com as unidades supracrustais (Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997).
Recobrindo as rochas do embasamento, o Grupo Serra da Serpentina ocorre
com sedimentos clásticos na base e sedimentos químicos no topo (Rolim et al.
2016). A base do grupo é caracterizada pela Formação Meloso, que compreende
quartzito com intercalações de quartzo-clorita-sericita xisto, além de filito sericítico,
filito grafitoso e rocha manganesífera. Em contato transicional, a Formação Serra do
Sapo ocorre no topo da sequência. Esta é formada por sedimentos químicos na
base, incluindo formação ferrífera bandada, e metadolomito no topo. A formação
ferrífera bandada é rica em hematita e, localmente, magnetita (Rolim & Rosière
2011). Intercalações de quartzito sericítico, quartzito ferruginoso, hematita-sericita-
 63

quartzo xisto e filito ocorrem em meio à formação ferrífera. O metadolomito do topo

da unidade é composto por finos grãos de dolomita róseos e quartzo, além de
venulações de calcita. O Grupo Serra da Serpentina apresenta idade máxima de
deposição orosiriana (1990 ± 16 Ma, U-Pb SHRIMP), definida pela idade do zircão
detrítico mais novo de uma amostra quartzítica (Rolim et al. 2016).
O Grupo Serra de São José ocorre em discordância erosiva com as rochas do
Grupo Serra da Serpentina (Rolim et al. 2016). Esse grupo compreende os
metassedimentos clásticos das formações Lapão, Itapanhoacanga e Jacém, e as
formações ferríferas bandadas da Formação Canjica. A Formação Lapão, basal, é
formada por metaconglomerado e quartzito de granulação média a grossa. Os
metaconglomerados são polimíticos, mal selecionados e clasto-suportados, exibindo
clastos de quartzo, quartzito, quartzito ferruginoso, formação ferrífera bandada, filito,
dolomito e raro metaconglomerado (Rolim et al. 2016). A Formação Itapanhoacanga
compreende espessos pacotes de quartzito sericítico impuro, com granulação média
a grossa e raros seixos de quartzo. Intercalações de quartzo-sericita xisto e
metaconglomerado polímítico são observadas em meio ao quartzito. Esta formação
apresenta idade máxima de deposição estateriana (1666 ± 32 Ma, U-Pb SHRIMP),
obtida em grãos de zircões de uma amostra quartzítica (Rolim et al. 2016). A
Formação Jacém é caracterizada por quartzito monótono, de granulação fina à
média e níveis sericíticos (Rolim et al. 2016). Em contato transicional, a Formação
Canjica compreende formação ferrífera bandada com hematita e qurtzo e,
subordinadamente, magnetita. Lentes de sericita-xisto, filito e quartzito sericítico
ocorrem intercaladas na formação ferrífera (Rolim et al. 2016).
Na borda leste da SdEM, o Supergrupo Espinhaço ocorre representado pelas
formações São João da Chapada e Sopa-Brumadinho (Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997).
A Formação São João da Chapada constitui a base do Supergrupo Espinhaço,
sendo o termo mais comum um quartzito claro, localmente ferruginoso. A granulação
é essencialmente fina a média, ocasionalmente grossa, e são constituídos por
muscovita/sericita em proporções variadas. Filito e filito hematítico ocorrem em
intercalações decimétricas a métricas. O contato desta unidade com as rochas do
embasamento é marcado por zonas de cisalhamento dúctil de baixo ângulo. Idades
estaterianas, em torno de 1680 Ma, foram obtidas para esta unidade por Chemale
Jr. et al. (2012), Santos et al. (2013) e Guadagnin & Chemale (2015).
 64

A Formação Sopa-Brumadinho ocorre em contato tectonizado ou gradacional

com as rochas da formação anteriormente descrita, sendo sua principal
característica, uma grande heterogeneidade litológica (Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997).
O tipo predominante é um quartzito, com intercalações de filito, filito hematítico,
metaconglomerado, formação ferrífera bandada e xisto verde. O quartzito fino pode
ser puro ou micáceo, com óxido de ferro e turmalina. Em meio ao quartzito, são
encontrados corpos lenticulares de quartzito conglomerático, além de níveis
lenticulares de metaconglomerado. Este é polimítico, exibindo seixos de quartzo,
quartzito, quartzito ferruginoso, formação ferrífera bandada e filito. Também comuns
são lentes de quartzo filito milonitizado. A idade máxima de sedimentação da
Formação Sopa-Brumadinho é amplamente discutida. Idade estateriana de 1726 Ma
foi obtida por Sano et al. (2002), enquanto que, idades estenianas, em torno de 1200
Ma, foram obtidas por Chemale Jr. et al. (2012), Santos et al. (2013) e Guadagnin &
Chemale (2015).
A estruturação do setor leste da SdEM é atribuída a um sistema de falhas de
empurrão/zonas de cisalhamento dúctil de traços sinuosos, direção aproximada
norte-sul e mergulhos moderados até altos para os quadrantes leste (e.g., Rolim
1992, Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997). Estes falhamentos apontam movimentações de
massa de leste para oeste e são as principais estruturas deformacionais, gerando
inversões estratigráficas, duplicações e supressões de unidades, com caráter
tectônico de leques imbricados (Knauer 1990, Rolim 1992).

3.5 Corpos plutônicos e vulcânicos

O Bloco Guanhães e a borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional alojam

rochas intrusivas e extrusivas diversas, como rochas metaultramáficas intrusivas de
idade incerta, corpos graníticos e riolíticos estaterianos, diques metabásicos
tonianos, granitóides ediacaranos-cambrianos e diabásios mesozoicos (Figura 3-2).
Inicialmente definida como a sequência metavulcano-sedimentar do Serro
(Uhlein 1982), e posteriormente agrupada, ao menos em parte, na sequência Serro
(Almeida-Abreu et al. 1989), as rochas ultramáficas presentes na borda leste da
SdEM foram reunidas no Grupo Serro por Knauer & Grossi-Sad (1997). Esta
unidade é constituída por rochas metaultramáficas representadas por serpentinitos
(clorititos), esteatitos, talco xistos, xistos verdes e cromititos (Knauer 1990).
 65

Filitos prateados e quartzitos ferruginosos, micáceos ou cloríticos, ocorrem na

forma de intercalações tectônicas com o Grupo Serro (Knauer & Grossi-Sad 1997).
Vários maciços de rochas ultrabásicas apresentam mineralizações, a principal sendo
a cromita. Os cromititos encontram-se normalmente encaixados concordantemente
segundo a xistosidade da rocha encaixante (Renger 1972) e consistem em uma
rocha maciça e de granulação fina, sendo compostas por cromita imersa em uma
matriz rica em talco, carbonato e kammerita (Zapparoli et al. 1995). Assis (1982) e
Uhlein (1982) atribuem caráter predominantemente vulcânico a essas rochas,
enquanto Knauer & Grossi-Sad (1997) e Zapparoli (2001) sugerem que estes
metaultramafitos são intrusivos. Assis (1982) e Uhlein (1982) consideram que estas
rochas pertencem a um complexo máfico-ultramáfico do tipo greenstone belt,
enquanto que, outros autores (e.g., Grossi-Sad & Vaz de Melo 1969, Renger 1972,
Fogaça 1985, Almeida-Abreu 1993, Knauer 1999) atribuem essas rochas a um
ambiente ofiolítico do tipo Alpino. Trabalhos de Zapparoli (2001) definem estes
corpos como um complexo ultramáfico acamadado.
Corpos graníticos estaterianos, de ampla distribuição regional, compreendem
a Suíte Borrachudos (Dorr & Barbosa 1963) (Figura 3-2). Os granitos mostram
grande homogeneidade composicional, apresentam granulação média a grossa e
são compostos por microclina, quartzo, albita, biotita e anfibólio, além de magnetita,
alanita e fluorita como minerais acessórios. Fernandes et al. (1994) diferenciaram 3
fácies da Suíte Borrachudos: anfibólio granito, biotita-anfibólio granito e biotita
granito. Esses corpos intrudiram o BG e a SdEM em torno de 1770-1720 Ma e sua
gênese está relacionada a fusão crustal decorrente da abertura do rifte Espinhaço,
tendo ocorrido uma intrusão anorogênica ao longo da zona do rifte (Dossin et al.
1993, Dussin 1994, Chemale Jr. et al. 1998, Dossin et al. 2000, Fernandes 2001,
Silva et al. 2002).
Os granitos da Suíte Borrachudos apresentam a mesma composição química e
idade das lavas ácidas da Suíte Conceição do Mato Dentro, que corresponde aos
seus representantes vulcânicos (Dussin 1994). Esta suíte constitui uma faixa de
direção N-S na borda leste da SdEM, sendo composta por extrusões de metarriolitos
e metarriodacitos porfiroclásticos, geralmente deformados (Dussin 1994),
tectonicamente intercalados às formações basais da SdEM. Idades estaterianas
entre 1770-1710 Ma foram obtidas por Brito Neves et al. (1979) e Machado et al.
(1989).
 66

Rochas vulcânicas e plutônicas ricas em K e Fe, metamorfisadas e

intensamente alteradas, denominadas de filitos hematíticos, ocorrem intercaladas
em sedimentos continentais da base do rifte Espinhaço (Dussin 1994). Segundo
Knauer & Schrank (1993), estas rochas representam o produto de alteração
superficial de rochas ígneas, sendo sua composição química atual fruto e
transformações químicas relacionadas a processo de alteração, envolvendo perda
de SiO2, MgO, CaO e Na2O enriquecimento em TiO2, Fe2O3 e K2O. Essas rochas
representam um magmatismo alcalino relacionado aos processos de rifteamento
intracratônico. Idades estaterianas, entre 1750-1700 Ma, foram obtidas para o
protólito ígneo (Dossin et al. 1993, Dussin 1994, Chemale et al. 2012, Bezerra-Neto
2016, Rodrigues-Silva 2016).
Corpos de rochas metabásicas intrudem na forma de diques e soleiras, as
sequências litológicas descritas anteriormente. Parte dos corpos é atribuída à Suíte
Metaígnea Pedro Lessa, proposta por Knauer (1990) para agrupar os metagabros e
metadiabásios com idades de intrusão próximas a 906 Ma (Machado et al. 1989),
posteriormente metamorfisados na fácies xisto verde. Esses diques não têm
expressão topográfica e são identifcados especialmente em função dos materiais
(blocos e solos) que se originaram deles por intemperismo.
Metagranitos intrusivos e pegmatitos associados, apresentando idades
cambrianas entre 540 e 505 Ma, foram caracterizados por Barrote (2016) e
correlacionados aos granitos G3, pós- a tardi-colisionais do orógeno Araçuaí
(Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2007). Aqueles corpos são formados principalmente por
quartzo, feldspato branco, feldspato rosa, biotita e moscovita, por vezes exibindo
textura porfirítica (Barrote 2016). Ainda segundo o autor, os metagranitos ora se
apresentam anisotrópicos, ora foliados, e podem estar associados à intensa
atividade hidrotermal na região.
Diques de diabásio mesozoicos, não metamorfisados, afaníticos a porfiríticos,
orientados segundo a direção NW-SE, ocorrem de forma restrita, principalmente
injetados no embasamento (Knauer &Grossi-Sad 1997). Segundo estes autores, os
diabásios têm textura ofiolítica a subofiolítica e mais comumente intergranular, sendo
compostos por plagioclásio (andesina – labradorita), augita e pigeonita, podendo
conter olivina (fenocristais), opacos (magnetita e ilmenita) e apatita. Estas rochas
foram datadas pelo método K-Ar rocha total, fornecendo um intervalo de idades
entre 220 e 170 Ma (Dussin et al. 1995).
 67

3.6 Evolução geológica

A evolução dos terrenos que constituem a Serra do Espinhaço Meridional e o

Bloco Guanhães compreende dois eventos tectono-metamórficos compressivos
(Raciano-Orosiriano e Ediacarano-Cambriano) e cerca de cinco eventos
extensionais (Estateriano, Esteniano, Toniano, Criogeniano e Triássico-Jurássico)
(e.g., Dussin & Dussin 1995, Knauer 2007, Pedrosa-Soares & Alkmim 2011).
O evento compressivo na transição Riaciano-Orosiriano (2,2 - 2,0 Ga)
representa a orogenia associada à amalgamação de blocos continentais arqueanos
durante a consolidação do Paleocontinente São Francisco-Congo (e.g., Silva et al.
2002, Alkmim et al. 2007, Noce et al. 2007). Este evento tectono-metamórfico está
registrado nos granitóides e gnaisses TTG que compõe o embasamento do BG e da
SdEM (e.g., Brito-Neves et al. 1979, Peixoto et al. 2015), como uma importante fase
de formação de rochas graníticas e migmatíticas.
Segundo trabalhos de Rolim (2016) e Rolim et al. (2016), durante o Orosiriano
também houve a deposição das rochas metassedimentares do Grupo Serra da
Serpentina em uma bacia intra-continental, pouco ativa tectonicamente.
O evento tafrogênico mais antigo registrado no Paleocontinente São
Francisco data do Estateriano. Determinações geocronológicas em corpos
magmáticos associados às unidades basais da SdEM, utilizando diferentes métodos
radiométricos e apresentadas por Brito-Neves et al. (1979), Machado et al. (1989),
Dussin et al. (1995), entre outros, estruturam um modelo extensional com idade
estateriana (ca. 1,7 Ga) para os processos de rifteamento e origem da Bacia
Espinhaço. Resultados compatíveis também foram obtidos por outros autores em
rochas metassedimentares da base do Supergrupo Espinhaço (e.g., Chemale Jr. et
al. 2012, Santos et al. 2013, Guadagnin & Chemale 2015).
Knauer (2007) sugere que a região central da Serra do Espinhaço não
corresponde a um típico ambiente de rifte, e sim a uma estrutura continental sem
adelgaçamento importante de crosta. As condições extensionais teriam migrado
para a borda leste, onde o rifte haveria se desenvolvido. Este modelo é sustentado
por variações ambientais marcadas pela Formação São João da Chapada (1680 Ma;
Chemale Jr. et al. 2012), o Grupo Serra de São José (1666 Ma; Rolim et al. 2016), a
sequência Alto Rio Guanhães (1725 Ma; Magalhães et al. 2018;), a sequencia Serra
do Morro Escuro (1668 Ma; Silveira-Braga et al. 2015) e pelo expressivo
 68

magmatismo anorogênico das suítes Borrachudos (1740 Ma; Magalhães et al. 2018)
e Conceição do Mato Dentro (1715 Ma; Machado et al. 1989). O modelo
geodinâmico do rifte estateriano não assume a formação de crosta oceânica na fase
pós-rifte.
No final do Mesoproterozoico, conforme sugerido por Chemale Jr. et al.
(2012), Santos et al. (2013) e Guadagnin & Chemale (2015), as rochas
metassedimentares predominantemente clásticas da Formação Sopa-Brumadinho, e
as unidades do topo do Supergrupo Espinhaço, se depositaram a partir de ca. 1200
Ma. Durante este evento Esteniano, a bacia do Espinhaço foi reativada e ampliada,
para hospedar uma sequência do tipo rift-sag.
No início do Neoproterozóico, um novo período de grande extensão litosférica
afetou a bacia do Supergrupo Espinhaço durante o Toniano. Este período é
representado pelo magmatismo máfico dos diques da Suíte Pedro Lessa (906 Ma;
Machado et al. 1989), pelo magmatismo granítico anorogênico da Suíte Salto da
Divisa (875 Ma; Silva et al. 2008), pelos diques máficos registrados no Espinhaço
Setentrional (850 Ma; Danderfer et al. 2009) e pela deposição dos sedimentos
clásticos pré-glaciais do Grupo Macaúbas (~900 Ma; e.g., Silva et al. 2008, Babinski
et al. 2012, Menezes et al. 2012, Castro 2014, Sousa 2016).
O próximo evento distensivo ocorreu durante o Criogeniano, sendo
identificado pelos diamictitos glaciogênicos do Grupo Macaúbas e as unidades pós-
glaciais desta bacia, que têm sedimentação associada ao rifte Criogeniano,
precursor do orógeno Araçuaí.
O fechamento das bacias geradas do Paleo- ao Neoproterozoico só ocorreu
no Ediacarano-Cambriano, com a estruturação do orógeno Araçuaí-Congo Ocidental
(630-490 Ma; Pedrosa -Soares et al. 2008, Silva et al. 2016, Alkmim et al. 2017). A
deformação regional imposta por este evento tectônico é responsável pela
estruturação do cinturão de falhas e dobras da Serra do Espinhaço, pelo transporte
de massa de leste para oeste e pela delimitação de blocos tectônicos limitados por
falhamentos de empurrão/zonas de cavalgamento de direção N-S (e.g., Rolim 1992,
Rolim et al. 2016). Este evento colisional também está registrado nas rochas do
Bloco Guanhães através das idades de metamorfismo obtidas entre 560 e 506 Ma
(Machado et al. 1989, Fernandes 2001, Noce et al. 2007, Piuzanna et al. 2008, Silva
et al. 2002, Peixoto et al. 2015, Silveira-Braga et al., 2015), bem como da intrusão de
 69

granitos cambrianos (540 a 505 Ma; Barrote 2016), associados aos períodos pós- a
tardi-colisionais do orógeno Araçuaí-Congo Ocidental.
A presença de diques de diabásio mesozoicos cortando todas as unidades
estratigráficas regionais, caracteriza um novo e último evento tectônico que afetou
toda borda oriental do craton do São Francisco, entre 220 e 170 Ma (Dussin et al.
1995).

3.7 Referências bibliográficas

Almeida-Abreu, P.A., 1993. A evolução geodinâmica da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional,

Minas Gerais, Brasil. Tese Dout., Univ. Freiburg, 150 pp.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A, 1995. O Supergrupo Espinhaço da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional
(Minas Gerais): o rifte, a bacia e o orógeno. Geonomos 3 (1), 1-18
Almeida-Abreu, P.A., 1996. O caminho das pedras. Geonomos, 4 (1): 77-93, Belo Horizonte.
Almeida-Abreu, P. A., Fogaça, A. C. C., Knauer, L. G., Hartmann, M. B., Pflug, R., 1987.
Revisão da Estratigrafia e Sedimentologia da Formação Sopa-Brumadinho na Serra do
Espinhaço Meridional, Minas Gerais. Anais do Simpósio de Sistemas Deposicionais
Precambrianos, Soc. Bras. Geologia, Ouro Preto, p. 85-96.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A. & Knauer, L.G., 1985. Estratigrafia e sistemas deposicionais do
Supergrupo Espinhaço. V Enc. Pesq. IGC/UFMG, Anais, pp. 15-16, Belo Horizonte.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A.; Knauer, L.G.; Hartmann, M.B.; Santos, G.G.V.; Guimarães, M.V.L.;
Abreu, F.R.; Schrank, A. & Pflug, R. 1989. Estratigrafia, faciologia e tectônica do
Supergrupo Espinhaço na região de Serro-Conceição do Mato Dentro, Minas Gerais,
Brasil. Zbl. Geol. Paläont., Teil I, H 5/6: 857-853.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A. & Pflug, R, 1994. The geodynamic evolution of the southern Serra do
Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zbl.Geol. Paläont., Teil I, 1994(1/2), 21-44.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A.; Queiroz, W.P., Renger, F.E., 2001. Arcabouço tectônico da Serra do
Espinhaço Meridional no final do Mesoproterozóico com base no registro de depósitos
glaciogênicos do Grupo Macaúbas. VIII Simp. Nac. Est. Tectônicos, Anais, 28/5, 1/6.
Almeida-Abreu, P.A. & Renger, F.E., 2002. Serra do Espinhaço Meridional: um orógeno de
colisão do Mesoproterozóico. Rev. Bras. Geoc., 32(1), 1-14.
Alkmim F.F., Kuchenbecker M., Reis H.L.S., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., 2017. The Araçuaí Belt.
In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.). São Francisco Craton, Eastern
Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer, p. 255-276.
Alkmim, F.F., Marshak, S., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Peres, G.G., Cruz, S.C.P., Whittington, A.,
2006. Kinematic evolution of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogen in Brazil and Africa:
Nutcracker tectonics during the Neoproterozoic assembly of Gondwana. Precambrian
Research, 149, 43–64.
Angeli, N., 2005. Platinum group minerals in eastern Brazil. Platinum Metals Review, 49(1),
41-53.
Angeli, N. & Carvalho, S.G., 1996. Composição química de cromitas em corpos
metamáficos/ultramáficos da borda leste do Espinhaço Meridional, Minas Gerais.
Geonomos, IV(1), 11-20.
 70

Angeli, N., Garutti, G.; Zaccarini, F., Proenza, J.; Thallammer, O., Penha, U., 2009.Chromite
Composition and PGE Mineralogy in Chromitite from Serro and Alvorada de Minas
Ultramafic Bodies (MG, Brazil): Evidence for a Stratiform Origin. In: SIMPÓSIO DE
GEOLOGIA DO SUDESTE, XI, São Pedro, 2009. Resumo, Anais, SBGeo, p.102.
Angeli, N., Zaccarini, F., Garuti, G., Thalhammer, O., Proenza, J., Walsh, L., 2010. Platinum
group minerals in Brazilian chromitites from Serro, Alvorada de Minas and Pedra
Branca: evidence for a stratiform origin. Applied Mireralogy, Tillmanns, E. (General
Chairman), Budapest, 2010, p.286.
Assis, L.C., 1981. Mapeamento geológico da Quadrícula de Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais.
DNPM/CPRM/CGE, Rel. Int., 54 pp., Diamantina.
Assis, L.C., 1982. Estratigrafia, tectônica e potencialidade mineral das unidades pré-
cambrianas da região do Serro, Minas Gerais (Quadricula de Mato Grosso).
Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília,149 pp.
Assis, L. C., Marini, O. J., 1983. Contribuição à Controvérsia da Correlação Espinhaço-
Minas. Anais, 2o Simpósio Geologia Minas Gerais, Soc. Bras. Geologia, Núcleo MG,
Bol. 3, Belo Horizonte, p. 361-375.
Babinski, M., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Trindade, R.I.F.D., Martins, M., Noce, C.M., Liu, D.,
2012. Neoproterozoic glacial deposits from the Araçuaí orogen, Brazil: Age,
provenance and correlations with the São Francisco craton and West Congo
belt. Gondwana Research, 21(2-3), 451-465.
Barbosa, A.L.M., 1949. Geologia da Foz do Rio Guanhães, Minas Gerais. Tese para
concurso de professor da Universidade do Brasil. 44 p.
Barbosa, O., 1954. Evolution du Géosynclinal Espinhaço. Gr. 19o Int. Geol. Congrés,
Comptes Rendur, Section 13, vol. 14, Algier, p. 17-36.
Barrote, V.R., 2016. A sequência portadora de formações ferríferas de Guanhães, Minas
Gerais, Brasil. Dissertação de Mestrado, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade
Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 134 p.
Barrote, V. R., Rosiere, C. A., Rolim, V. K., Santos, J. O. S., & Mcnaughton, N. J., 2017. As
formações ferríferas bandadas proterozoicas de Guanhães, borda sudeste do Cráton
São Francisco, Brasil: evidências de contaminação detrítica. Geologia USP. Série
Científica, 17(2), 303-324.
Bastos-Neto, A.C., 1981. Mapeamento geológico da Quadrícula Dom Joaquim. Dep. Nac.
Prod. Mineral/Comp. Pesq. Rec. Minerais/Centro de Geologia Eschwege, Relatório
Interno. Diamantina, 33 p.
Bastos-Neto, A.C., 1982. Geologia das Quadrículas Dom Joaquim e Parte Sul do Ribeirão
da Barra - Borda Leste da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional - MG. Dissertação de
Mestrado, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 112 p.
Bezerra-Neto, F.E., 2016. Estudo de rochas exóticas da formação sopa- brumadinho e
possíveis implicações para a fonte dos diamantes do espinhaço meridional.
Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília,105 p.
Brito-Neves, B.B., Cordani, U.G., Kawashita, K., Delhal, J. 1979. A evolução geocronológica
da Cordilheira do Espinhaço - Dados Novos e Integração. Revista Brasileira de
Geociências, 9(1), 71-85.
Carvalho, R. P., 2013. A sequência Orosiriana-Estateriana e evolução tectôno-metamórfica
da borda leste do espinhaço meridional na região de Santa Maria de Itabira-MG.
Dissertação de Mestrado, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, 136 pp.
 71

Carvalho, R.P., Rosière, C.A., Rolim, V.K., Lana, C.C., Santos, J.O.S. 2014. A sequência
orosiriana-estateriana e geometria transpressiva na região de Santa Maria de Itabira,
Minas Gerais. Geologia USP. Série Científica, 14(2), 111-120.
Castro, M.P., 2014. Caracterização Geológica da Formação Capelinha como uma unidade
basal do Grupo Macaúbas em sua área tipo, Minas Gerais. Dissertação de Mestrado,
Departamento de Geologia, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 113p.
Chaves, M.L.S.C. & Uhlein, A., 1985. Dados preliminares sobre geologia e mineralizações
do distrito aurífero de Diamantina, MG. III Simp. Geol. Minas Gerais, Anais, pp. 246-
275, B. Horizonte.
Chemale Jr., F., Dussin, I. A., Alkmim, F.F., Martins, M.S., Queiroga, G.N., Armstrong, R.,
Santos, M.N. 2012. Unravelling a Proterozoic basin history through detrital zircon
geochronology: the case of the Espinhaço Supergroup, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Gondwana Research, 22(1), 200-206.
Chemale Jr., F., Quade H., Schmus, W.R.V., 1998. Petrography, geoquemistry and
geochronology of the Borrachudos and Santa Bárbara metagranites, Quadrilátero
Ferrífero, Brazil. Zbl. Geol. Palaont, Stuttgart, I, 3-6, 739-750.
Cordeiro, J.S., 2008. A quantificação da deformação em rochas metassedimentares dos
grupos Costa Sena e Guinda, Paleoproterozóico da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional.
Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Dissertação de
Mestrado, 280 p.
Dallwing, R., Hoppe, A., Klein, H., 1983. Ocorrências de granada-anfibolito e hornblenda-
websterito na Região de Guanhães, Leste de Minas Gerais. Anais, 2o Simpósio de
Geologia de Minas Gerais, Soc. Bras. Geologia, Núcleo MG, Belo Horizonte, p. 115-
127.
Danderfer, A.F. & Meireles, H.P., 1987. Mapeamento geológico da Região do Alto Rio
Guanhães (MG). Trabalho de Graduação. Centro de Geologia Eschwege,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Diamantina, 94 p.
Dorr, J.V.N. & Barbosa, A.L.M., 1963. Geology and ore deposits of the Itabira District, Minas
Gerais, Brazil. Us. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper. Washington, 341-C, 110 p.
Dossin, I.A.,1983. Geologia, gênese e controle dosdepositos de manganês associados ao
Grupo Macaubas na borda ocidental da Serra do Cipo, Minas Gerais. Dissertação de
Mestrado, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 127 pp.
Dossin, T.M., 1985. Geologia e geoquímica das formações ferríferas da Serra da
Serpentina, Conceição do Mato Dentro, Minas Gerais. Dissertação de Mestrado,
Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 140pp.
Dossin, I.A., Chaves, M.L.S.C., Uhlein, A., Alvarenga, C.J.S.,1985. Geologia e depósitos
diamantíferos da região de Sopa, Diamantina, Minas Gerais. III Simp. Geol. Minas
Gerais, Anais, Belo Horizonte, pp. 276-290.
Dossin, I. A., Dossin, T. M., Charvet, J. & Chemale Jr., F.,1992. Tectonique du
Protérozoíque supérior au sud-est du Craton São Francisco (Minas Gerais, Brèsil).
Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris, 315, p. 629-636.
Dossin, I.A., Dossin, T.M., Charvet, J., Cocherie, A., Rossi,P., 1993. Single zircon dating by
step-wise Pb-evaporation of Middle Proterozoic magmatites in the Espinhaço Range,
southeastern São Francisco Craton (Minas Gerais, Brazil) - II Simp. Craton São
Francisco, Anais, 39-42
Dossin, I. A., Garcia, A. J. V., Uhlein, A., Dardenne, M. A. & Dossin, T. M., 1987. Fácies
Eólico na Formação Galho do Miguel, Supergrupo Espinhaço (MG). Anais, Simpósio
 72

sobre Sistemas Deposicionais do Pré-Cambriano, Soc. Bras. Geologia, Núcleo MG,

Bol. 6, Ouro Preto, p. 85-96.
Dussin, I.A., 1994. Evolution structurale de la region de L`Espinhaço Meridional, Bordure
Sud-Est-du Craton São Francisco, Brésil – Tectoniques Superposées au
Proterozoique. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade de Orleans, 183.
Dussin, T.M., 1994. Associacions vulcano- plutoniques de l'Espinhaço Meridional (SE -
Brésil): un exemple d’évolution de la croûte protérozoïque. PhD Thesis, Université
D'Orléans, Orléans, 177 p.
Dussin, T.M., 2000. A tectônica extensional paleoproterozóica na borda sudeste do Craton
São Francisco (SE, Brasil): geoquímica e petrologia das metaígneas. Geonomos 8(1):
63-68.
Dussin, I.A. & Dussin, T.M.,1995. Supergrupo Espinhaço: Modelo de evolução geodinâmica.
Geonomos, 3 (1), 19-26.
Dussin, T.M., Dussin, I.A., Macambira, M.J.B., 2000. Chronology of Mesoproterozoic
Guanhães River sequence: 207Pb/206Pb single zircon evaporation data of
metavolcanic rocks (Minas Gerais, Brazil). In: 31° Internacional Geolological Congress.
Rio de Janeiro, Abstracts Vol., CD.
Dussin, T.M., Dussin, I.A., Rossi, P., Charvet, J., 1995. Idade do Supergrupo Espinhaço:
determinação 207Pb/206Pb pelo método de evaporação do Pb sôbre monozircões de
metavulcanitos sinsedimentares. In: Simp. Geol. de Minas Gerais, 8, Belo Horizonte,
Anais, 1,11-13.
Fernandes, M.L.S., 2001. O Granito Borrachudos na região entre Guanhães e Dores de
Guanhães, MG (Plutonito Morro do Urubu): gênese e evolução. PhD Thesis, Instituto
de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 187 pp.
Fernandes, M.L.S., Marciano V.R.P.R.O., Oliveira R.C., Correia Neves J.M., Diláscio M.V.,
1994. Granitos Borrachudos: um exemplo de granitogênese anorogênica na porção
central do Estado de Minas Gerais. Geonomos, 2(2), 23-29.
Fogaça, A.C.C., 1982. Geologia e mineralizações auríferas da região de Costa Sena (Minas
Gerais). UnB, Rel. Int., Brasília, 28 pp.
Fogaça, A.C.C., 1985. Serra do Espinhaço Meridional: geologia dos terrenos arqueanos e
proterozoicos. III Simp. Geol. Minas Gerais, Anais, Belo Horizonte, pp. 377-383.
Fogaça, A.C.C. & Almeida Abreu, P.A., 1982. Depósitos de planícies de mares na Formação
Sopa Brumadinho, Proterozóico Inferior da Cordilheira do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais,
Brasil. V Congresso. Latinoamerico de Geologia., Actas 2, 373-388.
Fogaça, A.C.C. & Schöll, W.U., 1984. Estratigrafia e tectônica das rochas arqueanas e
proterozoicas da região de Guinda e Gouveia, Minas Gerais. XXXIII Cong. Bras. Geol.,
Anais 6: 2638-2653, Rio de Janeiro.
Freyberg, B. von, 1932. Ergebnisse Geologischer Forschungen in Minas Gerais (Brasilien)
Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. Paläont. Sonderband II, Stuttgart, 403 p.
Grossi-Sad, J. H., 1997. Geologia da Folha Guanhães. In: Grossi-Sad, J. H.; Lobato, L. M.;
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Soares-Filho, B. S. (Eds.). Projeto Espinhaço em Cd-Rom
(textos, mapas e anexos). Belo Horizonte, COMIG – Companhia Mineradora de Minas
Gerais. p. 2317-2435.
Grossi-Sad, J.H., Chiodi Filho, C., Santos, J.F., Magalhães, J.M.M., Carelos, P.M., 1990a.
Duas suites graníticas do bordo sudeste do Craton São Francisco, em Minas Gerais:
Petroquímica e Potencial Metalogenético. In: 36°Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia.
Natal, Anais, v. 4, p. 1836-1841.
 73

Grossi-Sad, J.H., Chiodi Filho, C., Santos, J.F., Magalhães, J.M.M., Carelos, P.M., 1990b.
Geoquímica e origem da formação ferrífera do Grupo Guanhães, Distrito de
Guanhães, Mg, Brasil. XXXVI Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, 3, 1241-1253.
Grossi-Sad, J.H., Magalhães, J.M.M., Carelos, P.M., 1989. Geologia do Distrito de
Guanhães, Minas Gerais. DOCEGEO - Rio Doce Geologia e Mineração / GEOSOL -
Geologia e Sondagens Ltda, Relatório Interno, 252.
Grossi-Sad, J.H., Mourão, M.A.A., Guimarães, M.L.V., Knauer, L.G., 1997. Geologia da
Folha Conceição do Mato Dentro. In: Grossi-Sad J.H., Lobato L.M., Pedrosa-Soares
A.C., Soares-Filho B.S. (eds.) Projeto Espinhaço em CD-Rom (textos, mapas e
anexos). COMIG, 2533-2693.
Grossi-Sad, J. H. & Vaz De Melo, M. T., 1969. Geologia do Distrito do Serro, Minas Gerais,
Brasil. Dep. Nac. Prod. Mineral - GEOSOL, Texto datilografado, Belo Horizonte, 270 p.
Guadagnin, F., Chemale Jr., F., Magalhães, A.J.C., Alessandretti, L., Bállico, M.B., Jeline,
A.R., 2015. Sedimentary petrology and detrital zircon U–Pb and Lu–Hf constraints of
Mesoproterozoic intracratonic sequences in the Espinhaço Supergroup: Implications
for the Archean and Proterozoic evolution of the São Francisco Craton. Precambrian
Research, 266, 227-245.
Haralyi, N.L.E. & Svisero, D.P., 1986. Geologia e análise estatistica do diamante da Mina da
Boa Vista, Diamantina, Minas Gerais. XXXIV Cong. Br. Geol., Anais, Goiânia.5, 2297-
2311.
Harder, E.C. & Chamberlin, R.T., 1915. The Geology of Central Minas Gerais, Brazil. J.
Geol, 23, p. 341-424.
Heineck, C.A., Gonçalves, A.S.D., Costa, F., Garcia Tavares, W.P.D., 1972. Projeto
Espinhaço Meridional. CPRM.
Herrgesell, G., 1984. Das Präkambrium am Ostrand der nördlichen Serra do Cipó (Serra do
Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brasilien). Dissertação, Universidade Freiburg, Alemanha,
247 p.
Hussak ,E. 1906. O palladio e a platina no Brasil. Annaes da Escola de Minas. Ouro Preto, 8
188.
Knauer, L.G., 1984. A geologia da área do Ribeirão do Inferno, Diamantina, Minas Gerais.
XXXIII Cong. Br. Geol., Anais, Rio de Janeiro 3, 1249-1261.
Knauer, L.G., 1990. Evolução geológica do Precambriano da porção centro-leste da Serra
do Espinhaço Meridional e metalogênese associada. Dissertação de Mestrado,
Uiversidade de Campinas, Campinas, 298p.
Knauer, L.G., 1999. Aspectos estratigráficos e estruturais das unidades proterozóicas da
Serra do espinhaço meridional e suas implicações para a caracterização do Evento
Uruaçuano. Tese de Doutoramento, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo, Rio Claro.
226pp.
Knauer, L.G., 2007. O Supergrupo Espinhaço em Minas Gerais: considerações sobre sua
estratigrafia e seu arranjo estrutural. Geonomos, 15 (1), 81-90.
Knauer, L.G & Grossi-Sad, J.H., 1997. Geologia da Folha Serro. In: Grossi-Sad J.H., Lobato
L.M., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Soares-Filho B.S. (eds.). Projeto Espinhaço Em CD-ROM
(textos, mapas e anexos). Belo Horizonte, MG. COMIG - Companhia Mineradora de
Minas Gerais. SEME/COMIG/UFMG, p. 2057-2316.
Knauer, L.G. & Schrank, A., 1993. A origem dos filitos hematíticos da Serra do Espinhaço
Meridional, Minas Gerais. Geonomos, 1 (1), 33-38.
 74

Lopes-Silva, L., 2008. Relação estratigráfica e estrutural entre os grupos Costa Sena e
Guinda na região de Diamantina, Minas Gerais. Dissertação de Mestrado, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 198p.
Machado, N., Schrank, A., Abreu, F.R., Knauer, L.G, Almeida-Abreu, P.A., 1989. Resultados
preliminares da geocronologia U-Pb na Serra do Espinhaço Meridional. In: 5° Simpósio
de Geologia de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, Anais, v. 5, p. 171-174.
Martins-Neto, M.A.,1995a. Tectono-estratigrafia da Bacia Espinhaço no Estado de Minas
Gerais. In: Simp. Geol. de Minas Gerais, 8, Belo Horizonte, Anais, 1: 25-27.
Martins-Neto, M.A., 1995b. A evolução tectônica da Bacia Espinhaço (Mesoproterozóico) no
Estado de Minas Gerais. In: V Simp. Nac. Est. Tectônicos, Anais, 287-289.
Martins-Neto, M.A., 1998. O Supergrupo Espinhaço em Minas Gerais: registro de uma bacia
rifte-sag do Paleo/Mesoproterozóico. Rev. Bras. Geoc., 28(2), 151-168.
Martins-Neto, M.A., 1999. Réplica da discussão sobre o Supergrupo Espinhaço em Minas
Gerais: registro de uma bacia rifte-sag do Paleo/Mesoproterozóico. Rev. Bras. Geoc.,
29(4), 665-668.
Menezes, R.D.C.L., Conceição, H., Silva Rosa, M.D.L., Macambira, M.J.B., Galarza, M.A.,
Rios, D.C., 2012. Geoquímica e geocronologia de granitos anorogênicos tonianos (ca.
914–899 ma) da Faixa Araçuaí no sul do Estado da Bahia. Revista Geonomos, 20(1).
Moraes, L.J., 1929. Geologia da região Diamantina de Minas Gerais. DNPM/SGM, Rel.
Diret.1928, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 29-34.
Moraes, L. J. & Guimarães, D., 1930. Geologia da região diamantífera do norte de Minas.
Anais. Acad. Bras. Ciênc., 2: p. 153-186.
Müller, G., Hohndorf, A., Lauenstein, H.J., Lenz, H., 1986. Petrological and geochemical data
on highmetamorphic Archean Bif-bearing rock sequence near Guanhães, Minas
Gerais, Brazil. Geol. Jb.D.,79:3-20.
Noce, C.M., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Silva, L.C., Alkmim, F.F. 2007. O embasamento
arqueano e paleoproterozóico do Orógeno Araçuaí. Genomos, 15(1), 17-23.
Oliveira, E.P., Fonseca, E.G., Marques, N.M.G., 1984. Petrografia e geoquímica de uma
Suíte de Diques Máficos Transamazônicos da Região de Virginópolis, MG. Anais, 33o
Cong. Bras. de Geologia, Rio de Janeiro, 9, p. 4155-4165.
Paternoster, K.,1979. Faziesverzahnung zwischen diamant-fühtenden Konglomeraten und
Bäudererzen (BIF) in der südlichen Serra do Espinhaço (Minas Gerais, Brasilien -
Dissertation, Universidade Freiburg, Alemanha, 83 p.
Paulino, J., Tuller, M.P., Bergmann, A., 1979. Projeto de integração geológicogeofísico
Espinhaço Central. DNPM/CPRM, Rel. Int., 3 vol., Belo Horizonte.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C. & Alkmim, F.F., 2011. How many rifting events preceded the
development of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogeny? Geonomos, 19(2), 244-251.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Alkmim, F.F., Tack, L., Noce, C.M., Babinski, M., Silva, L.C.D.,
Martins-Neto, M.A., 2008. Similarities and differences between the Brazilian and
African counterparts of the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí-West Congo orogen. London,
Geological Society of London Special Publication, 294(1), 153-172.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Dardenne, M.A., Hasui, Y., Castro, F.D.C., Carvalho, M.V.A., 1994.
Nota Explicativa dos Mapas Geológico, Metalogenético e de Ocorrências Minerais do
Estado de Minas Gerais, Escala 1:1.000.000., SEME/COMIG.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Noce, C.M., Alkmim, F.F., Silva, L.C., Babinski, M., Cordani, U.,
Castañeda, C., 2007. Orógeno Araçuaí: síntese do conhecimento 30 anos após
Almeida 1977. Geonomos, 15, 1-16.
 75

Peixoto, E., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Alkmim, F.F., Dussin, I.A., 2015. A suture–related
accretionary wedge formed in the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen (SE Brazil) during
Western Gondwanaland assembly. Gondwana Research, 27(2), 878-896.
Peres, G. G., Alkimim, F. F., & Jordt-Evangelista, H., 2004. The southern Araçuaí belt and
the Dom Silvério Group: geologic architecture and tectonic significance. Anais da
Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 76(4), 771-790.
Pflug, R., 1963. Contribuição a paleogeografia da Serra do Espinhaço (quartzitos da região
de Diamantina, Minas Gerais). DNPM/DGM, Not. Prel. Est. Rio de Janeiro, 119: 1-16.
Pflug, R., 1965. A geologia da parte meridional da Serra do Espinhaço e zonas adjacentes,
Minas Gerais. DNPM/DGM, Bol. Rio de Janeiro. 226, 1-51.
Pflug, R., 1967. Die Prakambrische miogeosynclinale der Espinhaço Kordillere, Minas
Gerais, Brasilien. Geol. Runds. 56, 825-844.
Pflug, R., 1968. Observações sobre a estratigrafia da Série Minas na região de Diamantina,
Minas Gerais. DNPM/DGM, Not. Prel. Est. Rio de Janeiro.142, 1-20.
Pflug, R. & Renger, F., 1973. Estratigrafia e evolução geológica da margem SE do Craton
Sanfranciscano. XXVII Cong. Bras. Geol., Aracaju. Anais 2: 5-19,
Pflug, R., Renger, F., Schobbenhaus, C., 1969. Contribuição à Geotectônica do Brasil
Oriental. SUDENE, 59.
Pinto, C.P. & Silva, M.A., 2014. Mapa Geológico do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Escala
1:1.000.000. Belo Horizonte, CODEMIG – Companhia de Desenvolvimento Econõmico
de Minas Gerais; CPRM - Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais.
Piuzana, D., Castaneda, C., Noce, C. M., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Silva, L. C., 2008. Titanite
crystal chemistry and u-p isotopic data: a petrogenetic indicator for precambrian
granitoid plutons of the eastern brazilian shield. Geonomos, 16, 29-36.
Renger, F., 1972. As rochas ultrabásicas da Serra do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais. Rev. Bras.
Geoc. 2: 151-160.
Renger, F., 1979. Evolução dos conceitos geológicos da Serra do Espinhaço. I Simp. Geol.
Minas Gerais, Anais, Diamantina. pp. 9-27,
Rolim, V.K., 1992. Uma interpretação das estruturas tectônicas do Supergrupo Espinhaço,
baseada na geometria dos falhamentos de empurrão. Rev. Escola de Minas, Ouro
Preto, 45 (1 e 2),75-77.
Rolim, V.K. & Rosière, C.A., 2011. The Conceição do Mato Dentro Iron Formation Province
in southeastern Brazil. XI Biennial SGA Meeting, 927-929.
Rolim, V.K., Rosière, C.A., Santos, J.O.S., McNaughton, N.J., 2016. The Orosirian-
Statherian banded iron formation-bearing sequences of the southern border of the
Espinhaço Range, Southeast Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 65,
43-66.
Sano, Y., Yokochi, R., Terada, K., Chaves, M.L., Ozima, M., 2002. Ion microprobe Pb–Pb
dating of carbonado, polycrystalline diamond. Precambrian Research, 113(1-2), 155-
168.
Santos, M.N., Chemale, F., Dussin, I.A., Martins, M., Assis, T.A.R., Jelinek, A.R., Guadagnin,
F., Armstrong, R., 2013. Sedimentological and paleoenvironmental constraints of the
Statherian and Stenian Espinhaço rift system, Brazil. Sedimentary Geology, 290, 47-
59.
Schöll, W. U. & Fogaça, A. C. C., 1979. Estratigrafia da Serra do Espinhaço na região de
Diamantina. Anais, Simpósio de Geologia de Minas Gerais, Soc. Bras. Geologia,
Núcleo MG, Bol. 1, Belo Horizonte, p. 55-73.
 76

Silva, R.R., 1995. Depositional sequences of the rift phase of the Proterozoic Espinhaço
Supergroup in the area between Diamantina and Gouveia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 14°
Intern. Sedimentol. Congr., Recife, Abstracts, 75-76.
Silva, R.R. & Toledo, C.L., 1993. A Proterozoic duplex trhust system in the southern Serra do
Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zbl. Geol. Palaont., Teil 1, H1/2, 55-66.
Silva, L.C., Armstrong, R., Noce, C.M., Carneiro, M.A., Pimentel, M.M., Pedrosa- Soares,
A.C., Leite, C.A., Vieira, V.S., Silva, M.A., Paes, V.J.C., Cardoso Filho, J.M., 2002.
Reavaliação da evolução geológica em terrenos pré-cambrianos brasileiros com base
em novos dados U-Pb SHRIMP, parte II: Orógeno Araçuaí, Cinturão Mineiro e Cráton
São Francisco Meridional. Revista Brasileira de Geociências, 32, 513-528.
Silva, L.C., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Armstrong, R., Pinto, C.P., Magalhães, J.T.R., Pinheiro,
M.A.P., Santos G.G. 2016. Disclosing the Paleoarchean to Ediacaran history of the
São Francisco craton basement: The Porteirinha domain (northern Araçuaí orogen,
Brazil). Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 68, 50-6.
Silva, L.C., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Teixeira, L.R., Armstrong R. 2008. Tonian rift-related, A-
type continental plutonism in the Araçuaí Orogen, eastern Brazil: New evidence for the
breakup stage of the São Francisco–Congo Paleocontinent. Gondwana Research, 13,
527-537.
Silveira, V. D., 2016. Geologia e Geocronologia de zircões detríticos da região de Serro,
Serra do Espinhaço Meridional, Minas Gerais, Brasil.
Silveira-Braga, F.C., 2012. A sequência portadora de formação ferrífera da Serra do Morro
Escuro, Santa Maria de ltabira, Minas Gerais. MS Dissertation, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 299 p.
Silveira-Braga, F.C., Rosière, C.A., Queiroga, G.N., Rolim, V.K., Santos, J.O.S.,
Mcnaughton, N.J., 2015. The Statherian itabirite-bearing sequence from the Morro
Escuro Ridge, Santa Maria de Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences, 58, 33-53.
Souza, M.E.S., 2016. Caracterização litoestrutural e geocronológica dos xistos verdes e
metagabros do Grupo Macaúbas na Faixa Terra Branca-Planalto de Minas, Minas
Gerais Dissertação de Mestrado, Departamento de Geologia/Escola de Minas,
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 215 p.
Teixeira, W., Dossin, I.A., Dossin, T.M., Salvador, E.D., Siga Jr., O., Sato, K., 1990.
Interpretação do Contexto Geotectônico do Embasamento na borda leste do sistema
Espinhaço, região de Guanhães e Gouveia-MG, com base numa interpretação do seu
conjunto geocronológico U/Pb, Rb/Sr e K/Ar. Anais do XXXVI Congresso Brasileiro de
Geologia., Natal, 6, 2711-2722.
Trompette, R.; Uhlein, A.; Egydio-Silva, M., Karmann, I., 1992. The brasiliano São Francisco
Craton revisited (Central Brazil). J. South Amer. Earth Sci., 6 (1/2), 49-57.
Uhlein, A., 1981. Mapeamento geológico da Quadrícula de Serro. DNPM/CPRM/CGE, Rel.
Int., 56 pp, Diamantina.
Uhlein, A., 1982. Geologia e mineralogia da cromita e itabiritos da região do Serro-MG.
Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.192 pp.
Uhlein, A.,1984. Análise estrutural nas formações inferiores do Supergrupo Espinhaço na
região de Datas, Minas Gerais. XXXIII Cong. Bras. Geol., Rio de Janeiro. Anais 6:
3381-3392.
Uhlein, A., 1991. Transição cráton faixa dobrada: exemplo do Craton São Francisco e da
Faixa Araçuaí (Ciclo Brasiliano) no Estado de Minas Gerais. Aspectos estratigráficos e
estruturais. Tese de Doutoramento, Universidade de São Paulo. 295p.
 77

Uhlein, A., Assis, L.C., Dardenne, M.A., 1983. As mineralizações de ouro e cromita da
Sequência Vulcano-Sedimentar de Serro, MG. II Simp. Geol. Minas Gerais, B.
Horizonte. Anais, pp. 306-320.
Uhlein, A., Trompette, R., Egydio-Silva, M., 1995. Rifteamentos superpostos e tectônica de
inversão na borda sudeste do Cráton do São Francisco. Geonomos, 3 (1). 99-107.
Zapparoli, A.C., 2001. Os depósitos de cromita da borda leste da Serra do Espinhaço
Meridional, Minas Gerais: Petrologia, quimismo e implicações genéticas. Dissertação
de Mestrado, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 133 pp.
 78

4 First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon signatures from

the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province (Eastern Brazil):
geotectonic implications of a silicic large igneous province

Joana Reis Magalhães1,2,3*, Antônio Pedrosa-Soares1, Ivo Dussin4, Othmar

Müntener2, Marco Aurélio P. Pinheiro3, Luiz Carlos da Silva3, Luiz Guilherme
Knauer1, Anne-Sophie Bouvier2, Lukas Baumgartner2

1
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geologia, IGC-CPMTC, Av.
Antônio Carlos 6627, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2
University of Lausanne, Institute of Earth Sciences, Geópolis, Quartier Mouline, Lausanne,
Switzerland
3
Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM), Av. Brasil 1731, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
4
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Faculdade de Geologia, R. São Francisco Xavier 524, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil

*Corresponding author
 79

4.1 Abstract

The Espinhaço rift system encompasses taphrogenetic events from the

Statherian to Tonian in the São Francisco-Congo (SFC) paleocontinent. The
magmatism is represented mainly by metamorphosed anorogenic granites and
rhyolites with subordinate amphibolites. Zircon U–Pb (LA-ICPMS and SHRIMP) ages
from felsic (1748 ± 3 Ma and 1740 ± 8 Ma) and mafic (1725 ± 4 Ma) rock samples,
coupled with previous studies suggest that the Espinhaço igneous province erupted
from ca. 1.79 Ga to ca. 1.70 Ga. The felsic rocks show characteristics of A-type
magmas. The negative εHf(t) data for meta-rhyolite zircons (-12.32 to -17.58), the
moderate δ18O values (7.02 to 7.98) and the REE patterns suggest crustal melting
related to an extensional environment. The mafic rock shows negative values of εHf(t)
in zircons (-4.05 to -8.25) and moderate δ18O values (5.56 to 7.87). The results
disclose a basaltic magmatism in continental intraplate setting whose parental
magma could have been derived from the subcontinental lithospheric mantle with
contamination of crustal material. These data coupled with coeval Espinhaço
magmatism and mafic dyke swarms found to the south of the Espinhaço rift system
reinforce the evidence of a long-lived Statherian silicic large igneous province (SLIP)
on the SFC paleocontinental block.

Keywords: Statherian magmatism; taphrogenic event; Espinhaço rift; São Francisco

paleocontinent

4.2 Introduction

The outstanding development of chemical and isotopic analysis on zircon

grains enhanced the understanding of nature, evolution and source of igneous rocks
related to distinct tectonic environments and its geodynamic processes. Because
zircon grains are able to record multiple geological events, through its morpho-
chemical modifications, numerous investigations, as U-Pb and Lu-Hf systematics, as
well as δ18O and REE abundances, have been focused on relating temporal
evolution of the crust and the lithospheric mantle (Hoskin and Schaltegger 2003,
Harley and Kelly 2007). Even some representative zircon samples can disclose new
findings and test previous hypothesis suggested by lithochemical and whole-rock
 80

isotopic methods. Such analytical methods of zircon spot analysis are here presented
on samples of felsic and mafic rocks from the Espinhaço igneous province which rift-
related anorogenic nature has been suggested since the early 1990’s, based only on
lithochemical data from felsic rocks (Chemale Jr. 1987, Dussin 1994, Fernandes
2001).
The São Francisco-Congo (SFC) paleocontinental block (Fig. 4-1A),
amalgamated in the Rhyacian — Orosirian boundary (ca. 2.05 Ga), experienced a
series of rifting events from the Statherian to Cr yogenian (Pedrosa-Soares and
Alkmim 2011, Chemale Jr. et al. 2012a, Danderfer et al. 2015, Heilbron et al. 2017).
The oldest among those taphrogenic events took place in Early Statherian time,
around 1.75–1.70 Ga, cutting across the São Francisco block in Central-Eastern
Brazil, and culminating with the opening of the extensive N-S trending Espinhaço
basin system associated with abundant acid magmatism (Fig. 4-1B).

Figura 4-1: (A) Geotectonic configuration of the São Francisco–Congo craton in the context of West
Gondwana (after Alkmim et al. 2006). (B) Simplified geological map highlighting the Espinhaço rift
system and the Guanhães block in the eastern border of the São Francisco Craton. Modified from
Alkmim (2004) and Pinto and Silva (2014).
 81

To the east of the main exposure region of the Southern Espinhaço rift,
Statherian felsic magmatism is also registered in the Guanhães Archean basement
block (Fig. 4-1B), where large A-type granitic intrusions and rhyolitic volcanism have
been referred to for decades (e.g., Dussin 1994, Fernandes 2001). These meta-
rhyolites are found in close association with meta-mafic rocks (ortho-amphibolites),
both lacking detailed analytical studies. Therefore, they are now the first bimodal
suite related to the Espinhaço rift characterized with robust analytical data.
Besides new U-Pb (LA-MC-ICP-MS and SHRIMP) zircon ages, lithochemical
and mineral chemistry data, we present the first Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in
zircon data for the mafic and felsic magmatism related to the Espinhaço rift system.
Our robust dataset, together with a thorough data compilation from the literature,
demonstrate the rift-related bimodal nature of the Espinhaço magmatic province.
Furthermore, it supports the role of subcontinental lithospheric mantle on the
petrogenesis of these anorogenic rock suite. Finally, we discuss paleotectonic
correlations concerning the São Francisco paleocontinental block, envisaging the
Statherian Espinhaço magmatic event as part of a silicic large igneous province
(SLIP).

4.3 Geological Setting

The Espinhaço basin system extends for about 1.200 km along the N-S
direction, cutting across the São Francisco paleocontinental block, and can be
subdivided into five domains, namely: the Southern Espinhaço ridge, Guanhães
block, Central Espinhaço ridge, Northern Espinhaço ridge, and the Chapada
Diamantina (i.e., Diamantina plateau) domains (Fig. 1B). While the Northern
Espinhaço ridge and Chapada Diamantina domains were mostly preserved from
orogenic processes within the São Francisco craton, the Southern and Central
Espinhaço ridge domains and Guanhães block were involved in the Brasiliano
orogeny within the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen, where they were being mostly
metamorphosed in the greenschist facies but locally reaching upper amphibolite
facies metamorphism (Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2011, Alkmim et al. 2017, Cruz and
Alkmim 2017). The Espinhaço Supergroup is mostly composed of siliciclastic
sequences and magmatic rocks, with minor carbonate rocks, associated with three
taphrogenic events that occurred during the Statherian (ca. 1.8–1.68 Ga),
 82

Calymmian–Ectasian (ca. 1.6–1.38 Ma) and Stenian (ca. 1.18 Ma) (Pedrosa-Soares
and Alkmim 2011, Chemale Jr. et al. 2012a, Guadagnin et al. 2015, and references
therein).
Located to the east of the Southern Espinhaço ridge domain (Fig. 1B), the
Guanhães block stands out as a portion of the São Francisco paleocontinental region
reworked within the Araçuaí Neoproterozoic orogen (Alkmim et al. 2006, 2017, Noce
et al. 2007a, Silva et al. 2011, 2016). The Guanhães block encompasses Archean
TTG migmatitic gneisses and associated granites, locally covered by Siderian to
Neoproterozoic supracrustal successions, as well as a voluminous Statherian granitic
intrusions and meta-ultramafic and meta-mafic rocks of unknown age (Noce et al.
2007a, Silva et al. 2016, Teixeira et al. 2017). Zircon U-Pb (SHRIMP) ages between
3150 Ma and 2710 Ma constrain the magmatic crystallization of both gneiss protoliths
and granitoids that also show local metamorphic overprints around 2000 Ma and
570–500 Ma (Silva et al. 2011, 2016, Peixoto et al. 2015, Barrote 2016).
The Statherian magmatism, aim of this paper, mostly includes anorogenic
meta-granites and meta-rhyolites, and minor meta-mafic rocks (Brito Neves et al.
1979, Dussin 1994, 2017). The meta-granitic rocks display a wide age spectrum,
around 1790–1700 Ma and are represented by the Borrachudos, Catolé and Lagoa
Real suites, located in the Guanhães block, Central and Northern Espinhaço
domains, respectively (Turpin et al. 1988, Pimentel et al. 1994, Dussin et al. 2000,
Fernandes 2001, Costa 2013). Meta-rhyolites dated around 1750 Ma, 1735 Ma and
1710 Ma suggest distinct pulses of felsic volcanism along the Espinhaço system
(Machado et al. 1989, Babinski et al. 1994, Schobbenhaus et al. 1994, Danderfer et
al. 2009, 2015). Statherian meta-mafic rocks dated between 1750 Ma and 1700 Ma
occur in the Southern and Central Espinhaço ridge domains (Dussin 1994, Chemale
et al. Jr. 2012a, Bezerra-Neto 2016, Silva 2016, Moreira 2017). Typical sedimentary
rift deposits filled the Statherian Espinhaço basin system. They include sandstones,
rudites and pelites related to alluvial fan, braided fluvial and lacustrine environments,
with maximum depositional ages between 1.80 Ga and 1.68 Ga (Martins-Neto 2000,
Chemale Jr. et al. 2012a, Santos et al. 2013, Danderfer et al. 2015).
In the Guanhães block, where our detailed study area is located, the N-S
trending Alto Rio Guanhães unit comprises a metavolcano-sedimentary rock
assemblage tectonically imbricated with the Archean basement, the Guanhães
Group and the Statherian meta-granites (Fig. 4-2). Firstly recognized by Danderfer
 83

and Meireles (1987), the Alto Rio Guanhães unit records metamorphosed rocks from
the greenschist to the amphibolite facies. The eastern portion of this unit is mostly
composed by mafic schists and ortho-amphibolites, representing basic volcanic rocks
and associated intrusive mafic bodies, with minor meta-rhyolites and
metasedimentary rocks. The western portion mostly comprises quartzites,
ferruginous quartzites, pelitic schists, calc-silicate rocks and iron formations,
associated with meta-mafic rocks and meta-rhyolites (Fig. 4-2). Some meta-
ultramafic bodies, mostly composed of tremolite-talc schists, are also found within the
Alto Rio Guanhães unit.

Figura 4-2: Simplified geologic map of northern region of the Guanhães block and southern area of the
Espinhaço Ridge (modified from Pinto and Silva 2014).
 84

4.4 Analytical methods

4.4.1 A1. Mineral chemical compositions

Polished sections were analyzed for in situ mineral chemistry in a JEOL JXA-
8200 Superprobe at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland, using a 15 kV accelerating voltage, 20 nA beam current and 3-5 μm
beam diameter. Counting times were 20s on peak and 10s on background. Natural
silicates and oxides from the laboratory collection were used as standards for
calibration. Repeated measurements of standards at the start of each analytical
session gave precisions <2% for analysed oxides. The phi–rho–Z matrix correction
method were applied (Armstrong 1995). Results are reported in tables A.2 to A.5 in
the attached files.

4.4.2 Whole rock major and trace elements

Major, trace and rare earth elements analyses on twelve selected samples
were conducted by ACME Analytical Laboratories Ltd., Canada. The analyses were
performed via ICP-MS after fusion with lithium metaborate/tetraborate and digestion
with diluted nitric acid, with analytical errors of 5% for most of the major oxides and
10-15% for most of the trace and rare earth elements. Base and precious metal
grades were determined by digestion in Aqua Regia. The analyses were performed
by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) for major
elements, whilst trace elements have been determined by Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), according to their specific routines. Results
are reported in table A.1 in the attached files.

4.4.3 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS dating

The in situ zircon U-Pb LA-ICPMS dating analyses reported here were carried
out using an ArF Excimer Laser 193 nm - ATLEX (Photon – Machines Inc.) laser-
ablation microprobe, coupled to a Neptune-Plus Plasma multi-collector (Thermo
Fisher Scientific), at the MULTILAB Laboratory, University of Rio de Janeiro State,
Brazil. Zircons were mounted in epoxy, with 2.5 cm in diameter and 0.5 mm height,
 85

and polished before being imaged by the cathodoluminescence Quanta-250-FEI.

Isotopic data were acquired by the stat
up parameters were 8–9 mJ/cm2 laser fluency, 10 Hz, 25 μm and Laser energy spot
between 20 and 40 %. Fraction of elements by laser induction and mass instrumental
discrimination were corrected using the reference standard of zircon GJ-1 (Jackson
et al. 2004) as primary standard and tested using the zircon 91500 (Wiedenbeck et
al. 1995). External errors were calculated with the error spread of individual
measurements of GJ-1 standard and individual measurements of each zircon sample
(or spot), according Chemale at al. (2012b). Results are reported in tables A.6 and
A.7 in the attached files.

4.4.4 Zircon U–Pb SHRIMP dating

The isotopic U–Pb SHRIMP analyses were obtained at the SHRIMP II

equipment at the Australia National University, Australia. About 100 crystals were
selected and then cast in a standard 25-mm epoxy mount and sectioned by
polishing. All the dated crystals had cathodoluminescence (CL) images done before
the SHRIMP analyses. Instrumental conditions and data acquisition have been
described in Compston et al. (1984, 1992). The SHRIMP operation and particular
procedures followed the usual routine described by Nelson (1997). The Pb, U and Th
concentrations were referenced to the standard zircon. One determination on the
standard was obtained for each three analyses on the unknown. The spot size is
typically 25 μm in diameter. The age uncertainties given in the text are at the 95%
confidence level for the concordant populations, and the internal precision for single
analyses in the table is 1σ. Results are reported in table A.8 in the attached files.

4.4.5 In situ zircon Hf isotopic analysis

Hf isotopes were obtained via Laser Ablation Multicollector Inductively

Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (NdYAG 193nm Photon Machine / Neptune
Thermo Scientific) at the Isotope Geochemistry Laboratory, Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil. Data were collected in static mode during 60s of ablation with
a spot size of 50 µm. Nitrogen (~ 0.080 l/min) was introduced into the Ar sample
180 172 173
carrier gas. Typical signal intensity was ca. 12 V for Hf. The isotopes Yb, Yb
 86

175
and Lu were simultaneously monitored during each analysis step to allow for
176
correction of isobaric interferences of Lu and Yb isotopes on mass 176. The Yb
176 176
and Lu were calculated using a Yb/173Yb of 0.796218 (Chu et al., 2002) and
176
Lu/175Lu of 0.02658 (JWG in-house value). The correction for instrumental mass
179
bias utilized an exponential law and Hf/177Hf value of 0.7325 (Patchett and
Tatsumoto 1980) for correction of Hf isotopic ratios. The mass bias of Yb isotopes
generally differs slightly from that of the Hf isotopes with a typical offset of the
172
βHf/βYb of ca. 1.04 to 1.06 when using the Yb/173Yb value of 1.35274 from Chu et
al. (2002). This offset was determined for each analytical session by averaging the
βHf/βYb of multiple analyses of the JMC 475 solution doped with variable Yb
amounts and all laser ablation analyses (typically n > 50) of TEMORA zircon with a
173
Yb signal intensity of > 60 mV. The mass bias behavior of Lu was assumed to
follow that of Yb. The Yb and Lu isotopic ratios were corrected using the βHf of the
individual integration steps of each analysis divided by the average offset factor of
the complete analytical session. Results are reported in tables A.10 and A.11 in the
attached files.

4.4.6 In situ zircon oxygen isotopic analysis

18
O/16O ratios on zircons were measured using a Cameca IMS 1280HR ion
probe at the SwissSIMS facility, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. The
measurements were made with a focused 10kV Cs+ beam with an intensity of about
2 nA current and a 15 m rastered spot size. Each analysis took ca. 4min, including
pre-sputtering (60s). Oxygen isotopes were analyzed at a multi-collector mode using
Faraday cups. Mass calibration was performed at the beginning of the session. The
instrumental mass fractionation factor (IMF) was corrected using the Plengai zircon
international standard (Li et al. 2010). Four analyses of the standard were performed
routinely at the beginning of the session, and subsequently after every 13 unknowns.
Errors reported for each sample are the 2SD of the instrumental mass fractionation
factor. The reproducibility for the Plengai zircon averaged 0.3% (2SD) and the
variations over the entire session were between 0.18 and 0.37% (2SD). Following
analyses, all ion microprobe spots were reexamined by Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM). Results are reported in table A.12 in the attached files.
 87

4.4.7 In situ zircon trace elements

Trace element analyses on zircons were conducted by LA-ICP-MS the sector-

field spectrometer Element XR interfaced to a NewWave UP-193 ArF excimer
ablation system at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland. A beam size of 35 m at 10 Hz were used. The NIST SRM 612 glass
was used as the reference material and was measured twice at the beginning and
twice at the end of the analytical sequence of 12 unknowns. Background and ablation
interval acquisition times were about 100s and 50s, respectively. Dwell times range
from 10 to 20ms. LAMTRACE software (Jackson 2008) was used for data reduction
assuming SiO2 = 31.57 wt% and CaO = 11.85 wt% for zircon. The trace element
analyses spots were placed near the U-Pb dating and Lu-Hf spots considering the
same CL-domains. Results are reported in table A.9 in the attached files.

4.5 Results

Samples were collected from representative outcrops of the Alto Rio

Guanhães unit and Borrachudos suite. The samples are free of weathering and
hydrothermal alteration. We selected samples of mafic (sample J02: 18º38’13’’S,
43º12’50’’W) and rhyolitic (sample J03: 18º36’15’’S, 43º12’52’’W) rocks for LA-
ICPMS and SIMS isotopic analysis on zircon grains. One sample of a typical
syenogranite of the Borrachudos suite, collected from the Açucena pluton (LC40:
18º49’19’’S, 42º09’14’’W), was selected for zircon U-Pb SHRIMP analyses. Appendix
A presents the descriptions of the analytical methods applied in the following
sections.

4.5.1 Sample petrography and mineral chemistry

The samples selected for detailed studies are metamorphosed mafic and felsic
rocks from the Alto Rio Guanhães unit, and meta-granites of the Borrachudos suite.
The mafic rocks are fine- to coarse-grained ortho-amphibolites, representing
volcanic/subvolcanic and plutonic rocks of basaltic composition. The felsic samples
 88

include volcanic to subvolcanic rocks of rhyolitic composition and related granites.

Mineral chemistry data tables are found in tables A.2 to A.5 in the attached files.

4.5.1.1 Mafic rocks

The ortho-amphibolites are fine- to coarse-grained rocks, essentially

composed of hornblende and plagioclase (Fig. 4-3A and 4-3C). The main accessory
minerals are quartz, titanite, epidote, apatite and ilmenite. Amphibole is largely
dominant (up to 70% in modal content), forming granonematoblastic, stretched,
rotated and/or sigmoidal grains along the regional foliation (Fig. 4-3B). It also exhibits
a mottled texture outlined by fine-grained quartz inclusions with interlobate
boundaries, suggesting statically recrystallization of exsolved silica. Decussated
overgrown amphiboles imprint the anastomosed regional foliation and obliterate
previous textures. Amphibole commonly shows zoned crystals, varying from Mg-
hornblende to tschermakite, with higher Mg/(Mg+Fe2+) ratios and silica contents in
cores than borders, which in turn are richer in AlVI, AlIV, Fe, and Ti (Fig. 4-4A).
The plagioclase grains (up to 40% in volume) form granoblastic aggregates.
Except one sample with low-Ca andesine (An31-44) — they are non-zoned grains
ranging from labradorite (An62) to anorthite (An90) (Fig. 4-4B). Quartz, accompanied
or not by epidote, mostly forms fine-grained xenoblastic inclusions within plagioclase
and amphibole, as exsolved silica excess. The chemical variations in amphibole
(from Mg-hornblende to more Al-Fe rich types) and plagioclase (with increasing Ca
contents) are consistent with growth under prograde metamorphism.
 89

Figura 4-3: (A, B) fine-grained ortho-amphibolite samples composed essentially by hornblende,

plagioclase, and quartz; (C, D) medium-grained ortho-amphibolite sample also characterized by
hornblende, plagioclase and quartz; (E, F) quartz-feldspar porphyritic meta-rhyolite with a fine-grained
matrix composed by microcline, quartz, plagioclase and biotite; (G, H) biotite granite coarse-grained.
 90

Figura 4-4: Chemical classification of the (A) amphiboles (after Leake et al. 1997) and (B) feldspars from
the orthoamphibolite and meta-rhyolite samples.

4.5.1.2 Felsic rocks

The meta-rhyolites are porphyroclastic rocks formed by a well-foliated fine-

grained matrix of microcline, quartz, plagioclase and biotite, enveloping milimetric
eye-shaped porphyroclasts of quartz and microcline (Fig. 4-3E and 4-3F). K-feldspar
is the major mineral phase, containing mica and drop-like quartz inclusions, and
ranging in composition between Or93Ab07 and Or96Ab04 (Fig. 4-4B). Quartz also forms
symplectite intergrows with K-feldspar. Plagioclase crystals are oligoclase (An14-20) in
composition (Fig. 4-4B). They may show polysynthetic twinning, inclusions of quartz,
mica and apatite, as well as saussurite. Brown biotite grains occur oriented according
to the regional foliation and belong to the siderophyllite-annite series, showing a
great variation in the AlIV contents, as well as high values and small variation in
Fe/(Fe+Mg) ratios varying from 0.859 to 0.876. Accessory phases are essentially
zircon and apatite.
The meta-granitoids are foliated to isotropic, medium- to coarse-grained,
biotite- and/or hornblende-bearing syenogranite to monzogranite (Fig. 4-3G).
Feldspars may show drop quartz inclusions, and vermicular intergrowth with quartz.
Saussuritization of plagioclase is a common process. Brown biotite occurs oriented
according to the regional foliation or forming spotted aggregates. Accessory minerals
include apatite, zircon, titanite, magnetite and, occasionally, garnet.
 91

4.5.2 Whole-rock geochemistry

4.5.2.1 Mafic rocks

Results from major and trace elements analysis for 11 basaltic samples from
the Alto Rio Guanhães suite are given in table A.1 in the attached files. The
concentrations of most major and trace elements, as well as high–field–strength
elements (HFSE; e.g., Nb, Zr, Y) and rare earth elements (REE), seem to represent
the primary magmatic contents of the study samples. All samples have low LOI
values (0.2 to 1.3 wt%).
The ortho-amphibolite is silica-oversaturated with normative quartz,
hypersthene, albite and anorthite, which suggests that even after the crystallization of
mafic minerals and feldspar there was still silica crystallizing as quartz. These
samples are tholeiitic subalkaline basalts, with silica and alkali contents ranging from
45.1 to 49.3 wt% and 1.1 to 2.5 wt%, respectively. MgO values show a narrow
variation ranging from 6.1 to 8.6 wt% with Mg# between 43.7 and 54.9.
The mafic rocks in the Alto Rio Guanhães region are characterized by
moderate contents of Al2O3 (13.35–15.63%), Fe2O3(t) (12.29–15.94%) and CaO
(10.07–11.51%), and low P2O5 (0.18–0.40%). These rocks show moderate to high
TiO2 (1.83–2.80%) values. Compatible trace elements like Ni and Cr correlate
positively with the MgO contents. Ni ranges from 55 to 122 ppm and Cr from 75 to
233 ppm. The samples also display positive correlations of Mg# versus CaO and
Al2O3, while opposite trends are given by TiO2, Fe2O3(t), MnO, P2O5, Zr, V, Nb, Y, Hf
and REE.
The primitive mantle normalized spider diagrams (Fig. 4-5A) show depletions
in Rb, Ba, K and Sr, while the chondrite-normalized REE patterns show an
enrichment in light rare earth elements (LREE) with a La/YbN ratio ranging between
4.2 to 6.4 (Fig. 4-5B).
 92

Figura 4-5: Primitive mantle and chondrite-normalized element spidergrams for: (A, B) mafic rocks and
(C, D) felsic rocks from the Guanhães block. The normalization values are from Sun and McDonough
(1989). For the meta-granites and meta-rhyolites, besides this work, data were compiled from Chemale Jr.
(1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al.(1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer and
Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and Silveira-Braga (2012).

4.5.2.2 Felsic Rocks

Major and trace element geochemical data of 53 felsic rock samples between
meta-rhyolites and meta-granites are presented in table A.1 in the attached files.
Among these data, one analysis is from a meta-rhyolite collected for this study, while
the remaining data have been compiled from the literature (Chemale Jr. 1987,
Soares Filho 1987, Grossi Sad et al. 1990, Dussin 1994, Fernandes et al. 1994,
Knauer and Grossi-Sad 1997, Oliveira 2002, Silveira-Braga 2012).
Similar to the ortho-amphibolites, the felsic rocks have sub-alkaline nature.
The felsic volcanism is characterized by rhyolites while the plutonic rocks are mainly
granites. The meta-rhyolites have high contents of SiO2 (66.94–78.60%) and low
contents of MgO (0.08–0.76%), Fe2O3(t) (0.92–7.43%), CaO (0.24–1.78%), TiO2
(0.13–0.68%) and K2O (4.0–5.5%), with wide Al2O3 ranges (10.5–13.86%). They
have total alkalis (Na2O + K2O) varying between 6.13 and 8.84%. These rocks are
 93

weakly metaluminous to peraluminous with A/CNK values 0.85–1.2 (Fig. 4-6A). The
meta-rhyolites in the peraluminous fields may suggest contamination with
supracrustal metasedimentary rocks.
The meta-granite samples show good geochemical correlations with the felsic
volcanic rocks. They show high SiO2 contents (67.80–78.63%) and low contents of
MgO (0.01–0.54%), CaO (0.16–2.10%), K2O (3.7–6.7%) and Fe2O3(t) (1.04–
7.79%), with wide ranges of Al2O3 (10.4–13.8%) and alkalis (6.09–11.09%). They
are metaluminous to weakly peraluminous and some samples plot in the alkaline
field, with A/CNK values ranging between 0.7 and 1.2, and A/NK > 0.85 (Fig. 4-6A).
They have high FeO(t)/(FeO(t)+ MgO) ratios and are further classified as ferroan
alkali-calcic and ferroan calc-alkalic granites (Fig. 4-6B and 4-6C).

Figura 4-6: Granite tectonic discrimination diagrams for the felsic magmatism: (A) A/CNK vs. A/NK
diagram (Shand 1943); (B) SiO2 vs. FeOt/(FeOt + MgO) and (C) SiO2 vs. Na2O + K2O-CaO from Frost et
al. (2001). Additional data from Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al. (1990), Dussin
(1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer and Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and Silveira-Braga (2012).

In general, the felsic rocks show remarkable depletion in Ba, Sr, P and Ti,
suggesting plagioclase+apatite+Fe-Ti oxide fractionation (Fig. 4-5C and 4-5D).
These rocks are slightly enriched in LREE, showing generally flat HREE patterns with
large variations in (La/Lu)N ratios (3.41–24.40), (La/Sm)N ratios (1.91–5.15),
(Sm/Lu)N ratios (0.92–6.83), and variable Eu anomalies (Eu/Eu* = 0.03–1.13).

4.5.3 Magmatic zircon data

4.5.3.1 Zircon U-Pb isotopic ages

 94

An ortho-amphibolite (sample J02) and a meta-rhyolite (sample J03), both

interlayered with metasedimentary rocks in the Alto Rio Guanhães unit, were
selected for LA-ICPMS U–Pb, Lu-Hf and δ18O isotope and REE in zircon analysis.
Representative CL images of zircons from these volcanic rocks are shown in Fig. 4-7,
along with the locations of spots measured for the in situ isotopic analyses.

Figura 4-7: Representative cathodo-luminescence (CL) images for the zircons from the ortho-amphibolite
sample J02, the meta-rhyolite sample J03 and the granitic sample LC-40, showing the location and the
diameter of the spots for U-Pb, Lu-Hf and oxygen isotopes, and also rare earth elements (REE) analyses.

4.5.3.1.1 Ortho-amphibolite

Zircons of the ortho-amphibolite are subhedral and irregularly shaped grains

with average lengths of 100–200 μm and length to width ratios around 2:1. The
oscillatory concentric zoning is typical of magmatic origin (Fig. 4-7). They have
moderate U content with variable Th/U (0.06–1.24) (Table A.6 in the attached files).
 95

Thirty one spot data (from a total of 63) provide a robust Concordia age of 1725.1 ±
3.9 Ma (MSWD = 0.025; Fig. 4-8A), which is interpreted to represent the
crystallization age of the igneous protolith.

4.5.3.1.2 Meta-rhyolite

The meta-rhyolite shows mostly euhedral, long pris- matic zircon crystals with
average lengths of 200–300 μm, length to width ratios mostly 3:1 and oscillatory
magmatic zoning (Fig. 4-8B). They show moderate U content with variable Th/U
(0.42–1.42) (Table A.7 in the attached files). Sixty two data, from a total of 81 spots,
also yield a robust Concordia age of 1747.8 ± 3.2 Ma (MSWD = 0.50; Fig. 4-7), which
constrains the crystallization age of the rhyolite.

4.5.3.1.3 Meta-granite

Zircons from a hornblende-biotite syenogranite (Açucena pluton) of the

Borrachudos suite were dated using the SHRIMP technique. The grains are
homogeneous with medium luminescence in CL image and show oscillatory zoning.
The analytical results of 12 spots in 10 crystals are shown in table A.8 in the attached
files and Fig. 4-8C. Eight spots belonging to the same population of crystals (MSWD
= 0.69) yield a concordant grouping of 1740.5 ± 7.8 Ma, interpreted as the age of
magmatic crystallization. Similar age is obtained by the 12 spots that define an upper
intercept age of 1739.0 ± 8.8 Ma (MSWD = 0.73).
 96

Figura 4-8: LA-ICPMS zircon U–Pb concordia diagrams of samples: (A) J02 — ortho-amphibolite, (B)
J03 — metarhyolite, (C) LC40 — biotite granite.

4.5.3.2 Hf isotope composition of zircons

Ten Hf isotopic spots analyses were conducted on zircons from the ortho-
amphibolite (J02) and 12 analyses on those from the meta-rhyolite (sample J03).
Analytical data are given in tables A.10 and A.11 in the attached files and presented
in Fig. 4-9A.
The zircons from the ortho-amphibolite show relatively uniform Hf isotopic
176
compositions with radiogenic Hf/177Hf ratios of 0.281453 to 0.281571 for ages
between 1717 and 1732 Ma. All analyzed zircon grains yielded consistently negative
εHf(t), varying from -8.25 to -4.05, which suggests contamination during ascent
176
through the crust. Hf/177Hf ratios for the analyzed spots of the meta-rhyolite zircons
 97

range from 0.28118 to 0.28132 with correspondent εHf(t), varying from -17.58 to -
12.32 for ages between 1735 Ma and 1760 Ma, which suggests that this magma was
essentially sourced from long-lived crustal rocks. The Hf (TDM) model ages for the
ortho-amphibolite zircon grains range between 2.28 Ga and 2.44 Ga, while those for
the meta-rhyolite vary from 2.62 Ga to 2.80 Ga, indicating the involvement of
Archean and possibly Siderian to Orosirian rocks in magma genesis.

Figura 4-9: Schematic diagrams for Lu-Hf isotopic evolution vs. U-Pb age (A) and for δ18O isotopic
evolution vs. U-Pb age (B) for zircons from ortho-amphibolite and meta-rhyolite samples. The values of
mantle zircons are from Valley et al. (1998) and Valley (2003).

4.5.3.3 Zircon O isotopes

The oxygen isotopic compositions of zircon grains from the ortho-amphibolite

and meta-rhyolite samples are listed in table A.12 in the attached files. There are no
consistent differences in δ18O between the rims and the cores of the analyzed grains
in both samples.
The meta-rhyolite zircons have δ18O values varying from 6.8 to 8.0, with 53%
of the analyzed zircons (n = 27) showing values between 7.5 and 8.0 (Fig. 4-9B). For
the ortho-amphibolite zircons, δ18O values are variable from 5.6 to 7.9 (Fig. 4-9B),
with 52% of the analyses between 7.0 and 7.5 (n = 16). Two grains have values
around 5.6, which are similar to those of zircon crystallizing from uncontaminated
mantle-derived magma (5.3 ± 0.3‰, Valley et al. 1998, Valley 2003).
The meta-rhyolite zircons show a δ18O range typical of felsic rocks while the
ortho-amphibolite zircon grains are consistent with contamination of mantle-derived
magma that interacted with continental crust material (Valley et al. 2005, Bindeman
2008).
 98

4.5.3.4 Trace element chemistry of zircons

Zircon grains from the ortho-amphibolite and meta-rhyolite have been

analyzed for trace elements concentrations by LA-ICPMS. The measurements were
performed in the zircon cores, in the same textural domains as the U-Pb and Lu-Hf
analyses (Table A.9 in the attached files).
The grains of both samples show very similar REE patterns, with HREE
enrichment and LREE depletion relative to chondrite values (Fig. 4-10A and 4-10B).
The ortho-amphibolite zircons (Sm/La)N range from 48 to 431, (Lu/Gd)N values
ranging between 11 to 24 and Th/U ratio from 0.3 to 0.8. The meta-rhyolite zircon
grains display (Lu/Gd)N values between 11 to 19, and the Th/U ratio varies from 0.7
to 1. The REE patterns show positive Ce anomaly and negative Eu anomaly,
features consistent with unaltered igneous zircon (Hoskin and Schaltegger 2003,
Rubatto 2017). The negative Eu anomaly is typical of plagioclase fractionation while
the positive Ce anomaly is related to oxidation processes or to an oxidizing
environment (Hoskin and Schaltegger 2003).
The REE patterns are similar to populations of crustal zircon (Hoskin and
Schaltegger 2003, Grimes et al. 2007, Harley and Kelly 2007) and overlap the REE
concentration of zircons from oceanic crust and continental granitoids (Fig. 4-10A
and 4-10B). This correspondence between the REE concentration of zircons from
different types of rocks can be explained by the REE compatibility in the zircon lattice
(e.g., Grimes et al. 2007).
The zircon crystals from both samples have intermediate U/Yb ratio. The Hf
and Y vs. U/Yb discriminant diagrams attest the continental nature for the meta-
rhyolite zircon grains and indicate crustal input for the ortho-amphibolite zircons (Fig.
4-10C and 4-10D).
 99

Figura 4-10: Representative rare earth elements (REE) patterns of zircon grains determined by in situ
analysis (LA-ICP-MS) for the ortho-amphibolite (A) and meta-rhyolite (B) normalized to chondrite
(McDonough and Sun 1995). Plots (C) and (D) show geochemical discriminant diagrams with continental
and ocean crust zircon fields.The values of continental and ocean crust zircons are from Grimes et al.
(2007).

4.6 Discussion

Here we discuss the petrogenesis of the mafic and felsic magmatism related
to the Espinhaço rift system, the correlations in view of the Statherian scenario in the
São Francisco block, as well as the global inferences in relation to paleocontinental
settings.

4.6.1 Petrogenesis

4.6.1.1 Petrogenesis of the mafic rocks

4.6.1.1.1 Magmatic crystallization

 100

The mafic rocks from the Alto Rio Guanhães unit have compositions
suggesting that fractional crystallization played an important role in the petrogenesis
of the basaltic magmatism. These rocks are characterized by positive correlation of
CaO, Na2O, Al2O3, Ni and Cr, in relation to Mg#, suggesting fractionation of olivine,
pyroxene and plagioclase.
The negative Sr anomaly of most samples corroborates plagioclase
fractionation. The range between the ratios of the incompatible trace elements (Zr, Y,
Nb) of the distinctly evolved samples is less than 12%. This and the absence of
compositional gaps and the Pearson correlation coefficient values suggest that
fractional crystallization process was involved in the generation of these rocks.
Considering that the ratios of incompatible elements that have similar
geochemical behavior tend to remain constant during fractional crystallization, the
plot in the Figure 4-11A shows the decreasing values of Ni accompanied by
constancy of Zr/Nb ratio.
 101

Figura 4-11: Trace element variation diagrams for the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite. (A) Ni vs. Zr/Nb.
(B) Assimilation and fractional crystallization (AFC) model for Zr vc Nb. The AFC curve (red squares)
shows ranges of 10% (between 0 and 90%). The arrow indicates that the tendency of the magmatic
evolution of the analyzed mafic rocks (green diamond) is the same of the AFC curve, indicating values up
to 30% AFC. The continental crust chemical data is from Taylor and McLennan (1985), and the
mineral/melt partition coefficients for basaltic liquids are after the compilation of Rollinson (1993). (C)
(La/Sm)N vs. (Tb/Yb) diagram to determine the source of the mafic magmas. The horizontal dashed line
separates the fields for melting of garnet-bearing peridotite and of spinel-bearing peridotite Wang et al.
(2002). Normalization values of the chondrite C1 after Sun and McDonough (1989). (D) Zr vs. Zr/Y
discrimination plot (Pearce and Norry 1979).

4.6.1.1.2 Assimilation and fractional crystallization (AFC)

In general, fractional crystallization is accompanied by assimilation of crustal

material, mainly in rift-related environments. The negative values of εHf(t) in zircons
between -4.05 to -8.25 for the ortho-amphibolite sample indicate a moderately
juvenile magma significantly contaminated by continental crust material. The δ18O
data registered for these zircon grains characterizes shifted magmatic δ 18O values by
crustal assimilation (item 4.4.3.3). Crustal input is also suggested by the U/Yb ratio of
zircons (item 4.4.3.4).
Thus, in order to evaluate the influence of crustal contamination during the
mafic magma ascent and/or residence in magma chamber, the DePaolo (1981)
 102

equation was used to verify the involvement of AFC processes. The results
presented in Fig. 4-11B show that the values of Zr and Nb incompatible trace
elements of the mafic samples, among others, can be explained by up to 30% of
AFC process in the upper crust.

4.6.1.1.3 Magma mantle source

On the basis of the above discussion (items 4.5.1.1.1 and 4.5.1.1.2), fractional
crystallization and crustal assimilation were important processes in the petrogenesis
of the mafic magmatism in the Alto Guanhães unit. The similar REE and trace
element patterns for theses rocks (Fig. 4-5A and 4-5B) suggest a common mantle
source for them.
The amount of melting required to generate tholeiitic basaltic melts from the
peridotitic mantle ranges from 10 to 20% (Jaques and Green 1980). Owing to the
distinctive REE partition coefficients between garnet and spinel during melting of
spinel peridotites vs. garnet peridotites, a spinel-bearing peridotite source is
suggested for these rocks (Fig. 4-11C). The Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite is
characterized by low (Tb/Yb)N ratios (1.4–1.8) and (Gd/Yb)N ratios (≤ 2), typical of
rocks generated by partial melting of a mantle source in the spinel-stable field and,
thus, at depths less than 60–70 km (Wilson 2007). The magmatism shows variation
of degrees of melting or source enrichment, according to the (La/Sm)N range (1.9–
2.7). The limited range of (Tb/Yb)N ratios also suggests small variation in the depth of
melting, relating to small variation in the crustal thickness during the progressive
continental rifting.
La/Yb and La/Nb ratios can be used as indicative for discriminating fertile,
enriched and depleted mantle sources. The meta-mafic rocks show (La/Yb)N > 1
(4.0–6.5) and (La/Nb)N > 1 (1.2–2.2) that are characteristics of an enriched source
associated with the lithospheric mantle (Sun 1980, Humphris et al. 1985, Sun and
McDonough 1989), as expected in continental rift systems. Despite the range of the
major and trace elements, the meta-mafic samples from the Alto Rio Guanhães unit
generally exhibit incompatible trace elements patterns more enriched than E-MORB,
except for the values of Rb, Ba and Sr, which resemble N-MORB (Fig. 4-12).
However, such signatures may be expected for evolved continental rift systems.
 103

Figura 4-12: (A) Comparison of primitive mantle-normalized incompatible trace element spidergrams for
the amphibolites of the Alto Rio Guanhães suite, with that of oceanic island basalts (OIB), E-type and N-
type MORBs. Patterns for OIB, E-MORB and N-MORB are from Sun and McDonough (1989). (B) Nb/Yb
vs. Th/Yb discrimination diagram from Pearce (2008).

4.6.1.1.4 Tectonic setting

The mafic rocks of the Alto Rio Guanhães unit have never been dated in
detail, as well as all other rocks of the Espinhaço system. The studied mafic rocks
show patterns of incompatible trace elements comparable to those of intraplate
basalts, such as high Ti and Zr, instead of basalts of volcanic arc and meso-oceanic
ridge. Regarding the Pearce and Norry (1979) (Fig. 4-11D) and Wood (1980)
diagrams, widely used for basaltic rock discrimination, all samples plot in the
intraplate basaltic field, suggesting that the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic magmatism
occurred in an attenuated continental lithosphere. Furthermore, the age of this
magmatism fits very well with the age range of the felsic rocks found throughout the
Espinhaço system. Thereby, this mafic magmatism can be related to the same
continental taphrogenic process that developed during the Statherian in the São
Francisco paleocontinental region.

4.6.1.2 Petrogenesis of the felsic rocks

4.6.1.2.1 Chemical proxies for anorogenic magmatism

The meta-rhyolites and intrusive granites in the Guanhães block show

negative correlations between SiO2 and TiO2, FeO(t), CaO and Al2O3, suggesting
fractionation of hornblende, biotite and Fe-Ti oxides during magma evolution. CaO
 104

and Al2O3 contents coupled with compatible behavior of Sr, Eu and Ba with SiO 2,
point to fractionation of plagioclase. In the plots Sr vs. Rb (Fig. 4-13A), the variations
in these contents seem to be mainly related to fractionation of plagioclase and K-
feldspar.
The compatible/incompatible element ratios, such as Rb/Sr and K/Rb, are
used to recognize the degree of fractionation of granitic magmas (e.g., Blevin 2003).
In the SiO2 vs. K/Rb and SiO2 vs. Rb/Sr diagrams (Fig. 4-13B and 4-13C), the
granitic rock compositions in the study area plot in the moderately and strongly
evolved fields, showing characteristics of differentiated magmas. This suggests an
evolution for the granitic compositions by fractional crystallization processes.
These felsic rocks have high SiO2 and alkali contents, and are generally
enriched in HFSE and REE. The Ga/Al*1000 ratios range from 2.8 to 7.5, which is
typical of A-type granites, according to Whalen et al. (1987). These felsic magmatism
also fits in the definition of A-type granitic rocks by Loiselle and Wones (1979) since
they present, in addition to SiO2 and alkalis, high levels of Nb, Zr, REE, negative Eu
anomaly and low values of CaO and MgO. According to the geochemical subdivision
of A-type granites proposed by Eby (1992), this felsic magmatism belongs to sub-
type A2 (Fig. 4-13D).
 105

Figura 4-13: Trace element variation diagrams for the meta-granites and meta-rhyolites in the Guanhães
block showing different fractional crystallization trends: (A) Sr vs. Rb; (B) SiO 2 vs. K/Rb; (C) SiO2 vs. Rb-
Sr. (D) Nb-Y-3Ga discrimination diagrams for the subdivision of the A-type granites by Eby (1992). (E)
Y+Nb vs. Rb and (F) Y vs. Nb tectonic classification diagrams from Pearce et al. (1984). Additional data
from Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-Filho (1987), Grossi Sad et al. (1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al.
(1994), Knauer and Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) and Silveira-Braga (2012).

4.6.1.2.2 Tectonic setting and magmatic evolution

A-type felsic magmas are usually generated in extension environments, where

crustal stretching, mantle uplift and the heat transferred from the mantle can reach
the shallowest levels of the crust (Loiselle and Wones 1979). However, the origin of
A-type magmatism is quite controversial and the mechanics available in the literature
describes both melting process of continental crust by underplating of melts derived
from the mantle, and an evolution by fractional crystallization of basaltic magmas
concomitant with crustal assimilation — AFC (e.g., Whalen et al. 1987, Eby 1992,
Rollinson 1993, Peccerillo et al. 2003).
The studied meta-rhyolites and intrusive granites do not present evidence of
being products of evolutionary processes involving mafic magmatism. The volume of
felsic rocks is much larger than the mafic rocks and can not be explained by
fractional crystallization processes of basaltic magmas. The surface area covered
only by the Borrachudos granites is bigger than 6.000 km 2. In addition, the felsic
rocks show high ratios between incompatible trace elements, as Th/La, Zr/Ti and
Th/Nb, in contrast to the values obtained for the mafic magmatism, which are up to
15 times smaller.
 106

The felsic magmatism is characterized by highly negative values of εHf (t) (-

12.32 to -17.58), indicating association with crustal material. The same is revealed by
the positive δ18O values (7.02 to 7.98) and REE pattern of these zircon grains. The
Hf TDM ages argue against a simple magmatic differentiation model, suggesting the
generation of felsic magmas from an ancient continental crust. In the tectonic
classification diagrams from Pearce et al. (1984), the samples plot in the field of
intraplate granites (Fig. 4-13E and 4-13F).
The geochemical signature of the felsic bodies, both plutonic and volcanic, is
very similar (item 3.2.2), indicating that they could be derived from fractionation of a
crustal source. The data reveal that they were generated by partial melting of
materials from an Archean lower crust.

4.6.2 Statherian geochronological framework of rift-related magmatism of the

São Francisco block

The table A.13 in the attached files summarizes the U-Pb and Pb-Pb ages of
magmatic events related to the Statherian Espinhaço rift system recorded in the
Guanhães block, Espinhaço Ridge and Chapada Diamantina, and also in correlated
areas in the São Francisco block. These magmatic events are related to
taphrogenetic processes that marked the São Francisco-Congo paleocontinent
during the Late Paleoproterozoic (e.g., Dussin 1994, Danderfer et al. 2015,
Cederberg et al. 2016, Dussin 2017).
The tholeiitic meta-mafic rocks of the Alto Rio Guanhães unit are the first
detailed studied record of a Statherian mafic suite coexisting with the well-known
felsic magmatism related to the Espinhaço rift system. The only geochronological
record so far for a mafic rock in the Guanhães block was presented by Dussin et al.
207
(2000), which yielded 1697 ± 10 Ma Pb/206Pb single zircon evaporation data as the
crystallization age of an amphibolite intercalation on metasedimentary rocks from the
Guanhães Group. In the Southern Espinhaço Range (Fig. 4-1), highly
metamorphosed and altered meta-volcanic mafic rocks associated with the opening
of the Espinhaço basin show ages between 1747 Ma and 1700 Ma (Dussin 1994,
Chemale Jr. et al. 2012a, Bezerra-Neto 2016, Silva 2016).
The precise in situ U-Pb dating of a meta-mafic rock from the Guanhães block
presented in this study (1725 ±4 Ma) is somewhat higher than the previously reported
 107

age by Dussin et al. (2000), but is within the age range of the meta-volcanic mafic
rocks of the Southern Espinhaço. More recently, a meta-volcanic mafic rock from the
Central Espinhaço ridge domain yielded an age of 1730 ± 8 Ma (Moreira 2017),
which is virtually the same age obtained for the ortho-amphibolite of the Alto
Guanhães unit.
The 1748 ± 3 Ma age for the meta-rhyolite also constraints a deposition age
for the sedimentary infill of the Alto Rio Guanhães basin and allows us to correlate it
with the whole Statherian Espinhaço rift system. The age of the meta-rhyolite (1748
±3 Ma) of the Alto Rio Guanhães unit is somewhat older than the Conceição do Mato
Dentro meta-rhyolite (1715 ± 5 Ma; Machado et al. 1989) of the Southern Espinhaço
domain, which is one of the nearest occurrences of such rocks in relation to the study
area. Except this case, the Alto Rio Guanhães meta-rhyolite age is very similar to the
U-Pb ages obtained for most felsic volcanic and plutonic rocks found along the
Espinhaço system, like the Planalto de Minas meta-rhyolite (1752 ± 2 Ma; Machado
et al. 1989) and a volcaniclastic rock (1758 ± 18; Costa 2017), both of the Central
Espinhaço domain; the Rio dos Remédios meta-rhyolites of the Chapada Diamantina
domain (1748 ± 4 Ma and 1752 ± 4 Ma; Babinski et al. 1994, Schobbenhaus et al.
1994); the Sapiranga meta-volcanic rock (1740 ± 10 Ma; Danderfer et al. 2015) of the
Northern Espinhaço domain; the Lagoa Real plutonic suite found between the
Chapada Diamantina and Northern Espinhaço domains (1744 ± 2 Ma, Pimentel et al.
1994); and the here presented U-Pb SHRIMP age for the Borrachudos suite (1740 ±
8 Ma).
The metasedimentary rocks of the Statherian Espinhaço basin, as quartzites
and meta-conglomerates, show maximum depositional ages between 1.80 and 1.68
Ga and are well exposed in all Espinhaço rift branches (Danderfer et al. 2009,
Chemale Jr. et al. 2012a, Santos et al. 2013). In the eastern edge of the Southern
Espinhaço ridge, near the Guanhães block, Rolim et al. (2016) found a maximum
depositional age of ca. 1666 Ma for a quartzitic unit. The available geochronological
data for the quartzites and banded iron formations of the Guanhães Group suggest a
maximum deposition average age of ca. 2080 Ma, with a single Statherian zircon age
of 1737 ± 19 Ma (Barrote 2016). For the southern region of the Guanhães block,
Statherian depositional ages (ca. 1668 Ma) were obtained to a meta-siliciclastic
succession with iron formation intercalations (Carvalho et al. 2014, Silveira-Braga et
al. 2015).
 108

The U-Pb dataset for the whole Espinhaço system shows a wide age variation
between 1790–1700 Ma, but a concentration in the time interval of ca. 1750–1710
Ma. The lower part of the rift system is characterized by large volume of acid
magmatism, whereas the mafic magmatism is only registered in the upper
supracrustal successions of the Statherian Espinhaço system, as well as in the
Guanhães block. Contrasting with the mafic magmatism so far restricted in space,
both the plutonic and volcanic felsic rocks are found along the whole Espinhaço rift
system.
Intracontinental magmatism of Statherian age is also recorded in the south
and west regions of the São Francisco paleocontinental block. To the south, the Pará
de Minas mafic dyke swarm (Chaves 2001, Cederberg et al. 2016), which shows two
Statherian dyke generations (ca. 1795 Ma and 1710 Ma; Cederberg et al. 2016), can
be correlated in space and time to the Espinhaço rift system. Along the São
Francisco northwestern region, it is well-documented the Statherian (1771–1768 Ma)
meta-rhyolites and related A-type plutonic rocks of the Araí rift system (Pimentel et al.
1991).

4.6.3 Tectonic implications and global inferences

4.6.3.1 Paleotectonic constrains for the São Francisco-Congo paleocontinent

The São Francisco and Congo paleocontinental blocks (Fig. 4-1A)

amalgamated after an orogenic event that took place in the Rhyacian — Orosirian
boundary. Since then, they became part of a paleocontinent that was only broken up
by the opening of the South Atlantic Ocean in the Cretaceous. From the Rhyacian —
Orosirian to the Neoproterozoic Brasiliano — Pan-African orogenic events only
taphrogenic records have been reported with solid data in the focused region of the
São Francisco — Congo paleocontinental block (Noce et al. 2007b, Pedrosa-Soares
et al. 2008, Pedrosa-Soares and Alkmim 2011, Heilbron et al. 2017).
Distinct paleotectonic and paleogeographical reconstructions have been
envisaged for the São Francisco-Congo paleocontinental block in Paleoproterozoic
time, since those focusing the agglutination of Atlantica (ca. 2.0 Ga; Rogers 1996)
and Columbia (1.90–1.70 Ga; e.g., Zhao et al. 2004, Hou et al. 2008, Cederberg et
 109

al. 2016) to the Central African block (Cordani et al. 2013, D’Agrella-Filho and
Cordani 2017).
Based on geotectonic, geochronological and paleomagnetic evidence,
D’Agrella-Filho and Cordani (2017) suggested that the São Francisco-Congo,
Kalahari, Borborema, Trans-Sahara, Rio de la Plata and smaller paleocontinental
blocks assembled in the Central African block around 2.0 Ga, a paleocontinent
diachronic but independent to the Columbia supercontinent (Fig. 4-14A).

Figura 4-14: Paleogeographic reconstruction models involving the paleocontinent São Francisco-Congo in
the context of Columbia at 1.78 Ga: (A) D’Agrella-Filho and Cordani (2017); (B) Hou et al. (2008); (C)
Cederberg et al. (2016). Laurentia (LAU), Baltica (BA), Proto-Amazonia (PAm), West Africa (WA),
Siberia (SI), Mawson continent (MC—South Australia plus East Antarctica), North Australia (NAu),
West Australia (WAu), North China (NC), India (IN), Rio de la Plata (RP), Kalahari (KAL), São
Francisco-Congo (SFC), Borborema/Trans-Sahara block (BTS), Pará de Minas (PM).

Alternatively, there are models picturing the São Francisco-Congo block within
the Columbia supercontinent (e.g., Rogers and Santosh 2002, Zhao et al. 2004, Hou
et al. 2008, Teixeira et al. 2017). Hou et al. (2008) envisaged a continuous
subduction-related magmatic belt bordering Columbia that was amalgamated by
orogenic systems developed from ca. 2.1 Ga to ca. 1.8 Ga. (Fig. 4-14B). In this
configuration, the São Francisco — Congo craton, located in the border of Columbia,
is juxtaposed to the Amazonian craton, linking the South America to Columbia
through the Trans-Amazonian orogen. After this model, Danderfer et al. (2015)
related the evolution of the Espinhaço rift system to a far-field continental extension
induced by orogenic processes located in the Amazonian domain.
Recent paleotectonic models quoting the Statherian anorogenic magmatism
suggest a paleocontinental link between the São Francisco and North China cratons
 110

(Peng 2015, Cederberg et al. 2016, Teixeira et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2017). These
authors point to similarities between the Pará de Minas dyke swarm, located in the
southern tip of the São Francisco craton, and the magmatism related to the Xiong’er-
Taihang LIP event, both interpreted as related to Statherian intracontinental setting
(Fig. 4-14C).
In this framework, the magmatism related to the Espinhaço rift system,
including the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite, can be correlated to the Pará de Minas
mafic dyke swarm and, probably, to the Xiong’er-Taihang magmatism. This
suggestion is supported by geochemical (e.g., trace element patterns; Fig. 4-15) and
geochronological data from the Pará de Minas mafic dyke swarm (Chaves 2001), the
Xiong’er volcanic rocks (Zhao et al. 2002, Peng et al. 2008, He et al. 2009, Wang et
al. 2010), the Taihang dykes (Hou et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2004, 2008, Peng 2015,
Wang et al. 2004, 2007, 2008) and the tholeiitic amphibolites of the Alto Rio
Guanhães mafic suite (this work).

Figura 4-15: Trace element patterns of the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite (this study), Pará de Minas
dyke swarm (Chaves 2001), the Xiong’er volcanic rocks (Zhao et al. 2002, Peng et al. 2008, He et al. 2009,
Wang et al. 2010), the Taihang dykes (Hou et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2004, 2008, Peng 2015, Wang et al. 2004,
2007, 2008): (A) normalized to E-MORB; (B) normalized to Primitive Mantle. The normalization values
are from Sun and McDonough (1989).

The younger dyke generation of the Pará de Minas dyke swarm (1717–1702
Ma; Cederberg et al. 2016) can be chrono-correlated to the metamorphosed volcanic
and plutonic mafic rocks of the Southern Espinhaço rift (1747–1700 Ma; e.g., Silva
2016), as also to the tholeiitic mafic rocks of the Alto Rio Guanhães suite (1725 Ma).
The magmatism related to the Espinhaço rift system (1790–1700 Ma; table A.13 in
the attached files) is also chrono-correlated to similar igneous assemblages recorded
 111

in the North China craton, as the Xiong’er volcanic rocks (1790–1745 Ma; Wang et
al. 2016), the Taihang (1780 Ma; Peng 2015) and Miyun (1730 Ma; Peng 2015) dyke
swarms, and also the volcanism related to the Yan-Liao rift (1730–1200 Ma; Peng
2015). The installation of the Xiong’er rift is chrono-correlated to the onset of the
Espinhaço rift in the Early Statherian, while the development of the multiple stages of
the Yan-Liao rift can be compared to the several taphrogenic events recorded from
the Statherian to the Tonian-Cryogenian boundary in Espinhaço system region
(Pedrosa-Soares and Alkmim 2011). However, as the record of Statherian
magmatism are widely found in several other continental masses, like Amazonia,
Baltica, Laurentia, Siberia, Australia, Antartica, Rio de La Plata (Ernst et al. 2013),
paleomagnetic studies are necessary to better constrain these correlations and
paleogeographic inferences.

4.6.3.2 The Espinhaço magmatism as a Silicic Large Igneous Province

According to the concept suggested by Bryan and Ernst (2008) and Ernst
(2014), a Silicic Large Igneous Province (SLIP) presents the following five
characteristics:
■ the extrusive volume is greater than 0.25 Mkm 3 (up to > 3 Mkm3) and the
total exposure area larger than 0.1 Mkm2;
■ more than 80% of the province is represented by dacite– rhyolite, with
transitional calc-alkaline I-type to A-type intraplate signature;
■ rhyolitic ignimbrite is the predominant rock;
■ the duration of magmatism is up to 40 Ma and shows a pulsed nature
related to shorter intervals of 3 Ma to 10 Ma;
■ the province is exclusively continental. The generation of such voluminous
felsic magma is related to large degrees of partial melting of a hydrated, calc-
alkaline, amphib- olitic to andesitic lower continental crust (Bryan et al. 2002, Bryan
and Ernst 2008).
In fact, the concept of Silicic Large Igneous Province (SLIP) was applied to the
anorogenic magmatism related to the Statherian Espinhaço rift system by previous
authors (Danderfer et al. 2015, Chaves et al. 2016), and it is now checked in the light
of our data and compilation.
 112

The present-day exposed crustal levels along the whole Espinhaço rift
domains show rocks metamorphosed from the low greenschist to upper amphibolite
facies, implying in the erosion of significant amounts of the Statherian volcanic rocks.
Therefore, evaluations of the total volume and surface area once occupied by the
overall Statherian anorogenic rocks are certainly underestimated. In this scenario,
the Statherian Espinhaço magmatism is mostly characterized by metamorphosed, A-
type, alkali-calcic to calc-alkalic granites, rhyolites, dacites, ignimbrites and acid
volcaniclastic rocks, with continental intraplate signature (see references quoted in
previous items). They represent more than 80% in exposed area of the whole
Statherian igneous rocks and their metamorphosed equivalents. The mafic
magmatism is very restricted, much probably representing less than 10% in area
(Fig. 4-1).
Although spreading along a total area of more than 250.000 km2, including the
Espinhaço ridge, Chapada Diamantina and Guanhães block domains (Fig. 4-1), the
occurrence areas of both felsic and mafic Statherian igneous rocks reach at least
70.000 km2, because unknown parts of them are hidden beneath younger rock layers
and extensive Cenozoic covers (Fig. 4-1). Although this surface area (> 70.000 km 2)
is apparently smaller than the SLIP definition requirement (0.1 Mkm2 or 100.000
km2), it only shows the erosional remains found in present-day exposed crustal
levels, most of them reworked within the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen. Allowing to
such exposure conditions, any evaluation of the original volume of extrusive rocks
may be unreliable, although it can be expected a very large volume (possibly > 0.25
Mkm3) of them, because the minimum area (> 70.000 km2) and distribution of the
present-day exposure areas of plutonic and volcanic felsic rocks are along more than
250.000 km2 of relatively deep exposed crustal levels.
The high-quality U-Pb ages on zircons from the Statherian igneous rocks of
the Espinhaço rift system span from 1792 ± 7 Ma to 1703 ± 12 Ma, with most values
ranging from ca. 1752 Ma to ca. 1710 Ma (see table A.9 in the attached files). This
time interval (ca. 1752–1710 Ma) comprises at least 80% age values (almost all of
them related to felsic rocks) of the dated Espinhaço igneous rocks, and is in good
agreement with the maximum duration (ca. 40 Ma) suggested for a SLIP (cf. Bryan
and Ernst 2008, Ernst 2014).
Therefore, bearing in mind the crustal level, exposed rocks and tectonic
setting, the Espinhaço anorogenic province is, indeed, a good candidate to represent
 113

a SLIP, because it meets the main definition requirements, as the exclusive

continental setting; the striking predominance of felsic (> 80% of A-type granites and
rhyolites) over mafic (< 10%) rocks; a maximum duration of the felsic magmatism up
to 40 Ma; and the very extensive, minimum total exposure area (despite the relatively
deep erosional levels).
The data for the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic suite suggests a mantle upwelling
beneath a stretched and thinned continental lithosphere, pointing to the involvement
of the enriched lithospheric mantle in the generation of these rocks (Fig. 4-16).
Although the trace elements pattern of this magmatism does not support a derivation
from fertile sublithospheric compo- sition, considering the life span of the Espinhaço
anorogenic province, the contribution of fertile melts from a thermal anomaly (or
mantle plume) can not be discarded.
As mentioned above (item 4.5.3.1), beyond the spatial- and chrono-
correlation, the Alto Rio Guanhães mafic rocks display similar chemical
characteristics with the Pará de Minas dyke swarm (Fig. 4-15) in the southern of the
São Francisco craton. Therefore, these magmatic records can be either derived from
a common parental magma or from a similar mantle source, suggesting they are part
of the same igneous province.

Figura 4-16: Schematic model for the Statherian magmatism related to the Espinhaço rift system.
 114

4.7 Conclusions

■ The volcanic mafic and felsic rocks interlayered on metasedimentary rocks

of the Alto Rio Guanhães unit give new LA-ICPMS zircon U–Pb ages of 1725 ± 4 Ma
and 1748 ± 3 Ma, respectively. The hornblende-biotite granite (Açucena pluton) of
the Borrachudos suite yield SHRIMP zircon U–Pb age of 1740 ± 8 Ma, showing
synchronicity between these magmatisms;
■ The mafic rocks are all tholeiitic in compositions and are related to
continental intraplate magmatism. They were most likely generated by melting of
enriched subcontinental lithospheric mantle in the spinel-stable field and display the
involvement of crustal assimilation accompanied by fractional crystallization
processes in the generation of this magmatism. The anorogenic felsic magmatism
may be derived by partial melting of Archean lower crustal materials by underplating
of melts derived from the mantle;
■ The Espinhaço rift system is characterized by a large volume of acid
magmatism during its opening, whereas the mafic magmatism is only registered in
the upper sequences of the Statherian rift system. Contrasting with the mafic rocks,
so far restricted to the Southern and Central Espinhaço ranges and also the
Guanhães block, the felsic rocks characterize a long-lived magmatism during the
Statherian, with a ca. 1750–1710 Ma major magmatic event recorded throughout the
whole Espinhaço rift system;
■ Contemporaneous Statherian magmatism is reported elsewhere on the
Southern São Francisco craton and, together with the Pará de Minas dyke swarm,
the Alto Rio Guanhães rocks represent a rifting event;
■ The main volumetric, compositional and tectonic parameters of the
Espinhaço magmatism provide the evidence of a SLIP in the São Francisco and
Congo paleocontinental blocks.

4.8 Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the research financial support provided by the CNPq
and CODEMIG. Joana Magalhaes is grateful to the Brazilian Geological Survey
(CPRM). Special thanks are given to Alexey Ulyanov for the assistance in the
 115

acquisition and reduction of trace elements in zircon data and to Katharina Marger for
the assistance with δ18O data acquisition.

4.9 References

Alkmim F.F. 2004. O que faz de um cráton um cráton? O Cráton do São Francisco e as
revelações almeidianas ao delimita-lo. In: Mantesso-Neto V., Bartorelli A., Carneiro
C.D.R., Brito Neves B.B. (eds.), Geologia do Continente Sul-Americano: evolução da
obra de Fernando Flávio Marques de Almeida. Brasil, Beca, p. 17-35.
Alkmim F.F., Kuchenbecker M., Reis H.L.S., Pedrosa-Soares A.C. 2017. The Araçuaí Belt.
In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São Francisco Craton, Eastern
Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer, p. 255-276.
Alkmim F.F., Marshak S., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Peres G.G., Cruz S.C.P., Whittington A.
2006. Kinematic evolution of the Aracuaí–West Congo orogen in Brazil and Africa:
nutcracker tectonics during the Neoproterozoic assembly of Gondwana. Precambrian
Research, 149:43-64. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2006.06.007
Armstrong J.T. 1995. CITZAF - a package of correction programs for the quantitative
electron microbeam X-ray analysis of thick polished materials, thin-films and particles.
Microbeam Analysis, 4(3):177-200.
Babinski M., Brito-Neves B.B., Machado N., Noce C.M., Uhlein A., Van Schmus W.R. 1994.
Problemas da metodologia U-Pb em rochas vulcânicas continentais: Caso do Grupo
Rio dos Remédios, Supergrupo Espinhaço, no Estado da Bahia. In: 38º Congresso
Brasileiro de Geologia, Balneário Camboriú. Anais. v. 2, p. 409-410.
Barrote V.R. 2016. A sequência portadora de formações ferríferas de Guanhães, Minas
Gerais, Brasil. MS Dissertation, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 134 p.
Bezerra-Neto F.E. 2016. Estudo de rochas exóticas da formação Sopa-Brumadinho e
possíveis implicações para a fonte dos diamantes do espinhaço meridional. MS
Dissertation, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 105 p.
Bindeman I. 2008. Oxygen isotopes in mantle and crustal magmas as revealed by single
crystal analysis. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 69(1):445-478.
https://doi.org/10.2138/ rmg.2008.69.12
Blevin P. 2003. Metallogeny of granitic rocks. In: The Ishihara Symposium, Granites and
Associated Metallogenesis, Australia. Short Papers. v. 14, p. 5-8.
Brito-Neves B.B., Kawashita K., Cordani U.G., Delhal J. 1979. A evolução geocronológica da
Cordilheira do Espinhaço - Dados Novos e Integração. Revista Brasileira de
Geociências, 9(1):71-85.
Bryan S.E., Ernst R.E. 2008. Revised definition of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs). Earth
Science Reviews, 86(1-4):175-202. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.08.008
Bryan S.E., Riley T.R., Jerram D.A., Leat P.T., Stephens C.J. 2002. Silicic volcanism: an
under-valued component of large igneous provinces and volcanic rifted margins. In:
Menzies M.A., Klemperer S.L., Ebinger C.J., Baker J. (eds.), Magmatic Rifted Margins.
Colorado, The Geological Society of America, Special Paper. p. 99-118.
Carvalho R.P., Rosière C.A., Rolim V.K., Lana C.C., Santos J.O.S. 2014. A sequência
orosiriana-estateriana e geometria transpressiva na região de Santa Maria de Itabira,
 116

Minas Gerais. Geologia USP. Série Científica, 14(2):111-120. https://doi.org/10.5327/

Z1519-874X201400020006
Cederberg J., Söderlund U., Oliveira E.P., Ernst R.E., Pisarevsky S.A. 2016. U-Pb
baddeleyite dating of the Proterozoic Pará de Minas dyke swarm in the São Francisco
craton (Brazil) - implications for tectonic correlation with the Siberian, Congo and North
China cratons. GFF- Scandinavian Journal of Earth Sciences, 138:219-240.
https://doi.or g/10.1080/11035897.2015.1093543
Chaves A.O. 2001. Enxames de diques máficos do Setor Sul do Cráton do São Francisco-
MG. PhD Thesis, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 165
p.
Chaves A.O., Fonseca W.M., Leal V.L.S. 2016. Províncias ígneas gigantes e o
reposicionamento dos proto-crátons sul-americanos em Columbia na Transição
Orosiriano-Estateriano. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Naturais,
11(2):263-280.
Chemale Jr. F. 1987. Gênese das rochas graníticas do tipo Borrachudos. In: 1º Congresso
Brasileiro de Geoquímica, Porto Alegre. Anais. v. 1, p. 171-186.
Chemale Jr. F., Dussin I.A., Alkmim F.F., Martins M.S., Queiroga G.N., Armstrong R., Santos
M.N. 2012a. Unravelling a Proterozoic basin history through detrital zircon
geochronology: the case of the Espinhaço Supergroup, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Gondwana Research, 22(1):200-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2011.08.016.
Chemale Jr. F., Kawashita K., Dussin I.A., Ávila J.N., Justino D., Bertotti A. 2012b. U-Pb
zircon in situ dating with LA-MC-ICP- MS using a mixed detector configuration. Anais
da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 84(2):275-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ S0001-
37652012005000032
Chu N.C., Taylor R.N., Chavagnac V., Nesbitt R.W., Boella R.M., Milton J.A., German C.A,
Bayon G., Burton K. 2002. Hf isotope ratio analysis using multi-collector inductively
coupled plasma mass spectrometry: an evaluation of isobaric interference corrections.
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 17(12):1567-1574. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1039/B206707B
Compston W., Williams I.S., Kirschvink J.L., Zichao Z., Guogan M. 1992. Zircon ages for the
Early Cambrian time-scale. Journal of the Geological Society, 149:171-184.
https://doi.org/10.1144/ gsjgs.149.2.0171
Compston W., Williams I.S., Meyer C. 1984. U-Pb geochronology of zircons from the lunar
breccia 73,217 using a sensitive high mass resolution ion microprobe. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 89(Supp. B):B525-B534.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iS02p0B525
Cordani U.G., Pimentel M.M., Ganade de Araújo C.E., Fuck R.A. 2013. The significance of
the Transbrasiliano-Kandi tectonic corridor for the amalgamation of West Gondwana.
Brazilian Journal of Geology, 43(3):583-597. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2317-
48892013000300012
Costa A.F.O. 2013. Estratigrafia e tectônica da borda oeste do Espinhaço Central no
extremo norte da Faixa Araçuaí. MS Dissertation, Departamento de Geologia/Escola
de Minas, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 170 p.
Costa A.F.O. 2017. Evolução tectono-estratigráfica da porção norte do Espinhaço Central,
Norte de Minas Gerais. PhD Thesis, Departamento de Geologia/Escola de Minas,
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 220 p.
Cruz S.C.P., Alkmim F.F. 2017. The Paramirim Aulacogen. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G.,
Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a
Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer, p. 97-115.
 117

D’Agrella-Filho M.S., Cordani U.G. 2017. The Paleomagnetic record of the São Francisco-
Congo craton. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São Francisco
Craton, Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer,
p. 305-320.
Danderfer A.F., Meireles H.P. 1987. Mapeamento geológico da Região do Alto Rio
Guanhães (MG). Trabalho de Graduação, Centro de Geologia Eschwege,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Diamantina, 94 p.
Danderfer A., De Waele B., Pedreira A., Nalini Júnior H.A. 2009. New geochronological
constraints on the geological evolution of Espinhaço basin within the São Francisco
Craton-Brazil. Precambrian Research, 170:116-128.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2009.01.002
Danderfer A., Lana C.C., Nalini Jr. H.A., Costa A.F.O. 2015. Constraints on the sthatherian
Evolution of the intraplate rifting in a Paleo- Mesoproterozoic paleocontinent: New
stratigraphic and geochronology record from the eastern São Francisco craton.
Gondwana Research, 28:668-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.gr.2014.06.012
DePaolo D.J. 1981. Trace element and isotopic effects of combined wallrock assimilation
and fractional crystallization. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 53(2):189-202.
https://doi. org/10.1016/0012-821X(81)90153-9
Dussin I.A. 2017. Geocronologia U-Pb e Lu-Hf em zircão, Aplicada às Bacias Proterozóicas.
Estudo de Caso: Evolução Sedimentar e Tectônica da Bacia do Espinhaço – Setor
Meridional, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Minas Gerais, Verlag-Novas Edições Acadêmicas,
124 p.
Dussin T.M. 1994. Associacions vulcano- plutoniques de l’Espinhaço Meridional (SE -
Brésil): un exemple d’évolution de la croûte protérozoïque. PhD Thesis, Université
D’Orléans, Orléans, 177 p.
Dussin T.M., Dussin I.A., Macambira M.J.B. 2000. Chronology of Mesoproterozoic Guanhães
River sequence: 207Pb/206Pb single zircon evaporation data of metavolcanic rocks
(Minas Gerais, Brazil). In: 31º Internacional Geolological Congress, Rio de Janeiro.
Abstracts. CD-ROM.
Eby G.N. 1992. Chemical subdivision of the A-type granitoids: petrogenetic and tectonic
implications. Geology, 20:641-644. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-
7613(1992)020%3C0641:CSOTAT%3E2.3.CO;2
Ernst R.E. 2014. Large igneous provinces. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 667 p.
Ernst R.E., Pereira E., Hamilton M.A., Pisarevsky S.A., Rodrigues J., Tassinari C.C.G.,
Teixeira W., Van-Dunem V. 2013. Mesoproterozoic intraplate magmatic ‘bar-code’
record of the Angola portion of the Congo Craton: newly dated magmatic events at
1505 and 1110 Ma and implications for Nuna (Columbia) supercontinent
reconstructions. Precambrian Research, 230:103-118. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.precamres.2013.01.010
Fernandes M.L.S. 2001. O Granito Borrachudos na região entre Guanhães e Dores de
Guanhães, MG (Plutonito Morro do Urubu): gênese e evolução. PhD Thesis, Instituto
de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 187 p.
Fernandes M.L.S., Marciano V.R.P.R.O., Oliveira R.C., Correia Neves J.M., Diláscio M.V.
1994. Granitos Borrachudos: um exemplo de granitogênese anorogênica na porção
central do Estado de Minas Gerais. Geonomos, 2(2):23-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.18285/
geonomos.v2i2.223
Frost B.R., Barnes C.G., Collins W.J., Arculus R.J., Ellis D.J., Frost C.D. 2001. A
geochemical classification for granitic rocks. Journal of Petrology, 42(11):2033-2048.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ petrology/42.11.2033
 118

Grimes C.B., John B.E., Kelemen P.B., Mazdab F.K., Wooden J.L., Cheadle M.J., Hanghøj
K., Schwartz J.J. 2007. Trace element chemistry of zircons from oceanic crust: A
method for distinguishing detrital zircon provenance. Geology, 35(7):643-646.
https://doi.org/10.1130/G23603A.1
Grossi Sad J.H., Chiodi Filho C., Santos J.F., Magalhães J.M.M., Carelos P.M. 1990. Duas
suites graníticas do bordo sudeste do Craton São Francisco, em Minas Gerais:
Petroquímica e Potencial Metalogenético. In: 36º Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia,
Natal. Anais. v. 4, p. 1836-1841.
Guadagnin F., Chemale Jr. F., Magalhães A.J.C., Alessandretti L., Bállico M.B., Jeline A.R.
2015. Sedimentary petrology and detrital zircon U–Pb and Lu–Hf constraints of
Mesoproterozoic intracratonic sequences in the Espinhaço Supergroup: Implications
for the Archean and Proterozoic evolution of the São Francisco Craton. Precambrian
Research, 266:227-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. precamres.2015.05.027
Harley S.L., Kelly N.M. 2007. The impact of zircon-garnet REE distribution data on the
interpretation of zircon U-Pb ages in complex high-grade terrains: An example from the
Rauer Islands, East Antarctica. Chemical Geology, 241:62-87. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2007.02.011
He Y., Zhao G., Sun M., Xia X. 2009. SHRIMP and LA-ICP-MS zircon geochronology of the
Xiong’er volcanic rocks: implications for the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic evolution of the
southern margin of the North China Craton. Precambrian Research, 168(3-4):213-222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2008.09.011
Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F., Reis H.L. 2017. Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature
Continent. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São Francisco Craton,
Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer, p. 321-
331.
Hoskin P.W., Schaltegger U. 2003. The composition of zircon and igneous and metamorphic
petrogenesis. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 53(1):27-62.
https://doi.org/10.2113/0530027
Hou G.T., Li J.H., Qian X.L. 2001. Geochemical characteristics and tectonic setting of
Mesoproterozoic dyke swarms in northern Shanxi. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 17(3):352-
357.
Hou G.T., Santosh M., Qian X.L., Lister G.S., Li J. 2008. Configuration of the Late
Paleoproterozoic supercontinent Columbia: insights from radiating mafic dyke swarms.
Gondwana Research, 14(3):395-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2008.01.010
Humphris S.E., Thompson G., Schilling J.G., Kingsley R.H. 1985. Petrological and
geochemical variations along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between 46” S and 32” S:
lnfluence of the Tristan da Cuhna mantle plume. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
49:1445-1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(85)90294-7
Jackson S.E. 2008. LAMTRACE data reduction software for LA- ICP-MS. Laser ablation ICP-
MS in the Earth sciences: current practices and outstanding issues. Short Course
Series, Mineralogical Association of Canada, 40:305-307.
Jackson S.E., Pearson N.J., Griffin W.L., Belousova E.A. 2004. The application of laser
ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon
geochronology. Chemical Geology, 211(1-2):47-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemgeo.2004.06.017
Jaques A.L., Green D.H. 1980. Anhydrous melting of peridotite at 0-15 Kb pressure and the
genesis of tholeiitic basalts. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 73:287-310.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00381447
 119

Knauer L.G., Grossi-Sad J.H. 1997. Geologia da Folha Serro. In: Grossi- Sad J.H., Lobato
L.M., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Soares-Filho B.S. (eds.), Projeto Espinhaço em CD-ROM
(textos, mapas e anexos). Belo Horizonte, COMIG – Companhia Mineradora de Minas
Gerais, p. 2057-2316.
Leake B.E., Wooley A., Arps C.E.S., Birch W.D., Gilbert M.C., Grice J.D., Hawthorne F.C.,
Kato A., Kisch H.J., Vladimir K., Linthout K., Laird J.O., Mandarino J.A., Maresch W.V.,
Nickel E.H., Rock N.M.S., Schumacher J.C., Smith D.C., Stephenson N.C.N., Ungaretti
L., Whittaker E.J.W., Youzhi G. 1997. Nomenclature of amphiboles: report of the
Subcommittee on Amphiboles of the International Mineralogical Association,
Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. American Mineralogist, 82:1019-
1037.
Li X.H., Long W.G., Li Q.L., Liu Y., Zheng Y.F., Yang Y.H., Chamberlain K.R., Wan D.F.,
Guo C.H., Wang X.C., Tao H. 2010. Penglai zircon megacrysts: a potential new
working reference material for microbeam determination of Hf–O isotopes and U–Pb
age. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 34(2):117-134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-908X.2010.00036.x
Loiselle M.C., Wones D.R. 1979. Characteristic and origin of anorogenic granites. Abstracts,
Geological Society of America, v. 11, p. 468.
Machado N., Schrank A., Abreu F.R., Knauer L.G, Almeida-Abreu P.A. 1989. Resultados
preliminares da geocronologia U-Pb na Serra do Espinhaço Meridional. In: 5º Simpósio
de Geologia de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. Anais. v. 5, p. 171-174.
Martins-Neto M.A. 2000. Tectonics and sedimentation in a Paleo/ Mesoproterozoic Rift-Sag
Basin (Espinhaço Basin, southeastern Brazil). Precambrian Research, 103:147-173.
McDonough W.F., Sun S.S. 1995. The composition of the Earth. Chemical Geology, 120(3-
4):223-253. https://doi. org/10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4
Moreira H.M. 2017. Caracterização petrológica, geoquímica e geocronológica de corpos
intrusivos máficos da Porção Central da Serra do Espinhaço. MS Dissertation,
Departamento de Geologia/Escola de Minas, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto,
Ouro Preto, 176 p.
Nelson D.R. 1997. Compilation of SHRIMP U–Pb zircon geochronology data. Geological
Survey of Western Australia, Record, 242 p.
Noce C.M., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Silva L.C., Alkmim F.F. 2007a. O embasamento arqueano
e paleoproterozóico do Orógeno Araçuaí. Genomos, 15(1):17-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18285/ geonomos.v15i1.104
Noce C.M., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Silva L.C., Armstrong R., Piuzana D. 2007b. Evolution of
polycyclic basement complexes in the Araçuaí Orogen, based on U–Pb SHRIMP data:
Implications for Brazil–Africa links in Paleoproterozoic time. Precambrian Research,
159(1-2):60-78.
Oliveira A.A.K. 2002. Estruturação e alteração metassomática do ortognaisse Açucena
(suíte borrachudos) na região de Ipatinga, Minas Gerais. MS Dissertation, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 98 p.
Patchett P.J., Tatsumoto M. 1981. A routine high-precision method for Lu-Hf isotope
geochemistry and chronology. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 75(3):263-
267. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01166766
Pearce J.A. 2008. Geochemical fingerprinting of oceanic basalts with applications to ophiolite
classification and the search for Archean oceanic crust. Lithos, 100(1-4):14-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lithos.2007.06.016
 120

Pearce J.A., Harris N.B.W., Tindle A.G., 1984. Trace element discrimination diagrams for the
tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. Journal of Petrology, 25:956-983.
Pearce J.A., Norry M.J. 1979. Petrogenetic implications of Ti, Zr, Y, and Nb variations in
volcanic rocks. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 69(1):33-47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00375192
Peccerillo A., Barberio M.R., Yirgu G., Ayalew D., Barbieri M., Wu T.W. 2003. Relationships
between mafic and peralkaline felsic magmatism in continental rift settings: a
petrological, geochemical and isotopic study of the Gedemsa Volcano, Central
Ethiopian Rift. Journal of Petrology, 44:2003-2032. https://doi.org/10.1093/
petrology/egg068
Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Alkmim F.F. 2011. How many rifting events preceded the development
of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogeny? Geonomos, 19(2):244-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18285/ geonomos.v19i2.56
Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Alkmim F.F., Tack L., Noc C.M., Babinski M., Silva L.C.D., Martins-
Neto M.A. 2008. Similarities and differences between the Brazilian and African
counterparts of the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí-West Congo orogen. Geological Society of
London Special Publication, London, 294(1):153-172.
Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Campos C.P., Noce C., Silva L.C., Novo T., Roncato J., Medeiros S.,
Castañeda C., Queiroga G., Dantas E., Dussin I., Alkmim F.F. 2011. Late
Neoproterozoic-Cambrian granitic magmatism in the Araçuaí orogen (Brazil), the
Eastern Brazilian Pegmatite Province and related mineral resources. In: Sial A.N.,
Bettencourt J.S., De Campos C.P., Ferreira V.P. (eds), Granite-Related Ore Deposits.
London, Geological Society of London Special Publication, 350, p. 25-51.
Peixoto E., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Alkmim F.F., Dussin I.A. 2015. A suture–related
accretionary wedge formed in the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen (SE Brazil) during
Western Gondwanaland assembly. Gondwana Research, 27(2):878-896.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. gr.2013.11.010
Peng P. 2015. Precambrian mafic dyke swarms in the North China Craton and their
geological implications. Science China Earth Sciences, 58(5):649-675.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11430-014-5026-x
Peng P., Zhai M., Ernst R.E., Guo J., Liu F., Hu B. 2008. A 1.78 Ga large igneous province in
the North China craton: the Xiong’er Volcanic Province and the North China dyke
swarm. Lithos, 101(3-4):260-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.07.006
Peng P., Zhai M., Zhang H., Zhao T., Ni Z. 2004. Geochemistry and Geological Significance
of the 1.8 Ga Mafic Dyke Swarms in the North China craton: an Example from the
Juncture of Shanxi, Hebei and Inner–Mongolia. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 20:439-456.
Pimentel M.M., Heaman L.M., Fuck R.A., Marini O.J. 1991. U–Pb zircon geochronology of
Precambrian tin-bearing continental-type acid magmatism in central Brazil.
Precambrian Research, 52:321-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9268(91)90086-P
Pimentel M.M., Machado N., Lobato L.M. 1994. Geocronologia U/Pb de rochas graníticas e
gnáissicas da região de Lagoa Real, Bahia, e implicações para a idade da
mineralização de urânio. In: 38º Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, Balneário
Camboriú. Boletim, p.389-390.
Pinto C.P., Silva M.A. 2014. Mapa Geológico do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Escala
1:1.000.000. Belo Horizonte, CODEMIG – Companhia de Desenvolvimento Econõmico
de Minas Gerais; CPRM– Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais.
Rogers J.J.W. 1996. A history of continents in the past three billion years. Journal of
Geology, 104(1):91-107.
 121

Rogers J.J.W., Santosh M. 2002. Configuration of Columbia, a Mesoproterozoic

supercontinent. Gondwana Research, 5:5-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1342-
937X(05)70883-2
Rolim V.K., Rosière C.A., Santos J.O.S., McNaughton N.J. 2016. The Orosirian-Statherian
banded iron formation-bearing sequences of the southern border of the Espinhaço
Range, Southeast Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 65:43-66. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2015.11.003
Rollinson H. 1993. Using geochemical data: evaluation, presentation, interpretation. New
York, Longman Scientific, 352 p.
Rubatto D. 2017. Zircon: the metamorphic mineral. Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry, 83(1):261-295. https://doi. org/10.2138/rmg.2017.83.9
Santos M.N., Chemale Jr. F., Dussin I.A., Martins M., Assis T.A.R., Jelinek A.R., Guadagnin
F., Armstrong R. 2013. Sedimentological and paleoenvironmental constraints of the
Statherian and Stenian Espinhaço rift system, Brazil. Sedimentary Geology, 290:47-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2013.03.002
Schobbenhaus C., Hoppe A., Baumann A., Lork A. 1994. Idade U/Pb do vulcanismo Rio dos
Remédios, Chapada Diamantina, Bahia. In: 38º Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia,
Balneário Camboriú. Boletim, p. 397-399.
Shand S.J. 1943. Eruptive Rocks. Their Genesis, Composition, Classification, and Their
Relation to Ore-Deposits with a Chapter on Meteorite. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
350 p.
Silva L.C., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Armstrong R., Noce M.R. 2011. Determinando a duração
do período colisional do Orógeno Araçuaí com base em geocronologia U-Pb de alta
resolução em zircão: uma contribuição para a história da amalgamação do Gondwana
Ocidental. Geonomos, 19(2):180-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.18285/ geonomos.v19i2.53
Silva L.C., Pedrosa-Soares A.C., Armstrong R., Pinto C.P., Magalhães J.T.R., Pinheiro
M.A.P., Santos G.G. 2016. Disclosing the Paleoarchean to Ediacaran history of the
São Francisco craton basement: The Porteirinha domain (northern Araçuaí orogen,
Brazil). Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 68:50-67. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsames.2015.12.002
Silva M.C.R. 2016. A Formação Sopa-Brumadinho nos campos diamantíferos de São João
da Chapada, Sopa-Guinda e Extração, Diamantina-Minas Geraisurânio-chumbo e
isótopos de háfnio: sistemas deposicionais, tratos de sistemas, geoquímica e
geocronologia urânio-chumbo e isótopos de háfnio. PhD Thesis, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 335 p.
Silveira-Braga F.C. 2012. A sequência portadora de formação ferrífera da Serra do Morro
Escuro, Santa Maria de ltabira, Minas Gerais. MS Dissertation, Instituto de
Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 299 p.
Silveira-Braga F.C., Rosière C.A., Queiroga G.N., Rolim V.K., Santos J.O.S., McNaughton
N.J. 2015. The Statherian itabirite-bearing sequence from the Morro Escuro Ridge,
Santa Maria de Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of South American Earth
Sciences, 58:33-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2014.12.004
Soares-Filho B.S. 1987. Mapeamento regional. Projeto Ouro Fino- Conceição do Mato
Dentro. METAMIG, Relatório Interno. Belo Horizonte, METAMIG.
Sun S.S. 1980. Lead isotopic study of young volcanic rocks from mid-ocean ridges, ocean
islands and island arcs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
297:409-445. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1980.0224
 122

Sun S.S., McDonough W.F. 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts:
implications for mantle composition and processes. In: Saunders A.D., Norry M.J.
(eds), Magmatism in the ocean basins. London, Geological Society of London Special
Publication, 42, p. 313-345.
Taylor S.R., McLennan S.M. 1985. The continental crust: its composition and evolution.
Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 312 p.
Teixeira W., Oliveira E.P., Peng P., Dantas E.L., Hollanda M.H. 2017. U-Pb geochronology
of the 2.0 Ga Itapecerica graphite-rich supracrustal succession in the São Francisco
Craton: Tectonic matches with the North China Craton and paleogeographic
inferences. Precambrian Research, 293:91-111.
Turpin L., Maruejol P., Cuney M. 1988. U-Pb, Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd chronology of granitic
basement, hydrotermal albitites and uranium mineralization, Lagoa Real, South Bahia,
Brazil. Contribution to Mineralogy and Petrology, 98:139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00402107
Valley J.W. 2003. Oxygen isotopes in zircon. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry,
53(1):343-385. https://doi.org/10.2113/0530343
Valley J.W., Kinny P.D., Schulze D.J., Spicuzza M.J. 1998. Zircon megacrysts from
kimberlite: oxygen isotope variability among mantle melts. Contributions to Mineralogy
and Petrology, 133(1- 2):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004100050432
Valley J.W., Lackey J.S., Cavosie A.J., Clechenko C.C., Spicuzza M.J., Basei M.A.S.,
Bindeman I.N., Ferreira V.P., Sial A.N., King E.M., Peck W.H., Sinha A.K., Wei C.S.,
Peck W.H. 2005. 4.4 billion years of crustal maturation: oxygen isotope ratios of
magmatic zircon. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 150(6):561-580.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-005-0025-8
Xu H., Yang Z., Peng P., Ge K., Jin Z., Zhu R. 2017. Magnetic fabrics and rock magnetism of
the Xiong’er volcanic rocks and their implications for tectonic correlation of the North
China Craton with other crustal blocks in the Nuna/Columbia supercontinent.
Tectonophysics, 712:415-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.06.015
Wang C., Lu Y., He X., Wang Q., Zhang J. 2016. The Paleoproterozoic diorite dykes in the
southern margin of the North China Craton: Insight into rift-related magmatism.
Precambrian Research, 277:26-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2016.02.009
Wang K., Plank T., Walker J.D., Smith E.I. 2002. A mantle melting profile across the Basin
and Range, SW USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B1):21.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000209
Wang X.L., Jiang S.Y., Dai B.Z. 2010. Melting of enriched Archean subcontinental
lithospheric mantle: Evidence from the ca. 1760 Ma volcanic rocks of the Xiong’er
Group, southern margin of the North China Craton. Precambrian Research,
182(3):204-216. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.precamres.2010.08.007
Wang Y.J., Fan W.M., Zhang Y.H., Guo F., Zhang H.F., Peng T.P. 2004. Geochemical,
40Ar/39Ar geochronological and Sr–Nd isotopic constraints on the origin of
Paleoproterozoic mafic dikes from the southern Taihang Mountains and implications for
the ca. 1800 Ma event of the North China craton. Precambrian Research, 135:55-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2004.07.005
Wang Y.J., Zhao G.C., Cawood P.A., Fan W.M., Peng T.P., Sun L.H. 2008. Geochemistry of
Paleoproterozoic (~1770 Ma) mafic dykes from the Trans-North China Orogen and
tectonic implications. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 33:61-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2007.10.018
Wang Y.J., Zhao G.C., Fan W.M., Peng T.P., Sun L.H., Xia X. 2007. LA–ICP–MS U Pb
zircon geochronology and geochemistry of Paleoproterozoic mafic dykes from western
 123

Shandong Province: implications for back-arc basin magmatism in the Eastern Block,
North China Craton. Precambrian Research, 154:107-124. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2006.12.010
Whalen J.B., Currie K.L., Chappell B.W. 1987. A-type granites: geochemical characteristics,
discrimination and petrogenesis. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 95:407-
419. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00402202
Wiedenbeck M., Allé P., Corfu F., Griffin W.L., Meier M., Oberli F., Von Quadt A., Roddick
J.C., Spiegel W. 1995. Three natural zircon standards for U-Th-Pb, Lu-Hf, trace
element and REE analyses. Geostandards Newsletter, 19:1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-908X.1995.tb00147.x
Wilson B.M. 2007. Igneous petrogenesis, a global tectonic approach. Dordrecht, Springer
Science & Business Media, 466 p.
Wood D.A. 1980. The application of a Th-Hf-Ta diagram to problems of tectonomagmatic
classification and to establish the nature of crustal contamination of basaltic lavas of
the British Tertiary volcanic province. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 50:11-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(80)90116-8
Zhao G., Sun M., Wilde S.A., Li S. 2004. A Paleo-Mesoproterozoic supercontinent:
assembly, growth and breakup. Earth- Science Reviews, 67(1-2):91-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. earscirev.2004.02.003
Zhao T.P., Zhou M.F., Zhai M., Xia B. 2002. Paleoproterozoic rift- related volcanism of the
Xiong’er Group, North China craton: implications for the breakup of Columbia.
International Geology Review, 44(4):336-351. https://doi. org/10.2747/0020-
6814.44.4.336
 124

5 Artigo: Ultramafic magmatism and regional metamorphism in

the Guanhães block, SE Brazil: Further evidence for a Late
Cryogenian rift system in the São Francisco – Congo
paleocontinent

Joana Reis Magalhães1,2,3*, Antônio Pedrosa-Soares1#, Marco Aurélio P. Pinheiro3,

Othmar Müntener2, Ivo Dussin4#, Anne-Sophie Bouvier2, Lukas Baumgartner2,
Cristiano Lana5#, Gláucia Queiroga5#

1
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geologia, IGC-CPMTC, Av.
Antônio Carlos 6627, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2
University of Lausanne, Institute of Earth Sciences, Geópolis, Quartier Mouline, Lausanne,
Switzerland
3
Geological Survey of Brazil (CPRM), Av. Brasil 1731, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
4
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Faculdade de Geologia, R. São Francisco Xavier 524, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil
5
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Escola de Minas, Departamento de Geologia, Morro do
Cruzeiro, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil

*Corresponding author
# Fellow of the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq)
 125

5.1 Abstract

The Guanhães block represents an extension of the São Francisco craton

basement, recording a long and complex Precambrian evolution. This basement
block, surrounded by Statherian-Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic basins,
includes Archean TTG complexes, Proterozoic supracrustal units, granitic intrusions,
and meta-mafic and metaultramafic bodies. In the central region of the block,
metavolcano-sedimentary associations host metaultramafic bodies with chemical
attributes suggesting precursor hybrid magmas rich in Mg and Al, generated by high
rates of mantle partial melting with crustal contamination. These metaultramafic rocks
record changes in their mineral content related to progressive metamorphism from
greenschist to granulite facies conditions, imposed on highly hydrated precursor
rocks. The resulting metaultramafic rocks include several granofelses varieties with a
series of hydrated to dehydrated mineral assemblages, characterized by chlorite-
amphibole, chlorite-olivine-amphibole, olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene-green spinel
and olivine-clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene-green spinel, formed under
moderate (600 °C) to high temperature (up to 850 °C) conditions and low to
moderate pressure. The Al-solubility in amphibole, orthopyroxene and chlorite is very
sensitive to the metamorphic grade. The maximum Al-solubility in chlorite is about 2.4
apfu, just before it breaks down to hercynite, while the maximum Al-solubility in
amphibole is 1.4 apfu (XAl: 14 wt %), before the generation of clinopyroxene in the
granulite facies conditions. The maximum Al-solubility in orthopyroxene is around
0.11 apfu (XAl: 3.0 wt %) up to exsolution lamella of hercynite appear at its margins.
The spinel group minerals increase in spinel molecule saturation up to the granulite
facies conditions, followed by re-equilibration within silicate phases. Zircon U-Pb
analyses (LA-ICPMS) for an ultramafic granofels (J67) and an orthopyroxene
hornblendite constrain the age of the protoliths around 650 Ma, related to a
Cryogenian event. Metamorphic zircon grains extracted from a metasedimentary
iron-rich siliceous rock show ages between 605 to 509 Ma, recording the regional
metamorphism related to the Araçuaí orogen. Oxygen isotopic data and rare earth
elements in zircon grains indicate the crustal nature of them. The generation of the
ultramafic granofelses after hydrated ultramafic protoliths is related to a rift-
extensional setting associated with a stretched crust, driven by mantle uprising. This
Cryogenian anorogenic event correlates to the South Bahia Alkaline Province (730 –
 126

670 Ma) and the spreading of oceanic lithosphere of Macaúnas basin and, in the
West Congo belt, with the rift-related volcanism associated with the Lower Diamictite
(694 ± 4 Ma) and La Louilla (ca. 713 Ma) formations, as well as, with the syn-glacial,
diamictite-rich rift basin of the Macaúbas Group and correlatives.

Keywords: Metaultramafic rocks, Cryogenian, Guanhães block, Araçuaí orogen,

São Francisco – Congo paleocontinent

5.2 Introduction

Ultramafic rocks are typical of the Earth’s mantle. In the crust, those rocks and
their metamorphic products mostly occur as layered intrusions, generally emplaced in
extensional settings, or as tectonic slices interleaved with crustal rocks during
orogenic events. Being highly reactive rocks after crystallization, most ultramafic
rocks show compositional and textural modifications in relation to their primary
mineral assemblages owing to weathering, metasomatic and/or metamorphic
processes, obliterating their igneous features. Therefore, special attention should be
given to those post-magmatic processes, particularly under high degree of
metamorphism, aiming to disclose the most complete history of ultramafic rocks
found in basement blocks involved in polycyclic tectono-metamorphic events
(Cawthorn 1996, Bucher and Grapes 2011, Frost and Frost 2014, Charlier et al.
2015, O´Driscol and VanTongeren 2017).
Although metamorphosed ultramafic bodies are quite common in the
Guanhães basement block of southeastern Brazil (Figure 5-1), they lack detailed
studies and analytical data. Several speculations on their origins are found in the
literature, from proterozoic ophiolite remnants (Renger 1972, Almeida-Abreu 1993,
Danderfer and Meireles 1987) to remnants of komatiitic associations of greenstone
belts (Uhlein 1982, Grossi-Sad 1997).
Here, we present the first detailed studies on the texture, mineralogy,
lithochemistry, geothermobarometry, zircon U-Pb geochronology, and in-zircon
isotope (δ18O) and trace element (REE) chemistry for metaultramafic rocks, and an
associated metasedimentary Iron-rich siliceous rock, from the central Guanhães
block (Figure 5-2). Besides a detailed characterization of the metamorphism and its
products, we also disclose the evidence of a Cryogenian magmatic event related to a
 127

rifting setting, and associated metamorphism. Additionally, this Cryogenian

magmatism is correlated with coeval anorogenic igneous rocks related to important
Neoproterozic glaciogenic basins found in SE Brazil and SW Africa.

5.3 Geological Setting

The Guanhães block, located in the western domain of the Araçuaí orogen
(Figure 5-1), represents an extension of the Archean-Paleoproterozoic basement of
the São Francisco craton, reworked during the Neoproterozoic Brasiliano orogeny
(Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2001, 2008, Alkmim et al. 2006, 2017, Noce et al. 2007, Silva
et al. 2011, 2016, Degler et al. 2018).
The Guanhães block includes Archean TTG migmatitic gneisses and
associated granitic bodies, covered by metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks
bearing iron formations of possible Rhyacian-Orosirian age, hosting mafic-ultramafic
rocks, a Statherian metavolcano-sedimentary unit and associated anorogenic granitic
plutons related to the Espinhaço system, and Cambrian granites (e.g., Grossi-Sad
1997, Silva et al. 2002, Barrote et al. 2017, Magalhães et al. 2018).
The Archean basal complex (Grossi-Sad 1997), also called Guanhães
complex (Pedrosa-Soares et al. 1994), includes migmatitic gneisses ranging from
throndhjemite, granodiorite to granite in composition, with U-Pb SHRIMP and LA-
ICPMS zircon ages ranging between 3150 Ma and 2710 Ma (Silva et al. 2002, 2011,
Peixoto et al. 2015, Barrote 2016, Barrote et al. 2017). The basement complex
generally shows tectonic contacts with supracrustal rocks, and hosts granitic to
ultramafic rock intrusions.
Highly deformed and metamorphosed volcano-sedimentary assemblages,
included in the Guanhães Group by Grossi-Sad (1997), form narrow and
discontinuous stripes showing intricate relations with the basement and younger
rocks, which precise characterization is hindered by the deeply weathered saprolites
and extensive soil covers. According to Grossi-Sad (1997), the Guanhães Group
includes: i) a lower unit composed of metamorphosed mafic and ultramafic schists
(reaching up to 50 m thick), pelitic schists, itabirite lenses, quartzite and manganese
formation; ii) an intermediate unit encompassing silicate and carbonate facies iron
formations, quartzites and Iron-rich siliceous rocks; and iii) an upper unit consisting of
metagraywackes rich in amphibolite intercalations, and minor quartzites and schists.
 128

Borges et al. (1979) and Grossi-Sad (1997) suggested a volcanic character for those
ultramafic rocks, correlating them with komatiites, after assuming gradational
contacts between metaperidotite and ferruginous quartzite, and describing their
frequent association with iron formation. Barrote et al. (2017) suggest a shallow
marine environment for the association of banded iron formation with quartzite.

Figura 5-1: Geological setting of the Guanhães block: A) The studied region in relation to the Araçuaí
orogen and São Francisco craton (SFC). B) Geological sketch map of the Araçuaí orogen and
surroundings (modified from Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2011).

U-Pb SHRIMP ages of detrital zircon grains of BIF-related quartzites of the

Guanhães Group suggest a Rhyacian maximum depositional age, approximately
2180 Ma (Barrote et al. 2017). In the southern region of the Guanhães block, a
quartzitic unit records 2021 Ma as the maximum depositional age (Carvalho et al.
2014). This unit is covered by metaconglomerates and quartzites associated to iron
 129

formations that have 1668 Ma (Silveira-Braga et al. 2015). Maximum sedimentary

ages around 1990 Ma and 1666 Ma have been reported for BIF-bearing sequences
of the eastern Espinhaço Range (Rolim et al. 2016), west region of the Guanhães
Block. Abundant acid magmatism of Statherian age (c. 1770 – 1720 Ma) is widely
exposed throughout the Guanhães block, being related to the opening of the
Espinhaço rift basin system (e.g., Dussin 1994, Fernandes et al. 1994, Fernandes
2001, Magalhães et al. 2018). This magmatism occurs mainly as voluminous
anorogenic granitic bodies of the Borrachudos suite (Figure 5-1). Meta-volcanic mafic
(1725 Ma) and felsic (1748 Ma) rocks, interlayered with metasedimentary rocks of the
Alto Rio Guanhães unit, record that Statherian anorogenic event in the western area
of the Guanhães block (Magalhães et al. 2018). Small Cambrian granitic intrusions
occur in the central region of the Guanhães block, showing zircon ages between 505
Ma and 540 Ma, and are related to the striking hydrothermal activity in the area
(Barrote 2016).
Metamorphic overprints during Late Rhyacian and Ediacaran-Cambrian times
are registered in TTG gneisses of the Guanhães complex. The first, poorly defined,
was dated around 2056 Ma (Peixoto et al. 2015), whereas the youngest metamorphic
overprint shows several ages ranging from c. 560 Ma to c. 500 Ma (Machado et al.
1989, Fernandes et al. 1999, Noce et al. 2007, Piuzana et al. 2008, Peixoto et al.
2015, Silva et al. 2002, 2011, Silveira-Braga et al. 2015). According to Barrote
(2016), zircon grains from the Guanhães Group show only the Brasiliano (Ediacaran-
Cambrian) metamorphic overprint associated with two deformational phases of the
same compressional event related to the Araçuaí orogen.
Based on the available geochronological dataset, conjectures on the age of
the Guanhães Group may be pointed out, as follows: i) the group is younger than
2180 – 2021 Ma, but older than c. 1700 Ma (if their rocks are intruded by
Borrachudos granites), and was deformed and metamorphosed by the Brasiliano
orogeny; ii) the age is much more uncertain if rocks of the Guanhães Group are not
cut by Statherian intrusions, although metamorphosed by the Brasiliano orogeny or
cut by related post-collisional (c. 500 Ma) intrusions.
The exposed rocks in the central domain of the Guanhães block experienced
higher metamorphic conditions than those located in their outer zones. Along the
western and eastern zones, the rocks were metamorphosed between the greenschist
and upper amphibolite facies, and the regional metamorphism tends to increase
 130

eastwards (Borges et al. 1979, Grossi-Sad 1997, Fernandes et al. 2000, Peixoto et
al. 2015, Barrote et al. 2017). However, in the central region of the block, mainly
around the Guanhães city, the rocks record amphibolite to granulite facies conditions
and show evidence of local thermal metamorphism (Borges et al. 1979, Dallwing et
al. 1983, Muller et al. 1986, Lauenstein and Müller 1986). Based on those features,
Grossi-Sad et al. (1990) suggested two metamorphic processes in the Guanhães
block: i) regional metamorphism up to the upper amphibolite facies, and ii) local
thermal metamorphism up to the pyroxene-hornfels facies. However, these authors
did not report detailed textural, geothermobarometric and isotopic data, as we
present in the forthcoming sections.

5.4 Filed observations and relationships

The central zone of the Guanhães block shows metamorphosed ultramafic

rocks associated with metasedimentary rocks (Figure 5-2). The studied
metaultramafic rocks are characterized by predominantly massive to slightly foliated,
medium- to coarse-grained olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels. We use the
term granofels in its original descriptive sense, according to Goldsmith (1959): “A
medium- to coarse-grained, granoblastic, metamorphic rock without, or with only
indistinct, foliation or lineation.” Massive, fine-grained, olivine serpentinite occurs
interlayered with granofelses or forms an individual outcrop.
 131

Figura 5-2: Geological map of the studied area in the central Guanhães block (modified from Pinto and
Silva 2014).

Generally, the metaultramafic rocks occur as dismembered bodies found in

association with saprolites of distinct rocks, with preserved portions of ferruginous
quartzites, banded iron formations, quartz-mica schists and amphibolites of the
Guanhães Group. The metaultramafic bodies form tabular- to lens-shaped bodies
imbricated within the Guanhães Group metasedimentary pile (Figure 5-3) or are
found as isolated bodies hosted by the basement gneisses or anorogenic granitoids
(Figure 5-5B and C). The main occurrences are located in Candonga, Fazenda
 132

Sideral, Materlândia, Divinolândia de Minas and Córrego do Condado areas (Figure

5-2).
Among the metaultramafic rocks, the olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene
granofelses are the most common lithotype in the studied area. They occur as
discontinuous bodies of variable sizes and thicknesses, especially in the Candonga,
Fazenda Sideral and Córrego Condado localities (Figure 5-2). The granofelses
include orthopyroxene porphyroblasts, up to 3 cm in length, with inclusions of spinel
immersed in a fine- to medium-grained, gray to green, isotropic matrix composed of
olivine, amphibole, chlorite and, locally, clinopyroxene (Figure 5-4A to F).
 133

Figura 5-3: NW-SE geological cross section in the Candonga region. A) outcrop of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; B) contact between ferruginous quartzite
and olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; C) hand specimen of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; D) contact between olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene
granofels and ferruginous quartzite; E) detail of ferruginous quartzite; F) contact between ferruginous quartzite and serpentinite; G) hand specimen of ferruginous
quartzite; H) detail of serpentinite; I) and J) saprolite of quartz-rich banded metasedimentary rock; K) feldspar-rich quartzitic rock; L) hand specimen of Iron-rich
siliceous rock; M) outcrop of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels; N) detail of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels.
 134

Figura 5-4: Hand specimens of: A) chlorite -amphibole granofels (J67A); B) chlorite-olivine-amphibole
granofels (J67B); C and D) olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (J71); E and F) coarse-grained
olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (J81); G) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82); and H) orthopyroxene
hornblendite (J72).
 135

In the Candonga area, a geological cross section shows the ultramafic

granofelses interleaved within a package of pelitic schist, iron formation, ferruginous
quartzite, Iron-rich siliceous rock, amphibolite and serpentinite (Figure 5-3 and Figure
5-4E and F). The iron formation consists of alternating bands rich in quartz or in
magnetite. The ferruginous quartzite is a highly recrystallized, medium- to coarse-
grained rock with saccharoidal texture and lamination marked by opaque minerals
(mostly iron oxides). The Iron-rich siliceous rock shows garnet porphyroblasts (up to
4 mm) in a greenish massive matrix composed of amphibole and quartz (sample J82;
Figure 5-3 and 5-4G). This section also shows cm-thick, red clay-rich bands along
the contacts between olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses (samples J79
and J81) and ferruginous quartzite (Figure 5-3). The red clay-rich bands, free of
quartz, represent deeply weathered margins of metaultramafic bodies, formed close
to the more permeable quartzite, with no conclusive evidence on the former contact
nature (tectonic, intrusive or volcanic?).
In the locality named Fazenda Sideral (Figure 5-2), a large and homogeneous
body of olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (sample J71; Figure 5-4C and D)
crops out near ferruginous quartzites and deeply weathered saprolites of ultramafic
rocks.
A banded chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels (sample J67; Figures 5-4A and
B, and 5-5A) occurs in the surroundings of Materlândia city (Figure 5-2). The rock
shows slightly foliated to massive bands variably rich in olivine, amphibole and
chlorite (Figure 5-5A). Elongated olivine porphyroblasts reach up to 2 cm long (Figure
5-4B). Prismatic amphibole occurs disseminated. Recrystallized quartz aggregates
together with muscovite and magnetite are very common along the metaultramafic
body edges.
In the Córrego do Condado locality (Figure 5-2), an olivine-clinopyroxene-
amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (sample J107) crops out close to ferruginous
quartzite and an orthopyroxene hornblendite (sample 72; Figure 5-4H). The sample
J107 shows greenish-grey color and granoblastic texture, characterized by large
crystals of orthopyroxene (up to 2 cm), and amphibole, olivine, clinopyroxene and
chlorite. The orthopyroxene hornblendite is greenish, fine to medium grained, poorly
foliated.
Isolated and large bodies of olivine serpentinite (sample J109) occur near
Divinolândia de Minas city (Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-5B to D). It is a fine-grained
 136

massive rock formed of olivine aggregates immersed in a serpentine-rich matrix with

magnetite (Figure 5-5D). Talc veins, as well as fractures filled by white clay and
carbonate are found in outcrop parts with incipient weathering. Widespread
silicification occurs along the metaultramafic body margins, marking the contact with
the country orthogneiss.

Figura 5-5: A) Ultramafic rock displaying metamorphic banding defined by variable contents of olivine,
amphibole and chlorite (J67); B) olivine serpentinite body (withe arrow, sample J109) surrounded by the
regional orthogneiss; C) intrusive contact between the olivine serpentinite (J109) and a banded
orthogneiss; D) olivine serpentinite showing granular texture; and E) detail of banding of the orthogneiss.
Mineral abbreviations recommended by Whitney and Evans (2010).

5.5 Analytical methods

5.5.1 Mineral chemistry

Polished sections were analyzed for in situ mineral chemistry in a JEOL JXA-
8200 Superprobe at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne
(Switzerland), using a 15 kV accelerating voltage, 20 nA beam current and 3-5 μm
beam diameter. Counting times were 20s on peak and 10s on background.
 137

Standards used were wollastonite (Si), orthoclase (K), anorthite (Al, Ca), albite (Na),
forsterite (Mg), almandine (Fe), tephrite (Mn) and ilmenite (Ti). Repeated
measurements of standards at the start of each analytical session gave precisions
<2% for analyzed oxides. The phi–rho–Z matrix correction method was applied
(Armstrong 1995). Complementary mineral analyses were performed by a JEOL
JXA-8230 electron microprobe of the Microanalysis Laboratory at the Federal
University of Ouro Preto (Brazil). The operating conditions were: 15 kV acceleration
voltages, 5 μm beam diameter and 20 nA beam current. The following standards
were used: quartz (Si), gahnite (Al), anorthoclase (Na), olivine (Mg), microcline (K),
Fe (Fe), diopside (Ca), rutile (Ti) and MnO2 (Mn). Results are reported in tables B.2
to B.10 in the attached files.

5.5.2 Whole rock litochemistry

Major, trace and rare earth elements analyses on selected samples were
conducted at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne (Switzerland).
Samples were powdered in an agate mill and dried at 100°C. Loss on ignition (LOI)
was determined by heating the samples to 1050°C for 2 h; 1.2 g of dried powder was
then mixed with 6 g of lithium tetraborate and fused at 1300°C for 3-5 min in platinum
crucibles prior to being quenched to form homogeneous glass beads. Major element
compositions were measured on lithium tetraborate glasses by X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) using a Philips PW 2400 spectrometer at the Institute of Earth Sciences,
University of Lausanne. The standards SY-2, NIMN, NIMG, BHVO and BE-N
(Govindaraju 1994) were used for quality control. Uncertainties in XRF analyses are
in the range of 0.5wt% (2 sigma) for major elements such as SiO2 to <0.01 wt % for
minor elements. Trace element concentrations were measured on the flat side of
broken off pieces of the glass beads by sector-field single-collector inductively
coupled plasma mass spectrometry (SF-ICP-MS) using an ELEMENT XR system
interfaced to a NewWave UP- 193 ArF excimer ablation system with analytical
conditions at 10 Hz repetition rate and an energy of ~160 mJ, which is equivalent to
12 J cm–2. Spot diameter varied between 75 and 100 um. Background and ablation
interval acquisition times were 100 and 50–55 s, respectively. Dwell times for the
different isotopes range from 10 to 20 ms, employing a peak-hopping mode. Absolute
trace element concentrations were determined using CaO previously measured by
 138

XRF as an internal standard and NIST SRM 612 as an external standard (Jochum et
al. 2011). Data were processed using LAMTRACE software (Jackson 2008). Results
are reported in table B.1 in the attached files.

5.5.3 Zircon U-Pb (LA-ICPMS) dating

The in situ zircon U-Pb LA-ICPMS dating analyses were carried out using a
Thermo-Finnigan Neptune multicollector ICP-MS (Thermo-Finnigan Neptune
multicollector) coupled to a Photon-Machines 193 nm G2 laser system at
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (Brazil) following the procedure described in
Santos et al. (2017). Instrument set up parameters were a spot size of 20 μm, a
frequency of 6 Hz, 10 % energy with an intensity of 0.3 mJ. U-Pb data were
standardized using the zircon GJ-1 (Jackson et al. 2004) as primary standard and
tested using the zircon Pleisovice (Sláma et al. 2008) as secondary standard.
External errors were propagated considering the internal reproducibility of the
individual ratios, external reproducibility of GJ-1, long-term uncertainty of the
validation material, ratio uncertainties of the reference material and Pb-common ratio
uncertainty (Lana et al. 2017).
Complementary age determinations for samples J72 and J82 were carried out
using a sector-field spectrometer Element XR interfaced to a NewWave UP-193 ArF
excimer ablation system at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne
(Switzerland). Operating conditions were similar to those of Ulianov et al. (2012),
including a 25 μm spot size, 5 Hz repetition rate, 2.2-2.3 J/cm2 on-sample energy
density. A GJ-1 (Jackson et al. 2004) standard zircon was used for internal
standardization. The Pleisovice (Sláma et al. 2008) reference zircon was analyzed
together with the unknowns on a routine basis to control the accuracy of results.
Uncertainties reported for all calculated ages are at the 2σ (95%) uncertainty level.
Data evaluation for each spot was filtered considering outliers values of
common Pb contents, errors of isotopic ratios and high percentages of discordance
and Th/U ratios. The Concordia diagrams were obtained using the software
Isoplot/Ex (Ludwig 2003). Individual uncertainties are presented at 2σ level.
 139

5.5.4 In situ zircon oxygen isotopic analysis

18
O/16O ratios on zircon grains were measured using a Cameca IMS 1280HR
ion probe at the SwissSIMS facility, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. The
measurements were made with a focused 10kV Cs+ beam with an intensity of about
2 nA current and a 15 µm rastered spot size. Each analysis took ca. 4 min, including
pre-sputtering (60s). Oxygen isotopes were analyzed at a multi-collector mode using
Faraday cups. Mass calibration was performed at the beginning of the session. The
instrumental mass fractionation factor (IMF) was corrected using the Plengai zircon
international standard (Li et al. 2010). Four analyses of the standard were performed
routinely at the beginning of the session, and subsequently after every 13 unknowns.
Errors reported for each sample are the 2SD of the instrumental mass fractionation
factor. The reproducibility for the Plengai zircon averaged 0.3% (2SD). Following
analyses, all ion microprobe spots were reexamined by Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM). Results are reported in table B.13 in the attached files.

5.5.5 Trace elements in zircon grains

Trace element analyses on zircon grains were conducted by LA-ICP-MS the

sector-field spectrometer Element XR interfaced to a NewWave UP-193 ArF excimer
ablation system at the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland. A beam size of 35 µm at 10 Hz was used. The NIST SRM 612 glass
was used as the reference material and was measured twice at the beginning and
twice at the end of the analytical sequence of 12 unknowns. Background and ablation
interval acquisition times were about 100s and 50s, respectively. Dwell times range
from 10 to 20ms. LAMTRACE software (Jackson 2008) was used for data reduction
assuming SiO2 = 31.57 wt% for zircon. The trace element analyses spots were
placed near the U-Pb dating and δ18O spots considering the same CL-domains.
Results are reported in table B.12 in the attached files.

5.5.6 Mineral stable assemblage modelling

In order to constrain the P-T stability range of mineral assemblages of sample

J67, equilibrium phase diagram was calculated using the bulk-rock composition of
 140

this rock. The thermodynamic modelling was carried out using the Theriak-Domino
software (de Capitani and Brown 1987, de Capitani and Petrakakis 2010) with the
internally consistent thermodynamic dataset of Berman (1988) in the CaO–FeO–
MgO–Al2O3–SiO2–H2O (CFMASH) chemical system. The phases considered in the
calculation of sample J67 were those described in the petrography item 4.1.1:
amphibole, olivine, orthopyroxene, chlorite, talc and magnetite. The amount of ferric
iron was controlled by specifying the proper amount of extra oxygen required to
maintain the modal volume of Fe3+-bearing phases stable. For this, the extra oxygen
content was calculated through temperature vs. oxygen isobaric diagrams at 2.0
kbar. XAl isopleths of chlorite and XFo of olivine were used to further constrain the
stable conditions. The H2O content required to stabilize the peak assemblage was
estimated according the LOI value from bulk composition. P-T pseudosection
calculations were conducted at 500–900°C and 1–8 kbar, to cover hornfels,
amphibolite and granulite facies conditions.

5.6 Results

Here we describe the main results from petrographic, mineral chemistry,

lithochemistry, U-Pb geochronology and in-zircon isotope (δ18O) and trace element
(REE) chemistry studies. We use mineral name abbreviations recommended by
Whitney and Evans (2010). As different techniques were applied on the same
samples, a summary detail of the samples and analytical methods are listed in Table
5-1.
 141

Tabela 5-1: Summary details and applied analytical methods for the metaultramafic samples of the
Guanhães block.
Mineral assemblage Mineral U-Pb age δ18O REE P-T
Sample Lithology
Major Minor/Aces. Chemistry Zircon Zircon Zircon conditions
J109 Olivine serpentinite Spt-Ol Spl-Amp-Chl-Mag x x
J67A Chlorite-amphibole granofels Amp-Chl Tlc
Chlorite-olivine-amphibole
J67B Amp-Ol-Chl Tlc-Mag x x x x x
granofels
Olivine-amphibole-
J71 orthopyroxene with green Opx-Amp-Ol-Spl Chl-Tlc-Cb-Mag-Cpx x x
spinel granofels
Olivine-amphibole-
J79 orthopyroxene with green Opx-Amp-Ol-Spl Chl-Mag x x x
spinel granofels
Olivine-amphibole-
J81 orthopyroxene with green Opx-Amp-Ol-Spl Chl-Mag x x
spinel granofels
Olivine-clinopyroxene-
J107 amphibole-orthopyroxene Opx-Amp-Cpx-Ol Spl-Tlc-Cb-Mag-Chl x x
with green spinel granofels
J72 Orthopyroxebe hornblendite Amp-Opx Mag x x
J82 Iron-rich siliceous rock Amp-Grt-Qz Gr-Bt-Mnz x x x x

5.6.1 Mineral set and textural relationship

5.6.1.1 Metaultramafic rocks

Petrographic analyses were carried out on thirteen representative samples

from five occurrences of metaultramafic rocks of the central Guanhães block (Figures
5-4 and 5-5). They were grouped according to their mineralogical composition and
textures in: i) granular olivine serpentinite with brown spinel (Ol serpentinite; J109); ii)
foliated chlorite-amphibole granofels (Chl-Amp granofels; J67A); iii) chlorite-olivine-
amphibole granofels (Chl-Ol-Amp granofels; J67B); iv) coarse-grained olivine-
amphibole-orthopyroxene with green spinel granofels (Ol-Amp-Opx granofels; J71,
J79 and J81); iv) olivine-clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene with green spinel
granofels (Ol-Cpx-Amp-Opx granofels; J107).
The Ol serpentinite (J109) presents an equigranular massive texture defined
by highly serpentinized aggregates of olivine. Disrupted grains with optical continuity
of olivine relicts (38-42%), with inclusions of opaque minerals, mainly magnetite, are
preserved within serpentine pseudomorphs (Figures 5-6A, 5-6B and 5-6C).
Serpentine (48-54%), formed after olivine alteration, occurs as pseudomorphs with
both mesh and hourglass textures, as well as chords, cutting and filling surfaces
trough olivine, amphibole and opaque minerals (Figure 5-6A and 5-6B). Platy
 142

serpentine and lamellar chlorite (2.0-2.5%) developed in the pseudomorphic matrix.

Subordinated xenoblastic short-tabular pseudomorphs suggest previous existence of
orthopyroxene (1-2%) and also occur filling irregular serpentinized olivine-free
veinlets. Amphibole, a minor phase (1.0-2.0%), occurs as medium- to coarse-grained
xenoblasts (3 mm) or poikiloblasts, including olivine pseudomorphs and opaque
minerals (Figure 5-6B). It is highly fractured and serpentinized, and its modal
abundance increases close to olivine-free veinlets. Opaque minerals (2.0-3.0%) are
inequigranular (0.05 to 1.5mm) and xenoblastic (Figure 5-6A to 5-6C). They occur
preferentially at olivine intergranular sites and form rounded inclusions within olivine
relict cores. Pseudomorphic brownish spinel occurs after opaque mineral alteration,
as well as late chlorite (1.0-1.5%) with inclusions of opaque minerals, serpentine and
amphibole.

Figura 5-6: A) Reliquiar mosaic aggregates of highy serpentinized olivine (J109; PPL); B) partially
serpentinized xenoblastic amphibole (J109; PPL); C) Brown spinel pseudomorph after magnetite (J109;
PPL); D) amphibole and chlorite rich domains (J67A; XPL); E) aggregate of amphibole, talc, chlorite and
olivine (J67B, XPL); F) olivine with early chlorite inclusions (J67B, XPL).

The metaultramafic rock assemblage J67 (Figure 5-5) shows bands of Chl-
Amp-rich granofels (J67A) and Chl-Ol-Amp granofels (J67B). The Chl-Amp granofels
consists essentially of amphibole (80-85%) and chlorite (5-12%), with subordinated
talc (1-2%), late carbonate and chlorite, as accessory secondary phases. It shows a
fine to medium-grained (0.1 to 2.5 mm) decussated to poorly recrystallized stretched
 143

texture, defining an incipient penetrative foliation and mineral lineation (Figure 5-6.D).
Talc occurs as fine-grained xenoblastic lamellae, showing straight edges with
amphibole and chlorite (Figure 5-6.D) or filling irregular slender veins.
The Chl-Ol-Amp granofels (J67B) records olivine recrystallization into the
metamorphic system, and shows sharp contact with Chl-Amp granofels. Olivine
forms coarse-grained elongated grains up to 3 cm long (Figures 5-6E and 5-6F),
defining a specific zone with banded structure (Figure 5-5A). Olivine grains show
amphibole and chlorite inclusions in the Chl-Amp granofels, cut by xenoblastic to
idioblastic grains of a second generation of amphibole and chlorite (Figures 5-6E and
5-6F). Opaque minerals occur exclusively in the olivine-rich domains, as exsolved
neoblastic aggregates after olivine alteration by late serpentinization. Late chlorite
forms from reaction involving opaque minerals and serpentine, and the late
carbonate after serpentine.
The olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses with spinel varieties (Ol-
Amp-Opx granofels; J71, J79, J81) are composed of orthopyroxene (30-60%),
amphibole (25-40%), olivine (5-30%), chlorite (1-7%), green spinel (2-10%), talc (0-
4%) and opaque minerals (1-2%). Late chlorite, talc, carbonate and serpentine are
retrograde phases, totalizing less than 2% in volume.
In general, the described rocks show a xenoblastic inequigranular texture,
presenting a massive, fine- to medium-grained (0.1 to 3 mm), chlorite-amphibole-rich
precursor matrix enclosing olivine, clinopyroxene and, successively, orthopyroxene
porphyroblasts (Figure 5-7A). Orthopyroxene reaches more than 3 cm in size, is free
of any ductile deformation, and hosts early and neoformed phases like chlorite,
amphibole, olivine, opaque minerals (mostly magnetite) and green spinel. Olivine is
xenoblastic and free of deformation and recrystallization. Commonly, it is preserved
as an earlier mineral within orthopyroxene granoblasts, where pyroxene convex
boundaries project onto olivine grains (Figure 5-7A). Clinopyroxene is exclusively
found in few samples from J71 outcrops, forming fine- to medium-grained relicts
partially preserved within amphibole.
Green spinel in these lithotypes occurs, at least, in three ways: i) fine- to
medium-grained xenoblasts intimately associated with magnetite and chlorite; ii)
exsolved lamellae and globules in orthopyroxene that may outline concentric rings
around coarse-grained granoblasts in coalescence with fine-grained neoblasts
(Figure 5-7B and 5-7C); and, iii) pseudomorphic changes in magnetite commonly
 144

preserved within its core. Late chlorite, talc and carbonate are minor secondary
phases.
The olivine-clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels with green
spinel (Ol-Cpx-Amp-Opx granofels; J107) differs from the coarse-grained Ol-Amp-
Opx granofels (J71, J79, J81), owing to its higher clinopyroxene and lesser green
spinel contents, and absence of chlorite. Pyroxenes and amphibole form mosaic-like
aggregates made up of coarse-grained granoblasts formed by static recrystallization
that in many cases imprinted recrystallized aureoles. Orthopyroxene (35-45%)
consists of coarse-grained granoblast cores, bordered by equidimensional mosaic-
like aggregates (Figure 5-7E and 5-7F). Contrasting with the formerly described
cases, this orthopyroxene shows undulose extinction, deformation lamellae, subgrain
and new-grain generations, attesting strong intracrystalline deformation. Amphibole
(25-30%) varies from fine-grained, short-prismatic xenoblastic grains to granoblastic
aggregates (Figures 5-7E and 5-7F). Clinopyroxene (10-12%) is xenoblastic, fine- to
medium-grained, and shows amoeboid habitus if included in coarse-grained
orthopyroxene, or equidimensional granoblastic texture in aggregates with
orthopyroxene and amphibole (Figures 5-7E and 5-7F). Olivine (4-8%) is xenoblastic
and texturally similar to those from other olivine-bearing varieties, standing as a relict
phase from mosaic-like aggregates. Green spinel (2-4%) forms fine-grained
granoblasts. In volume, it is significant in olivine-rich domains and less expressive in
clinopyroxene-rich granoblastic aggregates. Opaque minerals (~1%) form exsolved
grains and aggregates filling fractures in olivine. Talc, chlorite and carbonate are
minor phases.
 145

Figura 5-7: A) Orthopyroxene after amphibole (J71; PPL); b) Coarse-grained orthopyroxene granoblast
rimmed by spinel exsolution and symplectites (J81; XPL); C) Tabular coarse-grained orthopyroxene
rimmed by spinel and amphibole (J81;PPL); D) Relict chlorite grain among coarse-grained olivine and
orthopyroxene (J81; XPL); E) Equigranular aggregates of clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene and amphibole
after coarse-grained textured ol-amp-opx rock with green spinel recrystallization (J107, PPL); and, F)
Equigranular mosaic aggregates of clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene, olivine and amphibole (J107, XPL).

5.6.1.2 Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)

The iron-rich siliceous rock (J82) define a tabular band that grades to iron-rich
chert in Candonga area (Figures 5-2 and 5-3). Although with no evidence of its
primary features its sedimentary nature is indisputable. This rock is massive coarse-
grained with a faint irregular layering defined by the modal content of garnet plus
quartz and hornblende. It is composed essentially by hornblende (55-60%), garnet
(20-25%), quartz (18-22%) and opaque minerals (2-3%), commonly graphite. Biotite
(1-3%) is an alteration phase after hornblende and monazite is an accessory one.
The hornblende is fine to medium-grained (0.1-1.5 mm) xenoblastic
inequigranular grains. They are namatoblastic-textured (Figure 5-8A) although
defining mosaic aggregates with quartz some domains. Quartz is fine to medium-
grained (0.1-1.2 mm) defined by recrystallized xenoblastic grains with irregular
boundaries. They define aggregates with hornblende and garnet and exhibit
inclusions of hornblende and trails of tiny inclusions. Garnet are sub to idioblastic
coarse-grained zoned grains (Figures 5-8A and 5-8B). Its modal content its higher in
quartz-richdomains that define irregular layers. In these domains the garnet occurs
 146

clustered and rounded by hornblende-poor domain. Its internal structures show a

dense inclusions rich-core that fades toward its inclusion-free rims. Quartz is the
dominant mineral inclusion. The opaque minerals, essentially graphite, are fine-
grained tabular-shaped and occur randomly distributed in the rock. Biotite is a late
alteration of hornblende.

Figura 5-8: A) Zoned garnet grains over a quartz-hornblende rich matriz of iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)
(XPL); B) coarse-grained aggregates of zoned garnet of iron-rich siliceous rock (J82) (XPL); C) coarse-
grained elongated orthopyroxene blast from Opx hornblendite (J72).

5.6.1.3 Opx hornblendite (J72)

The orthopyroxene hornblendite (J72) occurs as isolated outcrops and

dispersed blocks of fine-grained green-colored rocks in the Córrego do Condado
area (Figure 5-2). Its is composed essentially by hornblende (80-95%) and
orthopyroxene (5-20%). The hornblende is elongated xenoblastic fine to medium
grained (0.3-0.8 mm) defining a nematoblastic matrix and a well-developed mineral
lineation. The orthopyroxene is composed by tabular elongated xenoblastic grains
(Figure 5-8C) that overgrow the hornblende rich matrix. Its grains are lengthy (up to 5
mm) and poikiloblastic which envelops partial to total grains of hornblende along its
longitudinal faces.

5.6.2 Mineral chemistry

5.6.2.1 Olivine and orthopyroxene

Olivine shows a narrow range of forsterite component. Excluding the Ol

serpentinite (J109), with a highly magnesian forsterite (Fo97), all other samples show
crisolite composition ranging from Fo83 to Fo87, without evidence of chemical zoning
 147

(Figures 5-9A to 5-9C). The samples show distinct Fo components combined with
NiO (wt%) and MnO (wt%), as follows (Figures 5-9B and 5-9C): J79 (Fo83-85, NiO =
0.3-0.4, MnO = 0.2-0.4); J67 (Fo84-86, NiO = 0.4-0.5, MnO = 0.1-0.3); J71 (Fo84-85,
NiO = 0.6-0.7, MnO = 0.2-0.3); J107 (Fo84-85, NiO = 0.4-0.5, MnO = 0.1-0.2), and J81
(Fo86-87, NiO = 0.3-0.4, MnO = 0.1-0.3). Nickel contents show positive correlation with
forsterite molecule (Figure 5-9B). Conversely, manganese contents outline negative
correlation with forsterite molecule, increasing according to the following sample
succession: J79, J67, J107, J71, and J81 (Figure 5-9C).
Enstatite molecule (En83 to En87) presents a very narrow range in
orthopyroxene from metaultramafic granofles (Figure 5-9E). Its chemical composition
is very sensitive to minerals around it and in relation to metamorphic grade, showing
chemically zoned grains with Al and Mg decreasing from rim to core, mainly if olivine
is preserved in the pyroxene core.

Figura 5-9: Binary diagrams of olivine: A) mode of olivine (%) vs forterite molecule (%); B) NiO (wt%) vs
forterite molecule; C) MnO (wt, %) vs forterite molecule; D) MnO (wt, %) vs NiO (wt, %); E) Al2O3 (wt,
%) vs enstatite molecule (wt, %); and F) enstatite molecule (%) vs forterite molecule (%).

The enstatite content (Figure 5-9F) is related to the forsterite molecule around
1.26 (Kd = 1.2), with the following values: J79 (En83.9Fo84.1), J71 (En85.8Fo85.5), J107
(En85.7Fo85.0) and J81(En85.8Fo86.5). The Al2O3 content ranges between 1.5 and 3.0
wt%, and seems to be sensible to the metamorphic grade and coexisting mineral
phases. However, sample J71 presents a wide range of alumina, varying from 0.8 to
2.78 wt%, with the highest values located in homogeneous sites far from amphibole
 148

inclusions. On average, CaO ranges from 0.18 to 0.30 wt%, with the highest values
in J107 and the lowest in J81 (Figure 5-9E). It shows positive correlation with
enstatite and nickel content, and negative correlation with MnO and Al 2O3. MnO
ranges from 0.08 to 0.45 wt%, with J107 showing the lowest values and J79 sample
the highest ones.
By the other hand, the orthopyroxene from opx-hornblendite (J72) is distinct
from its metaultramafic congeners. Its chemical components present a very narrow
range (En72) without zonation. It is more siliceous (SiO2: 54 wt%) and less magnesian
(MgO: 27 wt%) with Al2O3 and CaO averages of 2.5 wt% and 0.27 wt%, respectively.

5.6.2.2 Clinopyroxene

Clinopyroxene, found only in samples J71 and J107, is aluminous diopside in

composition (Al2O3 = 2.0 wt%), and presents a strong correlation between Al 2O3 and
TiO2. Sample J71 shows a wollastonite component of 48-50% (CaO = 24.2 to 25.6
wt%) and MnO (0.1 wt%), whilst sample J107 is more calcic (Wo: 50-53; CaO = 26 -
28 wt%) and poor in manganese (MnO = 0.08 - 0.1 wt%).

5.6.2.3 Amphibole

In all samples, amphiboles are calcic terms (Na + K + Ca > 1.5 apfu; cf. Leake
et al. 1997, Hawthorne et al. 2012), ranging from tschermakite-hornblende to
tremolite, with the predominance of Mg-rich hornblende in most samples (Figure 5-
10A). Tremolite, instead of Mg-hornblende, is more common in the chl-ol-amp
granofels (J67B). Sample J71 shows Mg-hornblende to tremolitic-hornblende, and
J107 contains Mg-hornblende to tschermakitic-hornblende (Figure 5-10A).
Orthorrombic Fe-Mg amphiboles are minor phases, locally occurring as anthophyllite
at marginal domains after Mg-hornblende in sample J71.
 149

Figura 5-10: A) Amphibole classification (after Leake et al. 1997, Hawthorne et al. 2012). Binary diagrams
of amphiboles: B) AlIV (apfu) vs AlVI (apfu); C) AlIV (apfu) vs Na+K; and AlIV (apfu) vs ALVI+Fe3++Ti
(apfu).

The AlIV and AlVI ratio is highly correlated in the same way as show between
the tetrahedral Al and (Na +K) (Figures 5-10B and 5-10C). The relation of AlIV and
AlVI, including Fe and Ti (Figures 5-10D), defines a tschermakitic exchange trend,
with the highest values presented by samples J72, J8, J79 and J81, and the lowest
ones by J67B. A pargasitic trend well delineated by the amphiboles from J107 and
J71.

5.6.2.4 Spinel

The spinel group minerals show predominant compositions between spinel

s.s. (MgAl2O4) to hercynite (FeAl2O4) solid solution, with the predominance of
pleonaste composition in the interval of 25% to 50% FeAl2O4 (Figure 5-11A). Sample
J71 records a wider variation in pleonaste composition, ranging from 23 to 64%. The
brownish-green spinel of the Ol serpentinite J109 stands as the Mg-richest spinel
 150

term (Figure 5-11A and 5-11C). If associated with Al-silicates (amphibole and
chlorite), spinel minerals show chemical variations (Al2O3 = 55-59 wt%; Cr2O3 = 6.5-
9.0; wt%; MgO = 12-16 wt%), as well as close to Mg-rich silicates like talc and olivine
(spinel ranges: Al2O3 = 61-65 wt%; Cr2O3 = 1.5-3.5; wt%; MgO = 12-18 wt%).
Magnetite, the typical opaque mineral of all samples, may show corona texture
of pleonaste around magnetite cores. Some magnetite grains in samples J71 and
J79 present relatively high Cr2O3, ranging from 11 to 14%, and about 17%,
respectively. Cr2O3 is also correlated with Al2O3 and MgO in almost all samples,
except J109 showing Cr2O3 insensible to MgO and Al2O3 inverse to MgO. Also, the
magnetite in this sample has the higher MgO values, from 4 to 6 wt %. Spinel
composition is strongly related to spinel textures and a detailed chemical
characterization is described in section 5.6.7.3.5).
 151

Figura 5-11: A) Spinel prism multi-component system (after Deer et al., 1992; Haggerty, 1991; Stevens,
1944); B) ternary diagram of Cr#, Al# and Fe 2+; and, C) binary diagram of hercynite molecule (%) vs
spinel molecule (%).

5.6.2.5 Chlorite

All the analyzed chlorites are type I trioctahedral Mg-chlorites, being classified
as clinochlore (Bailey, 1980; Ciesielczuk, 2012; Zane and Weiss, 1998). Although
there are some compositional variations from sample to sample (detailed in section
5.3.2), the analyzed chlorites generally show positive correlation between SiO 2 and
MgO, and negative correlations between them and Al2O3.

5.6.2.6 Talc
 152

Talc analyses showed a consistent behavior in all samples. MgO (around 28

wt%) shows positive correlation with SiO2 and NiO, and negative correlation with
Al2O3 and FeOt. The Al2O3 and FeOt contents are variable, ranging from 0.3 to 3.5
wt%, and 1.8 to 7.0 wt%, respectively. NiO values are the main difference in the
analyzed samples, with J107 presenting about 0.15 wt%, and J71 around 0.30 wt%.

5.6.2.7 Serpentine

Serpentine group minerals occur mainly in the Ol serpentinite J109. The

analyses show at least two chemically distinct types of serpentine. The most
abundant serpentine occurs as mesh and hourglass pseudomorphs after olivine, and
is richer in NiO (0.3-0.6 wt%) and poor in Al2O3 (0.01-0.6 wt%). The less abundant
serpentine, formed after amphibole, presents low NiO and high Al 2O3 (2.5 wt%).
Other components do not show significant chemical differences, with MgO and SiO 2
about 42.5 wt% and 41.5 wt%, respectively, with low Cr2O3 and total anhydrous
components around 87.5%.

5.6.2.8 Garnet

Garnet is exclusive to the iron-rich siliceous rock (J82). It presents a

predominance of almandine component (Alm: 60.5-62.28%) with subordinated
grossular (19.6-23.3%), pyrope (Py: 13.2-17.1%) and spessartite (Sp: 1.5-2.1%).
Garnet grains are zoned showing almandine, spessartine and grossular content
increasing from rim to core and pyrope from core to rim (Figures 5-12A and 5-12B).

Figura 5-12: Binary diagrams of garnet molecules from core and rim of selected grains: A) grossular vs
pyrope and B) grossular vs almandine.
 153

5.6.3 Lithochemistry

5.6.3.1 Metaultramafic rocks

Samples J67B, J71, J79A, J81 and J109, from representative metaultramafic
rocks collected in distinct outcrops (Figure 5-2), were selected for lithochemical
analysis owing to their well-preserved anhydrous mineral assemblage (analytical
results and procedures are in Supplementary data 2 and Appendix A, respectively).
Most samples have high MgO contents, from 24.17 to 30.64 wt% (Mg# 0.74 to
0.76%), whilst the Ol serpentinite (J109) reaches 41.35 wt%. MgO values show
negative correlation with SiO2, FeO, CaO, TiO2, MnO and Al2O3 (Figure 5-13),
suggesting a differentiation trend despite their metamorphic mineralogy and distinct
outcrops. CaO/Al2O3 and Al2O3/TiO2 range from 0.32 to 1.51 and 15.8 to 61.5,
respectively, and Chl-Amp-Ol±Opx granofels (J67) presents the highest ratios and
the Ol serpentinite (J109) the lowest ones. Ni content ranges from 1050 ppm to 2900
ppm, showing positive correlation with MgO and Co, and negative correlation with
MnO, Cr and V (Figures 5-13C and 5-13E).

Figura 5-13: Binary diagrams: A) MgO (wt%) vs SiO2; B) MgO (wt%) vs Al2O3; C) TiO2/Al2O3 vs MgO
(wt%); D) Ni (ppm) vs MgO (wt%); E) Al2O3 vs Cr (ppm); F) MnO (wt%) vs Ni (ppm).

Trace elements in multi-elementary diagram, normalized to primitive mantle

(PM) values (McDonough and Sun, 1995), define a common envelope for all
samples. Despite some disturbances, they lie over PM values. The LIL elements
 154

define a negative slope between Cs and Nb, show U positive anomaly (Figure 5-
14A), and their fractionation correlates with silica content. Despite local variations
and zigzag pattern, probably related to post-magmatic alteration, fractionation of
HFSE from Ta to Lu also correlates with silica content. Even though the overall
tendency is lying flat according to PM values (Figure 5-14A), the main non-fitted
elements are Pb (highly enriched, PbPM: 19-192) defining a pronounced positive
anomaly, and Zr and Hf, outlining negative anomalies (ZrPM: 0.3-0.9; HfPM: 0.3-1.0).
The Rare Earth Elements (REE) normalized to PM values delineate a slightly
concave curve (Figure 5-14B), with LREE decreasing from La to Sm (LaPM/SmPM:
1.7-6.5) and showing negative Ce anomaly (Ce/Ce*PM: 0.07 a 1.0). Eu shows both
positive and negative anomalies, probably related to post-magmatic modifications.
From Eu to Lu, the slope pattern is positive and slightly enriched in middle to heavy
REE (Gd/YbPM: 0.5-0.8).

5.6.3.2 Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)

The iron-rich siliceous rock (J82) presents a SiO2 amount of 53.28 wt% with
MgO of 7.38, CaO about 7.15 wt% and Sr and Ba of 23.45 and 24.37 ppm each.
Al2O3 is of 10.16 wt%, Fe2O3 is around 19.43 wt% and its alkalis content is 0.54 wt%,
0.23 wt% and 4.29 ppm, respectively to Na2O, K2O and Rb. The Sc content is of
10.43 ppm and Ba of 24.37 ppm with Cr and Ni of 225.23 and 120.53 ppm,
respectively.
The trace elements normalized to PM depict an asymmetrical concave curve
from Cs to Lu although internally delineated by “zig-zag” patterns (Figures 5-14C and
5-14D). The RRE is highly enriched with LRRE up to 100 times the chondrite values.
Normalized to chondrite the RRE define a negative curve from La to Lu, with
LaN/SmN and LaN/LuN of 4.7 and 26.5, respectively. Ce and Eu disturb the patterns
with negative anomalies (Ce/Ce*: XX and Eu/Eu*: YY).

5.6.3.3 Opx hornblendite (J72)

The Opx hornblendite (J72) shows a SiO2 abundance of 46.96 wt% with MgO,
Al2O3 and Fe2O3 about 17.77 wt%, 11.83 wt% and 12.37 wt%. CaO is 7.82 wt%, Sr
of 30.76 ppm and Ba of 17.97 ppm. Alkalis content is around 0.83 wt%, 0.08 wt%
 155

and 2.52 ppm, respectively to Na2O, K2O and Rb. The Sc content is of 29.70 ppm
and Ba of 17.97 ppm with Cr and Ni of 2010.05 and 738.70 ppm, respectively.
The normalized patterns delineated by trace and RRE of the J72 are similar
those presented by the sample J82 with differences in the fractioning values of some
set of elements, lower from Cs to Pb and more fractionated values from Sr to Lu and
RRE (Figures 5-14C and 5-14D).

Figura 5-14: Primitive Mantle normalized spidergrams of trace and minor elements and Rare Earth
Elements for: A and B) Metaultramafic rocks; C and D) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J72) and Opx
hornblendite (J82). Normalized values from McDounough and Sun 1995.

5.6.3.4 Chemical proxies and element mobility

Since the ratio of two incompatible immobile elements from cogenetic rocks
tend to be aligned in linear trends (e.g., Cann 1970, Arndt 2008), it is possible to
evaluate the potential of element mobility and system openness, by using some
effective immobile elements plotted against each other or to mobile elements in
binary diagrams.
 156

The MgO behavior, a compatible and mobile element, and Zr delineate a

negative correlation (Figure 5-15A). In the same way, Nb versus Th, two of the most
effective immobile elements (Cann 1970, Rollinson 1993, Hill et al. 2000, Hastie et al.
2007) define a very consistent positive correlation (Figure 5-15B), as well as, for the
Yb/Th versus Al2O3 (J71 is an exception because its Yb anomaly). Linear pattern is
also found in binary diagram with primitive mantle normalized values (Figure 5-15F)
from the highest to lowest magnesian samples, delineating a positive correlation of
YbPM/ThPM versus ZrPM. The same linear trend is shown by diagrams using
compatible elements, as Ni, versus an incompatible one, as Zr (Figure 5-15D),
suggesting chemical immobility from primary igneous through post-magmatic
processes.
In the Lu/Sm versus CaO/Al2O3 diagram, two proxies of distinct processes are
encompassed: the fractioning of the middle to heavy REE under influence of
exogenous elements input into the magma (U-shaped or concave curve, e.g., Gruau
et al., 1998) and the fertility of the mantle source. The linear trend (Figure 5-15E)
suggests chemical compatibility in the composition of the mixed magma progenitor.
The overall geochemical behavior suggests that the effective process for the
ultramafic protolits was magmatic fractional crystallization, with less expressive post-
magmatic alteration, despite the strong metamorphism shown by the studied
samples.
 157

Figura 5-15: Binary diagram: A) Zr (ppm) vs MgO (wt%); B) Nb (ppm) vs Th (ppm); C) Yb/Th vs Al2O3
(wt%); D) Ni (ppm) vs Zr (ppm); E) Lu/Sm vs CaO/Al2O3; F) (Yb/Th)PM vs ZrPM (Pimitive mantle
normalization values from McDounough and Sun 1995).

5.6.4 U-Pb geochronology

Geochronological U-Pb (MC-LA-ICPMS) data were obtained on zircon grains

from the ultramafic granofelses J67B and J79, the Opx hornblendite J72 and the
Iron-rich siliceous rock J82 (Figure 5-2).

5.6.4.1 Chlorite-amphibole-olivine granofels J67B

Zircon grains from granofels J67B show a wide morphological and textural
variety. They are subhedral to anhedral and 50 to 300 μm long, showing irregular
shapes and length/width ratios between 2:1 and 3:1 (Figure 5-16A). Most zircon
grains show oscillatory or sector zoning that becomes progressively blurred in some
grains. Xenocrystic cores with irregular zoning are also observed. These cores are
overgrown by CL-medium domain which truncates zoning in the cores. Some rims
show oscillatory zoning while others lack growth zoning. Other zircon grains are
homogeneously dark textured, suggesting metamictization. There are also very CL-
bright and homogeneous luminescent zircon. Th/U ratios varies between 0.03 to
0.82. However, despite the textural variation in the analysed zircon grains, there is no
pattern in the age distribution.
 158

Zircon U-Pb analyses yielded 37 results with good analytical consistency. The
data obtained spread along the concordia curve within the range of Neoproterozoic
ages (948-644 Ma), suggesting pervasive Pb-loss overprint (Figure 5-17A). Since
these zircon grains are interpreted as being carried by high temperature liquids (such
as those attributed to high Mg rocks), the behavior of their U-Pb isotopic systems
coincides with the liquid cooling trajectory. Along this line, the crystallization age of
the ultramafic protolith is similar to the age at which the isotopic system of these
zircon grains closed, which occurred around 650 Ma.

5.6.4.2 Olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (J79)

The granofels J79, collected in the Candonga section (Figure 5-3), yielded
only one zircon grain with good analytical consistence. It presents oscillatory zoning
typical of magmatic origin, a Th/U ratio of 0.14, a sub-rounded shape and 100 μm
long (Figure 5-16B). The concordant age of 713 ± 12 Ma from that single zircon is in
the Pb loss age spectra given by the granofels J67B.

5.6.4.3 Orthopyroxene hornblendite (J72)

The orthopyroxene hornblendite J72, associated with a metaultramafic rock in

the Córrego do Condado (Figure 5-2), furnished subhedral to anhedral zircon grains
with distinct shapes, blurred oscillatory or sector zoning, and Th/U ratios between
0.04 and 0.16 (Figure 5-16C). Five spots from distinct grains, with good analytical
consistency, spread along the concordia curve between 693 and 654 Ma (Figure 5-
17B). Following the approach presented earlier, since these zircon grains were
carried by high temperature liquids, the age at which the zircon isotopic system
closed is related to the cooling of this liquid and the crystallization of the protolith,
which would be around 650 Ma.

5.6.4.4 Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)

Sampled in the Candonga section (Figure 5-3), the Iron-rich siliceous rock J82
shows zircon grains with very distinct features (Figure 5-16D). The all-zircon diagram
reveals ages from the Cambrian to Paleoarchean (Figure 5-17C).
 159

Homogeneously dark and rounded grains, ranging from 70 μm to 130 μm, with
low Th/U ratios (0.01 – 0.05) suggest metamictization and metamorphic processes of
Ediacaran and Cambrian ages (Figure 5-16D). A total of 83 spot data from these
dark-colored zircon grains spread along concordia from 605 to 509 Ma, but 1/3 of the
data ranges between 530 and 520 Ma (Figure 5-17C) yielding a concordia age of 525
± 2 Ma (Figure 5-17D). This metamorphic rehomogenization records the Brasiliano
regional metamorphism related to the orogenic front of the Araçuaí orogen.
Zircon grains with oscillatory zoning, suggesting magmatic origin, invariably
record Paleoproterozoic and Archean ages. They are mostly subhedral prismatic
grains with lengths between 70 μm and 140 μm, length/width ratios around 2:1 and
Th/U ratios from 0.4 to 1.6. (Figure 5-16D). From 14 spots with good analytical
consistency (discordance <10%), the youngest age is given by a single Statherian
and concordant zircon grain of 1708 ± 54 Ma. The others zircon grains yielded ages
around 1968 Ma (1 grain), 2061-2042 Ma (3 grains), 2663-2620 Ma (2 grains), 2843-
2839 Ma (3 grains), 2992 Ma (1 grain), 3268-3148 Ma (2 grains) and 3351 Ma (1
grain).
Taking into consideration that Barrote (2016) also obtained a single Statherian
zircon grain (1737± 14 Ma) from a quartzite also in Candonga region, the maximum
depositional age assumed for the metasedimentary sequence that hosts the
metaultramafic granofels is 1708 ± 54 Ma.
 160

Figura 5-16: Cathodoluminescense images of analyzed zircon grains of A) chlorite-olivine-amphibole

granofels (J67B), B) olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels (J79), C) orthopyroxene hornblendite
(J72) and D) Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82).
 161

Figura 5-17: Concordia diagrams (2σ ellipses error) for zircon U-Pb (MC-LA-ICPMS) analyses: A)
chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels (J67B), (B) orthopyroxene hornblendite (J72), (C) Iron-rich siliceous
rock (J82) with detail of metamorphic ages, and (D) Concordia age of the main metamorphic cluster of
the Iron-rich siliceous rock.

5.6.5 Oxygen Isotopes

After U-Pb geochronology, oxygen isotope analyzes were performed on zircon

grains from the ultramafic granofels J67B and iron-rich siliceous rock (J82). Results
are in table B.13 in the attached files.

5.6.5.1 Chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels J67B

Zircon grains from granofels J67B present high δ18O values, ranging from 7.1
± 0.3 ‰ to 8.4 ± 0.3 ‰, with 75% of the data between 7.8 ‰ and 8.4 ‰. From zircon
rims to cores, there are no significant differences in δ18O values.
 162

The obtained data are consistent with δ18O values of crustal rocks (Valley et
al. 2005, Bindeman 2008), since mantle zircon shows δ18O values around 5.3 ± 0.6
‰ (Valley 2003).

5.6.5.2 Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)

Most zircon grains of the calc-silicate rock show low δ18O values, with a few
reaching mantle values (5.3 ± 0.6 ‰, Valley 2003). The homogeneously dark grains
with low Th/U ratios yield δ18O values between 3.8 ± 0.2 ‰ and 4.7 ± 0.2 ‰, whilst
the zircon grains with oscillatory zoning and higher Th/U ratios show δ18O between
3.5 ± 0.2 ‰ and 6.2 ± 0.2 ‰. One grain (J82-51) shows a low δ18O value (3.7 ± 0.2
‰) for the dark core, and a mantle-like δ18O value (5.3 ± 0.2 ‰) for the rim with
oscillatory zoning. Commonly, such low δ18O values imply in hydrothermal alteration
involving water-rich meteoric fluids (Valley et al. 2005, Bindeman 2008), a process
generally related to shallow crustal processes.

5.6.6 Trace elements in zircon grains

Trace element concentrations were determined by LA-ICPMS analysis on

zircon grains from the chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels J67B and the iron-rich
siliceous rock (J82). The spot measurements were performed on the zircon cores,
whenever possible in the same textural domains of the U-Pb and δ18O analysis (table
B.14 in attached files).

5.6.6.1 Chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels J67B

The RRE contents from J67B zircon grains outline a coherent pattern on
chondrite-normalized spiderdiagram (Figure 5-18A), presenting negative fractionation
of LREE, a steep slope from light to heavy REE (Dy/Sm = 40 - 155 and Lu/Dy = 8 -
33) and a prominent positive Ce anomaly (Ce/Ce*= 3.7 - 21). Despite common
features, two zircon groups show distinct zircon textures and U/Yb ratios. The
brighter CL grains are more fractionated in REE and have lower U/Yb ratios (0.1 to
0.3) than the homogeneously dark grains (U/Yb = 3.5 to 5.8; Figure 18D). Relations
 163

between Hf and Y versus U/Yb imply in crustal input on zircon grains from the J67B
granofels.

Figura 5-18: Trace elements in zircon (chondrite normalizing values from Sun and Mcdonough 1989): A)
sample J67B; B and C) sample J82. Plots (D) and (E) show geochemical discriminant diagrams with
continental and ocean crust zircon fields (cf. Grimes et al. 2007).

5.6.6.2 Iron-rich siliceous rock (J82)

The REE chondrite-normalized patterns for zircon grains from the iron-rich
siliceous rock (J82) outline three groups (Figure 5-18B and 5-18C). The first shows a
gentle positive curve from LREE to HREE (Lu/Sm: 50-150), a positive Ce
(Ce\Ce*:0.4-50) and negative Eu (Eu\Eu*:0.2-0.7) anomalies (Figure 5-18B). The
very bright zircon grains are more fractionated in all REE than the dark grains (Figure
5-18B). The second group, representing part of the dark grains, delineate a flat
curve, lying at 10 times the chondrite values (Lu/Sm = 1 - 2; Sm/La = 1.5 - 2.0), with
no Ce anomaly and a negative Eu anomaly (Eu\Eu* = 0.5 - 0.8; Figure 5-16C). The
third group includes some dark zircon grains and shows LREE positive curves
(Sm/La = 4 - 155), a pronounced positive Ce anomaly (Ce\Ce* = 2 - 31) and negative
 164

Eu anomaly (Eu\Eu*= 0.5 - 0.6; Figure 5-18C), inflecting from flatten to slightly
positive patterns from the middle to heavy REE (Lu/Gd = 1 – 2.4).
The dark zircon grains show very high values of U/Yb ratios (between 203 to
1560), whilst the luminescent zircon grains showing oscillatory zoning have U/Yb
values between 0.4 to 1.9. The Hf and Y vs. U/Yb discriminant diagrams reveal a
crustal nature for all those zircon grains (Figure 5-18.E).

5.6.7 Mineral assemblages and metamorphic P-T conditions

Trying to determine the metamorphic P-T conditions recorded by the studied

metaultramafic rocks, we have carefully applied distinct geothermobarometric
calculation methods after a detailed characterization of the mineral assemblages.

5.6.7.1 Classical geothermometry

By using distinct conventional geothermometry methods, we obtained

reasonable estimates for the temperature (ca. 700 – 800 ºC) conditions recorded by
the studied metaultramafic rocks, according to the following descriptions.

5.6.7.1.1 Two-pyroxene geothermometer

Temperatures of equilibrium were calculated for the coexisting clinopyroxene

and orthopyroxene of the olivine-clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels
J107, using several calibrations based on the miscibility gap, and the distribution of
Ca and Na between both pyroxenes (Wood and Banno 1973, Herzberg and
Chapman 1976, Wells 1977, Bertrand and Mercier 1985, 1986, Brey and Kohle
1990). The temperatures of 750 to 870 ºC, with a mean value of 790 ºC, obtained
from calculations according to Wood and Banno (1973), are the most consistent with
the metamorphic grade suggested by the mineral assemblages.
 165

5.6.7.1.2 Ca content of orthopyroxene geothermometer

The temperatures obtained by using the calibration of Brey and Kohler (1990)
are between 735 and 790 ºC, with a mean value of 770 ºC for the granofels J107.
The orthopyroxene hornblendite J72 yields temperatures from 730 to 770 ºC.
Temperatures obtained for the olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses J71, J79
and J81 range from 660 to 750 ºC, with a mean value of 710 ºC.

5.6.7.1.3 Al and Cr content of orthopyroxene geothermometer

The temperatures obtained by using the Al-Cr thermometer of Witt-Eickschen

and Seck (1991) vary between 710 and 790 ºC, with a mean value of 750 ºC for the
granofels J107, while for the orthopyroxene hornblendite J72 the temperature range
is between 680 to 720 ºC. The olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses J71, J79
and J81 show temperatures from 700 to 780 ºC.

5.6.7.1.4 Olivine-spinel geothermometer

This thermometer was applied on several olivine-spinel pairs found in the

olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses J71, J79 and J81, using the equation of
Fabriès et al. (1979). They yield temperatures between 700 and 760 ºC, with a mean
value of 730ºC.

5.6.7.2 Mineral stable conditions and reactions

5.6.7.2.1 Olivine serpentinite (J109)

The Ol serpentinite J109 presents the stable mineral assemblage composed

of Spt + Ol + Chl + Spl. Equidimensional 120° dihedral angles bound olivine
granoblasts in aggregates of non-zoned, high-Mg forsterite (Fo96). Such granoblastic,
abnormal high-Mg forsterite is compatible with olivine formed through metamorphic
dehydration reactions (Evans 1977, Pinsent and Hirst 1977, Vance and Dungan
1977, Coats and Buchan 1979, Kunugiza 1982, Papunen and Idman 1982, Dymek
and Klein 1988, Peltonen 1990, Plechov et al. 2018). Abundant and disseminated
 166

magnetite suggest an oxidation process under high f(O 2) conditions prior to or during
the last recrystallization, probably causing magnesian enrichment in silicates (Vance
and Dungan 1977, Evans 2008, Plechov et al. 2018). Olivine forms after antigorite
break down, in pure MSH system, according to the reactions below:

- R1, Atg + Br ⇄ Fo + H2O (Evans 1977)

- R2, Spt (Atg) ⇄ Ol + Tl +H2O (at 550° and 2 kbar; Evans et al. 1976).
- R3, Spt (Atg) ⇄ MgFe-1 + Tl + Ol + Chl + H2O

However, the effect of iron amount available in the system has to be

considered. As pointed out by Worden et al. (1991), iron content plays a significant
role in controlling the mineral products of serpentine break down, generating minor
amounts of aluminous phase, as chlorite, according to reaction R3.
The high modal abundance of olivine and the lack or subordinated content of
orthopyroxene, and talc, reinforce a precursor protolith composed mainly of
serpentine and brucite, probably derived from highly refractory rocks as dunite and
harzburgite. Otherwise, enstatite would form when the ol/opx ratio is lower than 58
wt% (Bucher and Grapes 2011). This could be constrained by the mineral topologies
diagram with the whole rock composition on the Ol-Spt tie line, which is very close to
serpentine composition (Figure 5-19).
Although it is hard to define the serpentine precursor before the onset of
olivine, some chemical considerations can be done to constrain it. Olivine associated
with antigorite in the absence of talc and tremolite has extremely low NiO (0.10%)
even at high magnesian compositions. The serpentine (antigorite) is more
nickeliferous than the coexisting olivine (Dungan 1974) owing to its high Ni coefficient
partition. However, Mn has an inverse behavior. The olivine nickel content of sample
J109 (NiO = 0.4 - 0.5 wt%), compared with its amount in serpentine (NiO = 0.3 - 0.6
wt%), provide a Kd for Ni and Mn for spt/ol pairs on the average of 3.2 and 1.7, with a
Kd for Ni/Mg and Mn/Mg of 1.0 and 0.6, respectively.
Higher Mn values are expected for metamorphic olivine than those coexisting
with serpentine, owing to the strong partitioning coefficient of Mn into olivine (Frost
1975, Vance and Dungan 1977). In this case, the lower MnO content of J109 olivine
(MnO: 0.13 wt%) may be considered both controlled by the bulk Mn disponibility, as
well as by the modal amount of olivine and its high Mg content. Vance and Dungan
 167

(1977) showed that metamorphic high magnesian olivines (Fo 94-98) present a Mn
content that decreases as the modal olivine content increases, reflecting an
approximation to the bulk Mn composition at high modal proportion.
Moreover, considering a CMASH system, the absence of talc and tremolite
has significant effect on the mineral assemblages of a metamorphosed serpentinite,
reflecting its bulk chemical composition. The breakdown of the probable antigorite
precursors released Al to the system. This could be as a tschermakite exchange
component or as a separated phase like chlorite. As the amphibole is Mg-
hornblende, instead of tremolite as expected in the CMASH system, its generation
may be attributed to tschermakitic exchange. However, its modal abundance is very
low, suggesting that such exchange was limited by the Al amount in antigorite.
Mineral stability diagram using the composition of the Ol serpentinite J109
(Figure 5-19; dataset from Berman 1988; water saturated) define a narrow
temperature range (550 – 600 °C) for its mineral assemblage, showing the olivine set
up through antigorite and brucite precursors. Lower and upper stability fields are
limited according to the following reactions:

- R4, Ol + Di + Spt + Chl ⇄ Ol + Amp + Spt + Spt

- R5, Ol + Amp + Spt + Chl ⇄ Ol + Amp + Tlc + Chl

Although defining a limited temperature range, the diagram shows a wide

range of P variation (Figure 5-19). Therefore, P conditions were constrained by the
pressure values obtained from classical geobarometers, mainly of Al in amphibole,
which restricts the assemblage stability field between 2 and 3 kbar, although this
methodology requires caution.
 168

Figura 5-19: A) Mineral stability diagram for the composition of sample J109; B) tetragonal (SiO 2-CaO-
MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral assemblage of olivine serpentinite J109; and, C) mineral
assemblage topology of olivine serpentinite J109.

5.6.7.2.2 Chlorite-amphibole±olivine granofels (J67)

Compositional bands rich in chlorite and amphibole (with talc) are found in the
banded metaultramafic rock J67A. As showed in item 5.4, they provide the precursor
matrix for the generation of metamorphic olivine, as the initial conditions to form the
anhydrous minerals are related to a hydrated precursor rock with composition close
to the Chl-Amp tie line (Figure 5-20). Therefore, the Chl-Amp granofels J67A
represents the more hydrated product from the primary igneous rock, with its matrix
exhibiting the lowest metamorphic grade conditions of greenschist facies in the
studied sample set, because it records P–T conditions of 250 – 320 °C and 1.2 – 2.0
kbar, according to the following approach.
 169

Figura 5-20: A) tetragonal (SiO2-CaO-MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral assemblage of chlorite-

olivine-amphibole granofels with talc (J67B); and, B) mineral assemblage topology of chlorite-amphibole
granofels (dashed line) and chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels. The cross is the bulk rock composition.

The chlorite from the olivine free zone has lower Al and higher Si contents (XAl:
1.9 and Si: 2.9 apfu), being stable with Mg-hornblende. In contrast, the chlorite
present in the olivine-rich bands is more aluminous and less siliceous (XAl: 2.15 and
Si: 2.85 apfu), being stable with tremolite. Using the chemical formula and stable
mineral assemblage, it is possible to visualize the mineral changes by the
unbalanced reaction R6:

- R6, Chl (XAl:1.9) + Mg-Hbl + Tlc ⇄ Chl (Xal:2.1) + Ol + Tr + SiO2

This reaction points to the olivine onset together with Al balance in chlorite and
amphibole through tschermakitic reactions. The main effect of these modifications
along prograde metamorphism is chlorite becoming more aluminous with its modal
volume decreasing while olivine increases.
The absence of anthophyllite and enstatite limits the temperature conditions
for olivine up to 600 – 800 °C and pressures between 1 and 4 kbar (Evans 1977).
Experimental studies show that pure tremolite destabilizes 50 °C lower than the
thermal limit of chlinoclore, and the total chlinoclore consumption occurs 150 °C
lower than the total tremolite consumption (Bucher and Grapes 2011). Evans and
Frost (1975) consider that Ol + Tlc + Tr assemblage is typical of amphibolite facies
conditions from serpentinite-derived metamorphosed rocks.
 170

The stable mineral modelling using the bulk composition of sample J67B
shows that the Chl – Ol – Amp – Tlc – Mag – H2O assemblage is stable within a
range of temperatures between 560 – 630 °C and pressures of 1.0 – 5.0 kbars
(Figure 5-21A). Isopleths modelling XFo values in olivine along this field constrain the
stability field of sample J67B between 580 – 620 °C and 1.0 – 3.0 kbars. This range
is also in good agreement with the XAl content in chlorite. The isobaric P-T path
diagram for sample J67B bulk composition at 2.0 kbar shows that chlorite breaks
down around 660 °C, while the volumes of enstatite, olivine and spinel increase
considerably (Figure 5-21B).

Figura 5-21: A) Mineral stability diagram for the composition of sample J67B (Chl-Ol-Amp granofels); B)
Mineral temperature path for the composition of sample J67B at 2 kbar.

5.6.7.2.3 Olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels with spinel (J71, J79, J81)

The main textural features of these rocks are very coarse-grained enstatite
granoblasts over a (talc)-chlorite-amphibole-rich matrix, which also encompasses
olivine granoblasts and green spinel. Along the prograde metamorphism, Al in
chlorite reaches its maximum value around 2.0 to 2.4 apfu (XAl: 1.2), which
characterizes the break down point, according to the univariant reaction (Jenkins and
Chernosky 1986) below:

- R7, Mg-Chl ⇄ Fo + En + Spl + H2O

 171

Figura 5-22: A) Tetragonal (SiO2-CaO-MgO-Al2O3) representation of mineral assemblage of ol-amp-opx

granofelses and mineral stable topologies. B and C) mineral bulk assemblage topology of Olivine-
amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels with spinel. The shaded area is the bulk rock composition area.

Chlorite from olivine-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofelses satisfies that

reaction (see item 5.6.2.5). Moreover, Al increments in these granofelses occur both
in chlorite and amphibole, except for the granofels free of orthopyroxene (J67A). The
proportion of this incorporation is mainly of tschermakitic exchange, releasing Si and
Mg in the system, which subsidize the orthopyroxene overgrowth, solely by its Si/Mg
ratio (1:1) or at the expense of olivine. Additionally, orthopyroxene overgrowth
incorporates some Al released by the system. The studied olivine-enstatite
granofelses present a maximum content of Al incorporation of 3 wt% (0.08-0.12
apfu), with higher values exsolved as spinel lamellae (Figure 5-7B and 5-7C). Studies
on Al solubility in orthopyroxene show that the increase of Al content and its solubility
in orthopyroxene structure are temperature dependent (e.g., Anastasious and Seifert
1972, Obata 1976). Decrease in temperature by pressure influence causes lamellae
exsolution.
Talc, together with Mg-hornblende and chlorite in matrix, occurs in few
samples (e.g., J71). The presence of talc suggests a highly hydrated precursor rock
after the hydration of a peridotite protolith but before the onset of dehydration
processes governed by the Fo/En ratio. According to the low talc content, the bulk
rock composition of sample J71 lies close to the Chl-Amp Tie Line. The NiO content
of olivine (Fo85) in a talc-bearing rock is around 0.6 wt%, while it is 0.3 wt% in talc.
This relatively higher NiO content in olivine points to a bulk-rock composition
 172

relatively rich in Ni. Talc in a system coexisting with olivine is limited by the reaction
R8.

- R8, Ol + Opx + Amp +Tlc + Chl ⇄ Ol + Opx + Amp + Chl

The general absence of anthophyllite and enstatite implies in temperatures not

higher than 600 – 800°C, at which olivine and talc react to form anthophyllite at
pressures from 1 to 4 kbar. Indeed, the lack of clinopyroxene in association with
olivine and orthopyroxene limits the temperature to around 800°C, which
corresponds to its synthesis in the pure MSH system.

5.6.7.2.4 Olivine-clinopyroxene-amphibole-orthopyroxene granofels with spinel

(J107)

The ultramafic granofels J107 shows a chlorite-free composition given by Opx

+ Cpx + Spl ± Ol, forming equigranular mosaic-like aggregates. Two-pyroxene
metaultramafic rocks are typical of granulite facies, with the diagnostic assemblage of
Ol + Opx + Cpx + Spl + Mg-Amp (Evans and Frost 1975, Evans 1977).
Clinopyroxene appears in the CMSH system at about 800 °C, according to the
reaction R9 (below) under temperatures from 400 °C to 800 °C (Evans and
Trommsdorf 1974):

- R9, Tr + Fo ⇄ En + Di + H2O

5.6.7.3 Progressive Mineral proxies

5.6.7.3.1 Olivine composition variability

The olivine from Ol serpentinites J109 is highly magnesian (Fo96.5), different

from olivine compositions observed in layered complex, orogenic massifs, komatiitic
lava flows and residual mantle-derived metaultramafites (e.g. Simkin and Smith
1970, Plechov et al. 2018). This high forsterite presents a Fe-Mg coefficient
distribution between olivine and liquid (KD: 0.18) not expected for igneous systems
 173

(KD: 0.30; Roeder and Emslie 1970).The abundant magnetite grains within this poor-
iron olivine suggests an earlier oxidation processes, under high f(O2) conditions, that
captured iron and crystallized magnetite before the onset of olivine.
The olivine from chl-ol-amp granofels (J67B), ol-amp-opx granofelses (J71,
J79, J81) and from ol-cpx-amp-opx granofelses (J107) present iron-rich forsterite,
ranging from Fo83 to Fo87. Low contents of nickel are expected for olivine
granoblasts. However, these metaultramafites present normal to high values of NiO
(0.35-0.67 wt%), which can be explained by Ni-bearing minerals in the early hydrous
assemblage, as serpentine. Similarly, the high Mn content for these metamorphic
olivines reflects the bulk Mn content.

5.6.7.3.2 Chlorite stability and break down

The compositional variation of chlorites from the metaultramafites of the

Guanhães block is an efficient indicative of its metamorphic grade, allowing insights
about chlorite behavior and stable assemblages.The composition of chlorite in Al
saturated metaultramafites is very sensitive to tschermakitic reactions, that are
intensified with metamorphic increment until its Al saturation and break down to
spinel (Fawcet and Yoder 1966, Evans and Frost 1975).
The modifications in the chlorite compositional sequence allow determining the
points of Al saturation and its break down to spinel bearing rocks. The evolution of XAl
in chlorite from the lowest grade rocks until its completely absence in the ol-cpx-amp-
opx granofelses of granulite conditions follows (Figure 5-23A): Ol serpentinite (XAl:
2.1; AlIV: 1.2; AlVI:0.93); Chl-amp granofelses (XAl: 1.9; AlIV: 1.0; AlVI:0.92); Chl-ol-
amp±opx granofels (XAl: 2.14; AlIV: 1.13; AlVI:1.0); ol-amp-opx granofels (XAl: 2.4; AlIV:
1.2; AlVI:1.2). The XAl of 2.4 is consistent with experimental work of Al saturation
according Jenkins and Chernosky (1986).
The olivine onset in Chl-Amp granofelses (J67A) was accompanied by Al
enrichment in chlorites, from XAl: 1.9 to XAl: 2.14 (Figure 5-23A), with reverse
tschermakitic exchange in amphibole (Mg-hornblende to tremolite), unexpected from
prograde metamorphic succession. Moreover, this exchange releases Mg and Si into
the system, reacting with olivine to form Al free enstatite (En81; Al2O3: 0.01 wt%).
 174

5.6.7.3.3 Amphibole

The chemical modifications of amphibole show dependence on metamorphic

grade and mineral assemblage. Despite the most amphibole compositions are Mg-
hornblende (item 5.6.2.3), its chemical nuances play an important role in the
metamorphism.
The main highlight on its chemical changes and element relationships is the
overall tschermakitic exchange guidance for its compositions. The direct chemical
modifications on amphibole from the Guanhães block are related to the systematic
enrichment in Al (and Ti) according with the metamorphic grade. The inverse is true
for SiO2 and MgO, with dramatic loss. The increasing in AlIV is highly linear with the
increment of AlVI. This is systematic trough the metaultramafite varieties and
increases with metamorphic grade until its maximum AlVI solubility about 0.75 apfu
(XAl of 14 wt%; Figure 5-23C). This persists just before its break down and the onset
of diopside in the granulite variety (J107), disclosing the thermal stability for
amphiboles in rocks of such bulk rock composition.

Figura 5-23: A) Binary diagram of Mg (apfu) vs Al (apfu) of chlorites showing it maximum Al solubility
and break down; B) Binary diagram of Al2O3 (wt, %) vs Enstatite molecule (%) of orthopyroxenes
showing it maximum Al solubility and consequence spinel exsolution; C) Diagram of AlIV (apfu) vs AlVI
(apfu) of amphiboles showing its maximum Al saturation and break down; and, D) Spinel group mineral
chemical modifications path according with metamorphic grade increment.
 175

5.6.7.3.4 Al role in orthopyroxene

As showed in the item 5.5.2.1, the chemical variation in orthopyroxene is

related to the mineral assemblage and metamorphic grade. In the ol-amp-opx
granofelses, the Al2O3 modifications are dramatic. The Al2O3 content of opx
increases towards the rims, according with the metamorphic grade, as a reflex of
alumina solubility in the Mg-amphibole and chlorite precursors. The solubility at
higher metamorphic conditions, before the onset of diopside, reaches its maximum of
3.0 wt % of Al2O3 (0.11 Al, apfu) (Figure 5-23B). The alumina in excess goes to spl,
as seen by the exsolved spinel lamellas around Al-saturated opx probably at
temperature conditions lower than 750°C and 6 kbar. When diopside enters in the
system (750°C and 6 kbar), a chemical re-equilibration is triggered, lowering the Al
content of orthopyroxene.

5.6.7.3.5 Progressive changes in spinel group minerals

The samples of the Guanhães block present a wide compositional range and
genesis related to spinel group minerals, which are effective proxy for metamorphism
(Figure 5-24). According with textural features observed for spinel group minerals
(item 5.6.2.4), at least six secondary generation occur: i) Cr-magnetite included in
olivine, prior the dehydration; (J109); ii) Spinel s.s. after magnetite in Ol serpentinite
(J109); iii) Hercynite pseudomorphs after magnetite in ol-amp-opx rich granofelses;
iv) Hercynite blastesis in ol-amp-opx rocks; v) Spinel recrystallization into silicate
phases (J107); vi) Recrystallization of magnetite by retrogression.
The occurrence (i) is associated with the earlier event of hydration, probably
related to the primary olivine break down. In this case, the iron excess released into
the system, under oxidizing conditions, provided magnetite crystallization (Al 2O3: 0.2-
0.4 wt%; Cr2O3: 5.0-6.0 wt%; MgO: 4-6 wt%). The generations (ii) and (iii) are
associated with the progressive pseudomorphic change of magnetite into spinel s.s.
(Al2O3: 58-64 wt%; Cr2O3: 6.0-8.0 wt%; MgO: 23.0-25.5 wt%) and hercynite, which
are typical of amphibolite facies conditions (Evans and Frost 1975). The (iv) case is
subdivided in another three modes: iv-a) hercynite blasts (Al2O3: 54-61 wt%; Cr2O3:
3.5-5.0 wt%; MgO: 15-16 wt%) after reaction of chlorite breakdown (Mg-Chl -> spl +
 176

mag), leaving small magnetite inclusions as iron excess; iv-b) pseudomorphic

changes of magnetite (Al2O3: 4.5 wt%; Cr2O3: 17.5 wt%; MgO: 2.2 wt%) into spinel,
with relative high Cr and lower Al (Al2O3: 35 wt%; Cr2O3: 22.5 wt%; MgO: 11 wt%);
(iv-c) hercynite blasts as lamellas after Al-saturation of orthopyroxene (item 5.6.1).
The (v) mode is related to pseudomorphic changes (Al2O3: 51-52 wt%; Cr2O3: 11-13
wt%; MgO: 12.5 wt%) due the absorption of spinel molecule into silicates from the
granulite metaultramafite (J107). The (vi) spinel composition is related to
recrystallization of iron released in the system by late processes of retrogression, as
the opaque trail along fractures of olivine.

Figura 5-24: A) Magnetite inclusion within high forsterite olivine (olivine sepentinite; J109); B)
pseudomorphic substitution of spinel on magnetite (olivine sepentinite; J109); C) hercynite with magnetite
inclusions (iron excess) generated after chlorite break down (ol-amp-opx granofels; J79); D)
pseudomorphic substitution of hercynite on magnetite (ol-amp-opx granofels; J79); E) blasts of hercynite
(ol-amp-opx granofels; J81); F) dissolution of hercynite (spinel componet) in ol-cpx-amp-opx granofels
(J107).

5.7 Discussion

The Guanhães basement block is almost completely surrounded by the

Statherian–Mesoproterozoic Espinhaço basin system, to the west, and the
Neoproterozoic Macaúbas basin system, to the east and north (Figure 5-1), but
remnants of both volcano-sedimentary systems locally occur within the block
(Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2011, Chemale et al. 2012, Peixoto et al. 2015, Rolim et al.
2016, Magalhães et al. 2018). The Statherian maximum depositional age revealed by
the Iron-rich siliceous rock (sample J82) in Candonga region is similar to those from
 177

the lower Espinhço basin (e.g., Chemale et al. 2012, Silveira-Braga et al. 2015,
Rolim et al. 2016).
The Espinhaço and Macaúbas basin systems record a series of rift-related
anorogenic igneous events preceding the Araçuaí orogen development (Pedrosa-
Soares and Alkmim 2011). The last one is the Cryogenian anorogenic event that
generated the South Bahia Alkaline Province (c. 725 – 670 Ma; Teixeira et al. 1997,
Rosa et al. 2007; Figure 5-25). Records of this Cryogenian rift-related event are also
found in the age dataset of detrital zircon grains from the Macaúbas Group and
correlative units in the vicinity of the Guanhães block (Kuchenbecker et al. 2015,
Peixoto et al. 2015, Degler et al. 2017). In the West Congo belt (Figure 5-25), the
African counterpart of the Araçuaí orogen, the Cryogenian anorogenic event is well-
documented by U-Pb ages from mafic volcanic rocks intercalated with the Lower
Diamictite Formation (694 ± 4 Ma metabasalt; Straathof 2011) at Bas Congo region,
and La Louilla Formation (c. 713 Ma rhyolitic tuff; Thiéblemont et al. 2009) in South
Gabon. This Cryogenian continental rift event evolved to spreading of oceanic
lithosphere around 660 Ma, according to zircon U-Pb (LA-ICPMS) ages from
plagiogranites of the Ribeirão da Folha ophiolite complex (Queiroga et al. 2007,
Queiroga 2010).
In this scenario, the ages around 650 Ma (Figure 5-17A and B) obtained from
igneous zircon crystals of crustal-contaminated metamafic-ultramafic rocks (samples
J67 and J72), can be correlated with this Cryogenian anorogenic event, pointing to
an extensional setting within the Guanhães block (Figure 5-25 and 5-26) associated
with a stretched crust, driven by mantle uprising, and related to the spreading of the
precursor basin of the Araçuaí – West Congo orogenic system.
Moreover, the studied metaultramafic rocks show solid evidence of
progressive metamorphism, with termobarometric gradients increasing to the east,
forming isotropic granofelses after hydrated metaultramafic rocks (section 5.6.7;
Figure 5-27). Actually, as described in section “Geological setting”, contrasting
metamorphic regimes within the Guanhães block were previously envisaged by some
authors, mostly based on field and petrographic studies (Borges et al. 1979, Dallwing
et al. 1983, Lauenstein and Müller 1986, Grossi-sad et al. 1990).
The Iron-rich siliceous rock (sample J82) reveals U-Pb metamorphic ages
(605 to 509 Ma) that can be related to the final tectonic inversion of the precursor
basin and the collisional and post-collisional stages of the Araçuaí orogeny (Pedrosa-
 178

Soares et al. 2008, 2011). According to Pedrosa-Soares et al. (2011) and Gonçalves
et al. (2014), the consumption of the oceanic lithosphere and closure of the
Macaúbas basin occurred between c. 630 Ma (first pre-collisional granite of the Rio
Doce magmatic arc) and 590 Ma (first syn-collisonal granite). The final tectonic
inversion of the basin and the propagation of the Araçuaí orogenic front are
constrained by the collisional stage (c. 585 and c. 544 Ma; Gradim et al. 2014,
Peixoto et al. 2015). Thus, the progressive metamorphism registered by the
metaultramafites may reflect mineral re-equilibrations triggered by this regional event.
In addition, the concordia age of 525 ± 2 Ma also obtained from sample J82 is related
to the post-collisional stage during a phase of orogenic collapse (Pedrosa-Soares et
al. 2011), which may be related to the late low grade hydrated assemblages in the
studied rocks.
 179

Figura 5-25: Geotectonic correlation map of the Araçuaí – West Congo orogenic system (modified from
Alkmim et al. 2006), highlighting the main occurrence areas of Early Cryogenian anorogenic rocks
(SBAP, South Bahia Alkaline Province, c. 725 – 670 Ma; and volcanic rocks of the LD, Lower Diamictite
Formation, c. 694 Ma, and LL, La Louilla Formation, c. 713 Ma), now including the studied Guanhães
metaultramafic rocks (GU, c. 715 Ma).
 180

Figura 5-26: Schematic geodynamic overview for the ultramafic magmatism related to the Guanhães
block.
 181

Figura 5-27: Petrogenetic evolution of metaultramafic rocks in the Guanhães block.

 182

5.8 Conclusions

Despite the poor quality of rock exposures owing to weathering alteration and soil
cover, this study, based on solid analytical data from several robust methods applied
on samples of well-preserved fresh rocks, is the first to unravel original relevant
features from the metaultramafic rocks of the Guanhães block, as summarized
below:
- The much probable igneous protoliths of the studied metaultramafic rocks are
crustal-contaminated, hybrid ultramafic magmas and related cumulates, non-
depleted in Al, with probable primary enrichment in Mg, related to a rift-
extensional setting associated with a stretched crust, driven by mantle
uprising.
- The crystallization age of the ultramafic protolith is around 650 Ma.
- The ultramafic igneous episode recorded in the Guanhães block can be
correlated to the Late Cryogenian anorogenic event found elsewhere in the
Araçuaí – West Congo orogenic system and related cratonic regions.
- The sequential mineral assemblage from greenschist to granulite facies,
together with largely prevailing non-deformed fabrics are evidence of a
progressive metamorphism, forming the ultramafic granofelses found in the
central Guanhães block.
- Metamorphic ages from 605 to 509 Ma, obtained from the Iron-rich siliceous
rock, reveal that the metamorphism took place during the propagation of the
Araçuaí orogenic front and the orogenic collapse.
- A detailed analysis of mineral assemblages together with classical and
pseudosection geothermometric quantitative estimations indicate medium to
high temperature conditions and low to moderate pressure for the regional
metamorphism.
- Remnants of Espinhaço and Macaúbas basin systems locally occur within the
Guanhães block.

5.9 Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the research financial support provided by the

Brazilian research and development agencies CNPq and CODEMIG. Joana
 183

Magalhães is grateful to the Brazilian Geological Survey (CPRM) and to the Science
without Borders Program (CNPq) for supporting her studies and analysis at
Lausanne University, Switzerland. Special thanks are given to Alexey Ulyanov and
Ana Alkmim for the assistance in the acquisition and reduction of trace elements and
U-Pb zircon data, to Katharina Marger for the assistance with δ18O data acquisition,
and to Marco Paulo de Castro for the assistance with mineral chemistry analyses.

5.10 References

Alkmim, F.F., Marshak, S., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Peres, G.G., Cruz, S.C.P., Whittington, A.,
2006. Kinematic evolution of the Aracuaí–West Congo orogen in Brazil and Africa:
nutcracker tectonics during the Neoproterozoic assembly of Gondwana. Precambrian
Research, 149, 43–64.
Alkmim, F.F., Kuchenbecker, M., Reis, H.L.S., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., 2017. The Araçuaí
Belt. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (Eds.). São Francisco Craton, Eastern
Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent, Brazil, Springs, pp. 255-276.
Almeida-Abreu, P. A., 1993. A evolução geodinâmica da Serra do Espinhaço Meridional,
Minas Gerais, Brasil.
Anastasiou, P. and Seifert, F., 1972. Solid solubility of Al 2 O 3 in enstatite at high
temperatures and 1–5 kb water pressure. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology,
34(4), 272-287.
Armstrong, J.T., 1995. CITZAF - a package of correction programs for the quantitative
electron microbeam X-ray analysis of thick polished materials, thin-films and particles.
Microbeam Analysis, 4(3), 177–200.
Arndt, N., Lesher, M., & Barnes, S., 2008. Komatiite. Cambridge university press. 487 p.
Bailey, S. W., 1980. Structures of layer silicates: in Crystal Structures of Clay Minerals and
Their X-ray Identification, G. W. Brindley and G. Brown, eds., Mineralogical Society,
London, 1-123.
Barrote, V. R., 2016. A sequência portadora de formações ferríferas de Guanhães, Minas
Gerais, Brasil. Master dissertation, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo
Horizonte. 134 p.
Barrote, V. R., Rosiere, C. A., Rolim, V. K., Santos, J. O. S., Mcnaughton, N. J., 2017. As
formações ferríferas bandadas proterozoicas de Guanhães, borda sudeste do Cráton
São Francisco, Brasil: evidências de contaminação detrítica. Geologia USP. Série
Científica, 17(2), 303-324.
Berman, R. G., 1988. Internally-consistent thermodynamic data for minerals in the system
Na2O-K2O-CaO-MgO-FeO-Fe2O3-Al2O3-SiO2-TiO2-H2O-CO2. Journal of petrology,
29(2), 445-522.
Bertrand, P. and Mercier, J. C., 1985/86, The mutual solubility of coexisting ortho- and
clinopyroxene: toward an absolute geothermometer for natural system? Earth & Planet.
Sci. Lett., v. 76 (l/2), 109-122.
Bindeman, I. 2008. Oxygen isotopes in mantle and crustal magmas as revealed by single
crystal analysis. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 69(1), 445-478.
 184

Borges, N. R. A., Viveiros, J. F. M., & Guimarães, I. G., 1979. Contribuição à geologia da
região de Guanhães–. Simpósio de Geologia de Minas Gerais, 1, 101-123.
Brey, G. P. and Kohler, T., 1990, Geothermobarometry in four-phase lherzolites II: New
thermobarometers, and practical assessment of existing thermobarometers: Journal of
Petrology, 31, 1353–1378.
Bucher, K. and Grapes, R., 2011. Metamorphism of Ultramafic Rocks. In Petrogenesis of
Metamorphic Rocks. 191-224, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cann, J. R., 1970. New model for the structure of the ocean crust. Nature, 226, 928-930.
Carvalho, R. P., Rosière, C. A., Rolim, V. K., de Carvalho Lana, C., Santos, J. O. S., 2014. A
sequência orosiriana-estateriana e geometria transpressiva na região de Santa Maria de
Itabira, Minas Gerais. Geologia USP. Série Científica, 14(2), 111-120.
Cawthorn, R. G., 1996. Layered intrusions (Vol. 15). Elsevier.
Charlier, B., Namur, O., Latypov, R., & Tegner, C., 2015. Layered intrusions. Springer.
Chemale Jr, F., Dussin, I. A., Alkmim, F. F., Martins, M. S., Queiroga, G., Armstrong, R.,
Santos, M. N., 2012a. Unravelling a Proterozoic basin history through detrital zircon
geochronology: the case of the Espinhaço Supergroup, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Gondwana
Research, 22(1), 200-206.
Ciesielczuk, J. M., 2012. Chlorite of hydrothermal origin formed in the Strzelin and Borów
granites (Fore-Sudetic Block, Poland). Geological Quarterly, 56(2), 333-344.
Coats, C. J. A., and Buchan, R., 1979. Petrology of serpentinized metamorphic olivine, Bird
River sill, Manitoba. The Canadian Mineralogist, 17(4), 847-855.
D’Agrella-Filho, M.S. and Cordani, U.G., 2017. The Paleomagnetic Record of the São
Francisco-Congo Craton. In: Heilbron, M., Cordani, U.G, Alkmim, F.F. (eds), São
Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil. Regional Geology Reviews, Springer.
Dallwing, R., Hoppe, A., Klein, H., 1983. Ocorrências de granada-anfibolito e hornblenda-
websterito na Região de Guanhães, Leste de Minas Gerais. Anais, 2o Simpósio de
Geologia de Minas Gerais, Soc. Bras. Geologia, Núcleo MG, Belo Horizonte, p. 115-
127.
Dandefer, A. F. and Meireles, H. P., 1987. Mapeamento geológico da Região do Alto Rio
Guanhães (MG). Trabalho de Graduação. Univiversidade Fededral de Minas Gerais.
Centro de Geologia Eschwege. Diamantina. 94 p.
de Capitani, C. and Brown, T. H., 1987. The computation of chemical equilibrium in complex
systems containing non-ideal solutions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 51(10),
2639-2652.
de Capitani, C. and Petrakakis, K., 2010. The computation of equilibrium assemblage
diagrams with Theriak/Domino software. American Mineralogist, 95(7), 1006-1016.
Deer, W.A., Howei, R.A., Zussman, J., 1992. The Rock Forming Minerals, second ed.
Longmans, London 696 p.
Degler, R., Pedrosa-Soares, A., Novo, T., Tedeschi, M., Silva, L. C., Dussin, I., Lana, C.,
2018. Rhyacian-Orosirian isotopic records from the basement of the Araçuaí-Ribeira
orogenic system (SE Brazil): Links in the Congo-São Francisco palaeocontinent.
Precambrian Research, 317, 179-195.
Dungan, M. A., 1974. The origin, emplacement and metamorphism of the Sultan Mafic-
Ultramafic Complex, Northern Casades, Snohomish County, Washington, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Wahington.
 185

Dussin, T. M., 1994. Associacions vulcano- plutoniques de l'Espinhaço Meridional (SE -

Brésil). (PhD Thesis), L'Université D'Orléans, France. 177 p.
Dymek, R. F. and Klein, C., 1988. Chemistry, petrology and origin of banded iron-formation
lithologies from the 3800 Ma Isua supracrustal belt, West Greenland. Precambrian
Research, 39(4), 247-302.
Evans, B. W. 1977. Metamorphism of alpine peridotite and serpentinite. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences, 5(1), 397-447.
Evans, B. W., 2008. Control of the products of serpentinization by the Fe2+ Mg− 1 exchange
potential of olivine and orthopyroxene. Journal of Petrology, 49(10), 1873-1887.
Evans, B. W., Johannes, W., Oterdoom, H., Trommsdorff, V., 1976. Stability of chrysotile and
antigorite in the serpentinite multisystem. Schweizerische und Mineralogische
Petrographische Mitteilungen, 56, 79–93.
Evans, B. W. and Frost, B. R., 1975. Chrome-spinel in progressive metamorphism - A
preliminar analysis. Geochim.Cosmochim. Acta, 39, 959-972.
Evans, D. A. D., Trindade, R. I. F., Catelani, E. L., D'Agrella-Filho, M. S., Heaman, L. M.,
Oliveira, E. P., Salminen, J. M., 2015. Return to Rodinia? Moderate to high
palaeolatitude of the São Francisco/Congo craton at 920 Ma. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 424, SP424-1.
Evans, B. W. and Trommsdorff, V., 1974. Stability of enstatite+ talc, and CO2-metasomatism
of metaperidotite, Val d'Efra, Lepontine Alps. American Journal of Science, 274(3), 274-
296.
Fabries, J., 1979. Spinel-olivine geothermometry in peridotites from ultramafic complexes.
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 69, 329-336.
Fernandes, M. L. S., 2001. O Granito Borrachudos na região entre Guanhães e Dores de
Guanhães, MG (Plutonito Morro do Urubu): gênese e evolução. Tese de Doutorado.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 187 p.
Frimmel, H. E., Tack, L., Basei, M. S., Nutman, A. P., Boven, A., 2006. Provenance and
chemostratigraphy of the Neoproterozoic West Congolian Group in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 46(3), 221-239.
Frost, B. R., 1975. Contact metamorphism of serpentinite, chloritic blackwall and rodingite at
Paddy - Go- Easy Pass, Central Cascades, Washington. Journal of Petrology, 16(2),
272-313.
Frost, B. R. and Frost, C. D., 2013. Essentials of igneous and metamorphic petrology.
Cambridge University Press.
Goldsmith, R., 1959. Granofels, a new metamorphic rock name. The Journal of Geology,
67(1), 109-110.
Gonçalves, L., Farina, F., Lana, C., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Alkmim, F., Nalini, H.A., 2014.
New U–Pb ages and lithochemical attributes of the Ediacaran Rio Doce magmaticarc,
Araçuaí confined orogen, southeastern Brazil. Journal of South American Earth
Sciences, 52, 129–148.
Govindaraju, K., 1994. Compilation of working values and sample description for 383
geostandards. Geostandards newsletter, 18, 1-158.
Gradim, C., Roncato, J., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Cordani, U.G., Dussin, I.A., Alkmim, F.F.,
Queiroga, G., Jacobsohn, T., Silva, L.C., Babinski, M., 2014. The hot back-arc zoneof
the Arac¸ uaí orogen, Eastern Brazil: from sedimentation to granite generation.Brazilian
Jornal of Geology, 44 (1), 155–180.
 186

Grimes, C. B., John, B. E., Kelemen, P. B., Mazdab, F. K., Wooden, J. L., Cheadle, M. J.,
Hanghøj, K., Schwartz, J. J., 2007. Trace element chemistry of zircons from oceanic
crust: A method for distinguishing detrital zircon provenance. Geology, 35(7), 643-646.
Grossi-Sad, J. H., 1997. Geologia da Folha Guanhães. In: Grossi-Sad, J. H.; Lobato, L. M.;
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Soares-Filho, B. S. (Eds.). Projeto Espinhaço em Cd-Rom
(textos, mapas e anexos). Belo Horizonte, COMIG – Companhia Mineradora de Minas
Gerais. p. 2317-2435.
Grossi-Sad, J. H., Chiodi Filho, C., Santos, J. F., Magalhães, J. M. M., Carelos, P. M., 1990.
Duas suites graníticas do bordo sudeste do Craton São Francisco, em Minas Gerais:
Petroquímica e Potencial Metalogenético. Anais, 36o Congresso Brasileiro Geologia,
Vol. 4, Natal, p. 1836-1841.
Gruau, G., Bernard-Griffiths, J., Lécuyer, C., 1998. The origin of U-shaped rare earth
patterns in ophiolite peridotites: assessing the role of secondary alteration, melt/rock
reaction. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62(21), 3545-3560.
Haggerty, S. E., 1991, Oxide mineralogy of the upper mantle, in Lindsley, D.H., ed., Oxide
minerals: Petrologic and magnetic significance: Mineralogical Society of America
Reviews in Mineralogy, v. 25, p. 355–416.
Hastie, A. R., Kerr, A. C., Pearce, J. A., & Mitchell, S. F., 2007. Classification of altered
volcanic island arc rocks using immobile trace elements: development of the Th–Co
discrimination diagram. Journal of petrology, 48(12), 2341-2357.
Hammarstrom, J. M. and Zen, E-an., 1986, Aluminium in hornblende: an empirical igneous
geobarometer. American Mineralogist, 71(11/12), 1297-1313.
Hawthorne, F. C., Oberti, R., Harlow, G. E., Maresch, W. V., Martin, R. F., Schumacher, J.
C., Welch, M. D., 2012. Nomenclature of the amphibole supergroup. American
Mineralogist, 97(11-12), 2031-2048.
Herzberg, C. T. and Chapman, N. A., 1976. Clinopyroxene geothermometry of spinel-
iherzolites. Am. Mineral, 61(7/8).
Hill, I. G., Worden, R. H. & Meighan, I. G., 2000. Yttrium: The immobility^mobility transition
during basaltic weathering. Geology, 28, 923-926.
Hollister, L. S., Grissom, G. C., Peters, E. K., Stowel,l H. H., Sisson, V. B., 1987.
Confirmation of the empirical correlation of Al in hornblende with pressure of
solidification of calc-alkaline plutons. American Mineralogist, 72(3-4), 231-239.
Jackson, S. E., 2008. LAMTRACE data reduction software for LA-ICP-MS. Mineralogical
Association of Canada Short Course Series, 40, 305-307.
Jackson, S. E., Pearson, N. J., Griffin, W. L., Belousova, E. A., 2004. The application of laser
ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon
geochronology. Chemical Geology, 211(1-2), 47-69.
Jenkins, D. M. and Chernosky, J. V., 1986. Phase equilibria and crystallochemical properties
of Mg-chlorites. American Mineralogist, 71, 924–936.
Jochum, K. P., Weis, U., Stoll, B., Kuzmin, D., Yang, Q., Raczek, I., Günther, D., 2011.
Determination of reference values for NIST SRM 610–617 glasses following ISO
guidelines. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 35(4), 397-429.
Kuchenbecker, M., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Babinski, M., Fanning, M., 2015. Detrital zircon
age patterns and provenance assessment for pre-glacial to post-glacial successions of
the Neoproterozoic Macaúbas Group, Araçuaiorogen, Brazil. PrecambrianResearch,
266, 12-26.
 187

Kunugiza, K., 1982. Formation of zoning of olivine with progressive metamorphism of

serpentinite-an example from the Ryumon peridotite body of the Sanbagawa
metamorphic belt, Kii peninsula. The Journal of the Japanese Association of
Mineralogists, Petrologists and Economic Geologists, 77(5), 157-170.
Lana, C., Farina, F., Gerdes, A., Alkmim, A., Gonçalves, G. O., Jardim, A. C., 2017.
Characterization of zircon reference materials via high precision U–Pb LA-MC-ICP-MS.
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 32(10), 2011-2023.
Leake, B. E., Woolley, A. R., Arps, C. E., Birch, W. D., Gilbert, M. C., Grice, J. D., Linthout,
K., 1997. Report. Nomenclature of amphiboles: report of the subcommittee on
amphiboles of the international mineralogical association commission on new minerals
and mineral names. Mineralogical Magazine, 61(2), 295-321.
Li, X. H., Long, W. G., Li, Q. L., Liu, Y., Zheng, Y. F., Yang, Y. H., Tao, H., 2010. Penglai
zircon megacrysts: a potential new working reference material for microbeam
determination of Hf–O isotopes and U–Pb age. Geostandards and Geoanalytical
Research, 34(2), 117-134.
Ludwig, K. R., 2003. User’s manual for Isoplot/EX, version 3.00. A geochronological toolkit
for Microsoft Excel, 4, 71.
Machado, N., Schrank, A., Abreu, F.R., Knauer, L.G, Almeida-Abreu, P.A., 1989. Resultados
preliminares da geocronologia U-Pb na Serra do Espinhaço Meridional. In: SBG,
Simpósio de Geologia de Minas Gerais, 5, pp. 171-174.
Magalhães, J. R., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Dussin, I., Muntener, O., Silva, L. C., Pinheiro, M.
A. P., Knauer, L. G., Bouvier, A. S., Baumgartner, L., 2018. First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace
elements in zircon signatures from the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province
(Eastern Brazil): Geotectonic implications. Brazilian Journal of Geology. 48(4), 735-759.
McDonough, W.F. and Sun, S.S., 1995. The composition of the Earth. Chemical geology,
120(3-4), 223-253.
Müller, G., Lauenstein, H. J., Hoefs, J., 1986. Petrological and chemical data on a high-
metamorphic-Archean BIF-bearing rock sequence near Guanhaes,-Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, 500, 79.
Noce, C.M., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Silva, L.C., Alkmim, F.F., 2007. O embasamento
arqueano e paleoproterozóico do Orógeno Araçuaí. Genomos, 15(1), 17-23.
Obata, M., 1976. The solubility of Al2O3 in orthopyroxenes in spinel and plagioclase
peridotites and spinel pyroxenite.American Mineralogist, 61(7-8), 804-816.
O'Driscoll, B. and VanTongeren, J. A., 2017. Layered intrusions: From petrological
paradigms to precious metal repositories. Elements: An International Magazine of
Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and Petrology, 13(6), 383-389.
Papunen, H. and Idman, H., 1982. Ultramafic rocks and related ore minerals of Lapland,
northern Finland. In: Ore Genesis, 374-386. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Peixoto, E., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Alkmim, F. F., Dussin, I.A., 2015. A suture-related
accretionary wedge formed in the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen (SE Brazil) during
Western Gondwanaland assembly. Gondwana Research, 27, 878-896.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C. and Alkmim, F. F., 2011. How many rifting events preceded the
development of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogen? Revista Geonomos, 19(2), 244-251.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Alkmim, F. F., Tack, L., Noce, C. M., Babinski, M., Silva, L. C.,
Martins Neto, M., 2008. Similarities and differences between the Brazilian and African
counterparts of the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí - West Congo orogen.. Geological Society
Special Publication, 294, 153-172.
 188

Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Dardenne, M. A., Hasui, Y., Castro, F. D. C., Carvalho, M. V. A.,
Reis, A. C., 1994. Mapa Geológico do estado de Minas Gerais e Nota Explicativa.
Secretaria de Recursos Minerais, Hídricos e Energéticos, Companhia Mineradora de
Minas Gerais (COMIG), mapas e texto.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., De Campos, C. P., Noce, C., Silva, L. C., Novo, T., Roncato, J.,
Dussin, I., 2011. Late Neoproterozoic-Cambrian granitic magmatism in the Araçuaí
orogen (Brazil), the Eastern Brazilian Pegmatite Province and related mineral resources.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 350(1), 25-51.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Noce, C. M, Wiedemann, C., Pinto, C. P., 2001. The Araçuaí-West-
Congo Orogen in Brazil: An overview of a confined orogen formed during Gondwanaland
assembly. Precambrian Research, 110 (1-4), 307-323.
Peixoto, E. N., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Alkmim, F.F., Dussin, I.A., 2015. A suture-
relatedaccretionary wedge formed in the Neoproterozoic Arac¸ uaí orogen (SE
Brazil)during Western Gondwanaland assembly. Gondwana Research, 27, 878–896.
Peltonen, P., 1990. Metamorphic olivine in picritic metavolcanics from southern Finland. Bull.
Geol. Soc. Finland, 62(2), 99-114.
Pinsent, R. H. and Hirst, D. M., 1977. The metamorphism of the Blue River ultramafic body,
Cassiar, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Petrology, 18(4), 567-594.
Pinto, C. P. and Silva, M. A., 2014. Mapa Geológico do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil,
Escala 1:1.000.000. COMIG – Companhia Mineradora de Minas Gerais; CPRM -
Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais. Belo Horizonte, MG.
Pirajno, F. and Santosh, M., 2015. Mantle plumes, supercontinents, intracontinental rifting
and mineral systems. Precambrian Research, 259, 243-261.
Piuzana, D., Castaneda, C., Noce, C. M., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Silva, L. C., 2008. Titanite
crystal chemistry and u-p isotopic data: a petrogenetic indicator for precambrian
granitoid plutons of the eastern brazilian shield. Geonomos, 16, 29-36.
Plechov, P. Y., Shcherbakov, V. D., Nekrylov, N. A., 2018. Extremely magnesian olivine in
igneous rocks. Russian Geology and Geophysics, 59(12), 1702-1717.
Queiroga, G. N., 2010. Caracterização de restos de litosfera oceânica do Orógeno Araçuaí
entre os paralelos 17º e 21ºS. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
Queiroga, G. N., Soares, A. C. P., Noce, C. M., Alkmim, F. F. D., Pimentel, M. M., Dantas,
E., Prichard, H., 2007. Age of the Ribeirão da Folha ophiolite, Araçuaí orogen: the U-Pb
zircon (LA-ICPMS) dating of a plagiogranite. Geonomos, 15(1), 61-65.
Rolim, V. K., Rosière, C. A., Santos, J. O. S., McNaughton, N. J., 2016. The Orosirian-
Statherian banded iron formation-bearing sequences of the southern border of the
Espinhaço Range, Southeast Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 65, 43-
66.
Rollinson, H. R., 1993. Using geochemical data: evaluation, presentation, interpretation.
Routledge. 351p.
Rosa, M. L. S., Conceição, H., Macambira, M., Galarza, M. C., Cunha, M., Menezes, R.,
Marinho, M. M., Cruz-Filho, B. E., Rios, D. C., 2007. Neoproterozoic anorogenic
magmatism in the Southern Bahia Alkaline Province of NE Brazil: U–Pb and Pb–Pb
ages of the blue sodalite syenites. Lithos, 97, 88-97.
Renger, F., 1972. As rochas ultrabásicas da Serra do Espinhaço. Brazilian Journal of
Geology, 2(3), 151-160.
 189

Santos, M. M., Lana, C., Scholz, R., Buick, I., Schmitz, M. D., Kamo, S. L., Storey, C. D.,
2017. A New Appraisal of Sri Lankan BB Zircon as a Reference Material for LA-ICP-MS
U-Pb Geochronology and Lu-Hf Isotope Tracing. Geostandards and Geoanalytical
Research, 41(3), 335-358.
Schmidt, M. W., 1992. Amphibole composition in tonalite as a function of pressure: An
experimental calibration of the Al in hornblende barometer. Contributions to Mineralogy
and Petrology, 110:304-310.
Silva, L. C., Armstrong, R., Noce, C.M., Carneiro, M.A., Pimentel, M.M., Pedrosa-Soares,
A.C., Leite, C.A.S., Vieira, V.S., Silva, M.A., Paes, V.J.C., Cardoso Filho, J.M. 2002.
Reavaliação da evolução geológica em terrenos pré-cambrianos brasileiros, com base
em novos dados U-Pb SHRIMP, Parte II: orógeno Araçuaí, Cinturão Mineiro e Cráton
São Francisco Meridional. Revista Brasileira de Geociências, 32 (4), 513-528.
Silva, L. C., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Armstrong, R., Noce, C. M., 2011. Determinando a
duração do período colisional do Orógeno Araçuaí com base em geocronologia U-Pb de
alta resolução em zircão: uma contribuição para a história da amalgamação do
Gondwana Ocidental. Revista Geonomos, 19(2).
Silva, L. C., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Armstrong, R., Pinto, C. P., Magalhães, J. T. R.,
Pinheiro, M. A. P., Santos, G. G., 2016. Disclosing the Paleoarchean to Ediacaran
history of the São Francisco craton basement: The Porteirinha domain (northern Araçuaí
orogen, Brazil). Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 68, 50-67.
Silveira-Braga, F.C., Rosière, C.A., Queiroga, G.N., Rolim, V.K., Schneider Santos, J.O.,
Mcnaughton, N.J. 2015. The Statherian itabirite-bearing sequence from the Morro
Escuro Ridge, Santa Maria de Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences, 58, 33-53.
Sláma, J., Košler, J., Condon, D. J., Crowley, J. L., Gerdes, A., Hanchar, J. M., Schaltegger,
U., 2008. Plešovice zircon—a new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic
microanalysis. Chemical Geology, 249(1-2), 1-35.
Stevens, R.E., 1944. Composition of some chromites of the western hemispher. American
mineralogist 29 (1–2), 1–34
Straathof, G. B., 2011. Neoproterozoic low latitude glaciations: an African perspective.
Sun S.S., McDonough W.F. 1989. Chemical and isotopic systematics of oceanic basalts:
implications for mantle composition and processes. In: Saunders A.D., Norry M.J. (eds),
Magmatism in the ocean basins. London, Geological Society of London Special
Publication, 42, p. 313-345.
Teixeira, W., Kamo, S. L.,Arcanjo, J. B. A., 1997. U-Pb zircon and baddeleyite age and
tectonic interpretation of the Itabuna alkaline suite, São Francisco Cráton, Brazil. Journal
of South American Earth Sciences, 10(1), 91-98.
Thiéblemont, D., Goujou, J.C., Gouin,J., Prian, J.P., Cocherie, A., Guerrot, C., Tegyey, M.,
2009. Notice explicative de la Carte géologique de la République du Gabon à 1/200 000,
feuille Mayumba-Ndindi. Editions DGMB – Ministère des Mines, du Pétrole, des
Hydrocarbures, Libreville, 78 p.
Trommsdorff, V., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, V. L., Gomez-Pugnaire, M. T., & Müntener, O., 1998.
High pressure breakdown of antigorite to spinifex-textured olivine and orthopyroxene, SE
Spain. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 132(2), 139-148.
Uhlein, A., 1982. Geologia e mineralogia da cromita e itabiritos da região do Serro MG.
Master dissertation, Universidade Federal de Brasília, Brasília. 192 p.
 190

Ulianov, A., Müntener, O., Schaltegger, U., Bussy, F., 2012. The data treatment dependent
variability of U-Pb zircon ages obtained using monocollector, sector field, laser ablation
ICPMS. J. Anal. At. Spectrom, 27, 663-676.
Valley, J. W, 2003. Oxygen isotopes in zircon. Reviews in mineralogy and
geochemistry, 53(1), 343-385.
Valley, J. W., Lackey, J. S., Cavosie, A. J., Clechenko, C. C., Spicuzza, M. J., Basei, M. A.
S., Bindeman I.N., Ferreira V.P., Sial A.N., King E.M., Peck W.H., Sinha, A.K., Wei C.S.,
Peck W.H., 2005. 4.4 billion years of crustal maturation: oxygen isotope ratios of
magmatic zircon. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 150(6), 561-580.
Vance, J. A. and Dungan, M. A., 1977. Formation of peridotites by deserpentinization in the
Darrington and Sultan areas, Cascade Mountains, Washington. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 88(10), 1497-1508.
Wells, P. R. A., 1977. Pyroxene thermometry in simple and complex systems. Contributions
to Mineralogy and Petrology, 62, 129-13
Whitney, D. L. and Evans, B. W., 2010. Abbreviations for names of rock-forming minerals.
American Mineralogist, 95(1), 185-187.
Wiedenbeck, M. A. P. C., Alle, P., Corfu, F., Griffin, W. L., Meier, M., Oberli, F. V., Spiegel,
W., 1995. Three natural zircon standards for U-Th-Pb, Lu-Hf, trace element and REE
analyses. Geostandards newsletter, 19(1), 1-23.
Witt-Eickschen, G. and Seek, H. A., 1991. Solubility of Ca and Al in orthopyroxene from
spine1 peridotite: na improved version of an empirical geothermometer: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 106(4), 431439.
Wood, B. J. and Banno, S., 1973. Garnet-orthopyroxene and orthopyroxene-clinopyroxene
relationships in simple and complex systems. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 42(2), 109-124.
Worden, R.H., Droop, G.T.R., Champness, P.E., 1991. The reaction antigorite . olivine þ talc
þ H2O in the Bergell aureole, N. Italy. Mineralogical Magazine, 55, 367–377.
Wu, F. Y., Yang, J. H., Xu, Y. G., Wilde, S. A., Walker, R. J., 2019. Destruction of the North
China Craton in the Mesozoic. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Zane, A. and Weiss, Z., 1998. A procedure for classifying rock-forming chlorites based on
microprobe data. Rendiconti Lincei, 9(1), 51-56.
 191

6 Integração e discussão dos dados

Diante dos dados obtidos e informações previamente apresentadas nos

manuscritos “First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon signatures from the
Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province (Eastern Brazil): geotectonic implications
of a silicic large igneous province” e “Early Cryogenian rift–related magmatism and
metamorphism in the Guanhães block, Southeast Brazil Ultramafic magmatism and
thermal metamorphism in the Guanhães block, SE Brazil: Further evidence for an
Early Cryogenian rift system in the São Francisco – Congo paleocontinent” os
principais tópicos abordados e suas discussões são sintetizadas e apresentadas a
seguir, por região e objeto abordado.

6.1 Borda oeste do Bloco Guanhães

6.1.1 Rochas metafélsicas

As características químicas dos metafelsitos abordados neste trabalho, em

sua maioria representada por metagranitos e metariolitos, sugerem processos
petrogenéticos norteados por cristalização fracionada, com fracionamento de
plagioclásio, hornblenda, biotita e fases ferro-titaníferas. Critérios petrogenéticos
monitores de grau de fracionamento e diferenciação em rochas graníticas, como as
razões Rb/Sr e K/Rb, apontam o envolvimento de líquidos moderados a fortemente
diferenciados e evoluídos, como os precursores dos metafelsitos abordados neste
trabalho.
Razões empíricas determinadas para a classificação de rochas graníticas em
relação a seus ambientes posicionaram as rochas ácidas estudadas em campos
específicos de granitos anorogênicos do tipo A2 (Loiselle & Wones 1979, Whalen et
al. 1987, Eby 1992) de natureza intraplaca (Pearce et al. 1984; Figura 6-1). Granitos
anorogênicos de maneira sensu stricto ocorrem em ambientes extensionais,
associados a afinamento crustal e ascenção astenosférica, cuja elevação dos
gradientes geotermais alcança as seções inferiores da crosta (Loiselle & Wones
1979).
 192

Embora a gênese de granitos anorogênicos permaneça em campos

controversos, seus mecanismos estão relacionados a processos de extração e
acumulação de líquidos mantélicos na base da crosta (underplating) ou a evolução a
partir de fracionamento de líquidos basálticos concomitantes a processos de
assimilação crustal (e.g. Whalen et al. 1987, Eby 1992, Rollinson 1993, Peccerillo et
al. 2003). Na área do Alto Rio Guanhães não foi detectada qualquer evidência que
permita associar a gênese desses metafelsitos a processos de fracionamento e
diferenciação de líquidos básicos. No entanto, as idades T DM Hf sugerem o
envolvimento de crosta continental arqueana na geração desses magmas,
contrariando modelos simplistas de diferenciação magmática. Os valores de εHf(t)
negativos, os valores moderados de δ18O e os padrões de ETR em grãos de zircão
indicam uma expressiva contribuição crustal associada a gênese desses corpos.

Figura 6-1: Diagramas de variação de elementos traços para metagranitos e metariolitos no Bloco Guanhães
mostrando diferentes tendências de cristalização fracionada. Diagramas de discriminação de (A) Nb-Y-3Ga
para a subdivisão dos granitos do tipo A por Eby (1992). Diagramas de classificação tectônica de Pearce et
al. (1984): (B) Y + Nb vs. Rb e (C) Y vs. Nb. Dados adicionais de Chemale Jr. (1987), Soares-Filho (1987),
Grossi Sad et al. (1990), Dussin (1994), Fernandes et al. (1994), Knauer e Grossi-Sad (1997), Oliveira (2002) e
Silveira-Braga (2012).

6.1.2 Rochas metamáficas

Os metamafitos na borda oeste do Bloco, na região do Alto Rio Guanhães,

compõem variedades ortoanfibolíticas cujas características químicas herdam,
independente das modificações pós-magmáticas sofridas, assinaturas magmáticas
primárias de basaltos toleiíticos subalcalinos do tipo E-MORB (Fig. 6-2). Os padrões
similares de ETR normalizados e elementos traços exibidos de maneira coletiva
apontam uma proveniência magmática comum para esses metabasitos (Fig. 6-3A e -
B). Os dados sugerem que estes sejam derivados de fontes enriquecidas oriundas
de peridotitos estabilizados no campo do espinélio (Fig. 6-4A), em profundidades
estimadas inferiores a 60-70 km, com pequenas variações ao longo da coluna de
 193

fusão. Adicionalmente, os padrões exibidos pelos elementos traços incompatíveis,

como Zr e Ti, assim como seus valores normalizados de ETR, apontam para
afinidades químicas similares aos de basaltos enriquecidos do tipo intraplaca (Fig. 6-
4B) gerados em um provável cenário envolvendo uma litosfera adelgaçada.

Figura 6-2: (A) Comparação dos padrões de elementos incompatíveis normalizados para condrito dos
anfibólitos da região do Alto Rio Guanhães em comparação com basaltos de arcos de ilhas (OIB) e cadeia
meso-oceânica (MORB) tipo E e N. Padrões para OIB, E-MORB e N-MORB são aqueles de Sun &
McDonough (1989). (B) Diagrama de discriminação Nb / Yb versus Th / Yb de Pearce (2008).

As características químicas desses metamafitos sugerem influência de

processos de cristalização fracionada em sua gênese, como a ausência de
intervalos composicionais nos diagramas binários monitores de processos
petrogenéticos, juntamente com a análise dos coeficientes de correlação de
Pearson. As correlações positivas entre Mg# e CaO, Na 2O, Al2O3 e alguns
elementos de transição como Cr e Ni, assim como anomalias negativas de Sr,
apontam para processos de fracionamento de olivina, piroxênio e plagioclásio.

Figura 6-3: Diagrama normalizado ao manto primitivo (A) e condrito (B) das rochas máficas do Alto Rio
Guanhães. Os valores de normalização são de Sun & McDonough (1989)
 194

Os valores de εHf(t) negativos obtidos em grãos de zircão de ortoanfibolito,

assim como os valores moderados de δ18O e razões U/Yb, apontam para expressiva
influência de material crustal durante sua gênese. Valores da ordem de 30% de AFC
(cristalização fracionada com assimilação concomitante) estão associados à
evolução magmática das rochas metamáficas, de acordo com modelagem utilizando
elementos traços incompatíveis e os parâmetros descritos por DePaolo (1981).
Estes dados corroboram uma expressiva influência de componentes crustais
envolvidos na geração das metamáficas do Alto Rio Guanhães. De maneira geral,
processos de cristalização fracionada são acompanhados por assimilação de
materiais de origem crustal em ambientes do tipo rifte.

Figura 6-4: Diagramas de variação de elementos traços para a suíte máfica Alto Rio Guanhães. Diagrama
(A) (La / Sm) N vs. (Tb / Yb) para determinar a fonte dos magmas máficos. A linha tracejada horizontal
separa os campos para a fusão do peridotito com granada e do peridotito que contém espinélio (Wang et
al. 2002). Valores de normalização condríticos após Sun e McDonough (1989); (B) Zr vs Zr / Y diagrama
de discriminação de ambiente tectônicos (Pearce & Norry 1979).

6.1.3 Idades U-Pb

Eventos magmáticos ácidos associados à tafrogênese de idade estateriana

ocorrem registrados ao longo do sistema de rifte Espinhaço, assim como em
diversas áreas similares no Cráton São Francisco (e.g. Dussin 1994, Danderfer et al.
2015, Cederberg et al. 2016, Cruz & Alkmin 2017, Dussin 2017). As características
petrológicas e idades obtidas, tanto para o metamafito (1725±4 Ma) quanto para os
metafelsitos (1748±3 Ma e 1740±8 Ma) no Bloco Guanhães, avançam no
entendimento não somente do evento tafrogênico, mas também dos elementos que
o constituem.
 195

As rochas metamáficas (metabasaltos) cronocorrelatas às metafélsicas do

Alto Rio Guanhães, caracterizadas por este trabalho, introduzem um novo elemento
nesse cenário geodinâmico. Até então, o único registro de uma idade estateriana na
região (1697±10 Ma - Pb/Pb) foi obtido a partir de um único grão de zircão de
anfibolito intercalado pelas unidades metassedimentares do Grupo Guanhães
(Dussin et al. 2000). As idades levantadas nos metamafitos, ainda que díspares
entre si, incidem no intervalo definido pelas idades de rochas metavulcânicas
máficas, 1750 e 1700 Ma, associadas à abertura da bacia Espinhaço em seu
domínio meridional (Dussin 1994, Chemale Jr. et al. 2012, Bezerra-Neto 2016, Silva
2016) e central (Moreira, 2017).
A idade obtida para o metariolito (1748±3 Ma) do Alto Rio Guanhães, embora
mais antiga que a de um metariolito próximo (1715±2 Ma; Machado et al. 1989),
apresenta-se similar as demais idades encontradas para corpos congêneres, tanto
plutônicos quanto vulcânicos. Idades de 1752±2 Ma (Machado et al. 1989) e
1758±18 Ma (Costa 2017) foram levantadas em metariolitos e rochas
vulcanoclásticas, respectivamente, no domínio Central do rifte Espinhaço. Idades
obtidas em metariolitos do domínio Chapada Diamantina variam em torno de 1748±4
Ma e 1752± 4 Ma (Babinski et al. 1994, Schobbenhaus et al. 1994), similar a idade
de 1744±2 Ma determinada por Danderfer et al. (2015) para rocha metavulcânica do
domínio setentrional.
Do mesmo modo, metaplutonitos ácidos, em sua maioria compondo suítes
graníticas anorogênicas, mostram-se temporalmente associadas. A idade
determinada por este trabalho (1740±8 Ma) para o termo granítico da suíte plutônica
mostra-se virtualmente similar a idade de 1745±10 Ma obtida em termo congênere
localizado ao sul do Bloco Guanhães (Silveira-Braga et al. 2019) e as obtidas para
os termos plutônicos da Suíte Lagoa Real (Pimentel et al. 1994), na região entre o
domínio setentrional e a Chapada Diamantina.
Os dados geocronológicos existentes para o sistema de rifte Espinhaço, em
todos seus seguimentos, apresentam uma ampla variação temporal entre 1790 e
1700 Ma (Tabela A.13, Apêndice A), porém com a maioria dos dados concentrados
no intervalo de 1750-1710 Ma. A abertura desse sistema rifte é caracterizada por um
volumoso magmatismo ácido, cuja área de abrangência engloba todos os seus
domínios. Em contraste, as rochas metamáficas ocorrem de maneira restrita, não
somente em volume, mas também em distribuição espacial. Estes termos ocorrem
 196

somente no segmento sul do sistema de rifte Espinhaço e associados às rochas

metassedimentares supracrustais.
Adicionalmente, magmatismos intracontinentais do Estateriano ocorrem
registrados nas regiões sul e oeste do Cráton São Francisco. Em sua porção
meridional, foram determinadas idades em torno de 1795 Ma para o enxame de
diques Pará de Minas (Chaves 2001, Cederberg et al. 2016, Girard et al. 2017), que
pode ser correlacionado crono-espacialmente a um sistema magmático marginal ao
do rifte Espinhaço. No domínio cratônico noroeste, em toda sua extensão, idades
estaterianas (1771-1768 Ma) foram obtidas em metariolitos e granitos anorogênicos
do sistema de rifte Araí (Pimentel et al. 1991).

6.1.4 Expressão do magmatismo estateriano e seu significado

Levando em consideração a distribuição e volume do evento magmático

Estateriano, a proposição de uma província magmática de ampla magnitude (Silicic
Large Igneous Province - SLIP) deve ser considerada.
De acordo com os critérios estabelecidos por Bryan & Ernst (2008) e Ernst
(2014) cinco características devem ser satisfeitas para que uma província ígnea seja
considerada de grande amplitude (SLIP), sendo: i) seus termos extrusivos devem
apresentar volumes maiores que 250.000 Km 3 com uma área de exposição maior
que 100.000 Km2; ii) mais de 80% da província deve ser constituída por dacito e
riolitos com assinaturas transicionais calcioalcalinas (tipo-I) à intraplaca (tipo-A); iii)
ignimbrito riolítico deve ser predominante; iv) a duração de magmatismo deve ser
até 40 Ma, com pulsos de duração de 3 a 10 Ma; e, v) a província deve ser
exclusivamente continental.
Embora considerações quanto ao magmatismo do Espinhaço constituir uma
província ígnea tenha precedentes (Danderfer et al. 2015, Chaves et al. 2016), à luz
dos novos dados a suposição pôde ser revista e fundamentada. As exposições
atuais de seus termos crustais metamorfizados em fácies xisto verde a anfibolito,
implica em uma extensa denudação de suas associações vulcânicas superiores.
Dessa forma, a estimativa do volume total e área de exposição de seus membros
supracrustais ficam comprometidas e dramaticamente subestimadas.
No entanto, seus termos magmáticos são constituídos em sua maioria por
granitos anorogênicos, calcioalcalinos a alcalialcalinos, riolitos, dacitos, ignimbritos e
 197

rochas vulcanoclásticas ácidas, e suas variedades metamórficas, com assinaturas

intraplaca. Essas variedades abrangem mais de 80% da área de exposição de todas
as rochas estaterianas de procedência ígnea na região. Por outro lado, embora de
caráter bimodal, as rochas metamáficas ocorrem subordinadas, representando,
muito provavelmente, menos de 10% das ocorrências totais.
Embora ocorra registrado ao longo de uma área com mais de 250.000 Km 2
(Fig. 6-5), o magmatismo bimodal estateriano alcança, no mínimo, 70.000 Km 2,
levando em conta que expressivas áreas ocorrem sob unidades mais novas e/ou
capeadas por extensa cobertura cenozoica (Fig. 6-5). Embora esses 70.000 Km2
apresentam-se relativamente pequeno frente às dimensões exigidas para uma SLIP,
o valor representa apenas a área de exposição atual, considerando a atuação de
eventos erosivos severos frente ao soerguimento de toda a bacia Espinhaço e
posterior retrabalhamento ao longo da estruturação do orógeno Araçuaí.
Assim exposto, esforços na direção de avaliar e estimar o volume original das
rochas extrusivas tornam-se complexos, embora possa ser considerado um volume
expressivo para esses termos extrusivos (possivelmente > 250.000 Km 3)
considerando que as exposições atuais revelam, em seu predomínio, associações
plutônicas félsicas e subordinadamente vulcânicas de regiões crustais profundas.
 198

Figura 6-5: (A) Configuração geotectônica do cráton do São Francisco – Congo no contexto do Gondwana
Ocidental (modificado de Alkmim et al. 2006). (B) Mapa geológico simplificado com destaque para o sistema
do rifte do Espinhaço e o Blobo Guanhães na fronteira leste do cráton do São Francisco. Modificado de
Alkmim (2004) e Pinto e Silva (2014).

Como apresentado anteriormente, o acervo de idades de cristalização U-Pb

em zircão do sistema de rifte Espinhaço (Tabela A.6 a A.8, Apêndice A) varia de
1792±7 Ma a 1703±12 Ma, com a maioria dos valores (ao menos 80%) concentrados
no intervalo entre 1752 a 1710 Ma. Esse intervalo satisfaz a condição em torno de
40 Ma como a de duração principal de atividade de uma província ígnea magmática
de grande amplitude (Bryan & Ernst 2008, Ernst 2014). Vale ressaltar a variedade
dos métodos geocornológicos U-Pb utilizados.
Dessa forma, considerando o nível crustal atualmente exposto, a estimativa
de quantificação do volume e área de exposição das rochas ígneas félsicas, o
predomínio de termos ácidos de assinatura continental em mais de 80% e um
período de atividade magmática intensa em torno de 40 Ma, a província ígnea
Espinhaço se destaca como uma SLIP estateriana desenvolvida sobre o
Palecontinente São Francisco.
 199

Adicionalmente, os dados obtidos através dos metamafitos apontam para o

envolvimento de fração mantélica enriquecida ascendida sob litosfera continental
adelgaçada na geração de seus líquidos precursores primários (Fig. 6-6). Embora os
padrões exibidos pelos seus elementos traços não suportem uma derivação de fonte
sublitosférica fértil, e considerando o intervalo de duração do magmatismo da
província ígnea Espinhaço, não está descartada a influência de líquidos férteis
oriundos de plumas mantélicas na geração dessas rochas.

Figura 6-6: Modelo esquemático para o magmatismo estateriano associado so rifte Espinhaço.

6.1.5 Magmatismo Estateriano: Implicações tectônicas e inferências globais

A conjunção dos Palecontinentes São Francisco e Congo ocorreu no limiar

dos períodos Orosiano e Riaciano a partir de uma evolução policíclica diacrônica
envolvendo uma sucessão de eventos orogenéticos. Esse amalgamento crustal
constituiu uma entidade tectônica até sua ruptura no Cretácio (Noce et al. 2007,
Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2008, Pedrosa-Soares & Alkmin 2011, Heilbron et al. 2017 e
referências contidas).
No entanto, diversas são as tentativas de reconstruir um cenário mais amplo
de caráter global, cujo cenário abranja o supercontinente paleoproterozoico São
Francisco-Congo, as quais abrangem desde configurações envolvendo a
aglutinação de Atlântica (ca. 2 Ga; Rogers 1996), Columbia (1.9-1.7 Ga; Zhao et al.
2004, Hou et al. 2008, Cederberg et al. 2016) e do Bloco Africano Central (ca. 2 Ga;
Cordani et al. 2013, D’Agrella-Filho & Cordani 2017).
 200

Baseados em informações geotectônicas, geocronologia e evidências

paleomagnéticas, D’Agrella-Filho & Cordani (2017) consideraram que as
aglomerações dos Blocos São Francisco-Congo, Kalahari, Borborema, Trans-
Sahara, Rio de la Plata, dentre outros menores, constituíssem uma entidade crustal
maior denominada de Bloco Africano Central, sem conexões com o Columbia (Fig.
6-7A).
Por outro lado, diversas são as reconstituições do Columbia envolvendo o
Palecontinente São Francisco-Congo (e.g., Rogers & Santosh 2002, Zhao et al.
2004, Hou et al. 2008, Teixeira et al. 2017). Hou et al. (2008) consideram um
sistema orogênico contínuo, em torno de 2.1 a 1.8 Ga, envolvendo todo perímetro do
Columbia, cujo reflexo foi sua conjunção como supercontinente (Fig. 6-7B). Neste
cenário, os autores posicionam o Bloco São Francisco-Congo às suas margens e
justaposto ao Palecontinente Amazônico, unindo a atual América do Sul ao
Columbia pelo sistema orogênico Trans-Amazônico. Danderfer et al. (2015),
considerando esse cenário, relaciona a abertura e evolução do rifte Espinhaço como
um reflexo de processos localizados nos domínios do Bloco Amazônico.

Figura 6-7: Modelos de reconstruções paleogeográficas envolvendo o paleocontinente São Francisco-Congo no contexto
dp Columbia, ca. 1.78 Ga: (A) D'Agrella-Filho & Cordani (2017); (B) Hou et al. (2008); (C) Cederberg et al. (2016).
Laurentia (LAU), Báltica (BA), Proto-Amazônia (PAm), África Ocidental (WA), Sibéria (SI), continente Mawson (MC -
Austrália do Sul mais Antártica Oriental), Austrália do Norte (NAu), Austrália Ocidental (WAu ), Norte da China (NC),
Índia (IN), Rio de la Plata (RP), Kalahari (KAL), São Francisco-Congo (SFC), Bloco Borborema / Trans-Saara (BTS),
Pará de Minas (PM) .

Adicionalmente, modelos paleotectônicos recentes sugerem que o

magmatismo anorogênico estateriano presente no Palecontinente São Francisco-
Congo esteja correlacionado ao existente no Cráton do Norte da China (Peng 2015,
 201

Cederberg et al. 2016, Teixeira et al. 2017, Xu et al. 2017). A principal assertiva
desses autores foca na semelhança entre os enxames de diques Pará de Minas, na
porção meridional do Cráton do São Francisco, e o magmatismo da província ígnea
de Xiong’er-Taihang, ambas interpretadas como intracontinentais estaterianas
(Figura 6-7C).
Neste panorama, o magmatismo da província ígnea Espinhaço, incluindo a
suíte metamáfica do Alto Rio Guanhães, pode ser correlacionado aos eventos
geradores do enxame de diques Pará de Minas, e consequentemente, ao
magmatismo da suíte Xiong’er-Taihang. Tal cenário suporta-se nas similaridades
químicas (Figura 6-8) e geocronológicas apresentadas pelos diques do enxame Pará
de Minas (Chaves, 2001), das rochas da província ígnea Xiong’er (Zhao et al. 2002,
Peng et al. 2008, He e tal. 2009, Wang et al. 2010), dos diques de Taihang (Hou et
al. 2001, Peng et al. 2004, 2008, Peng 2015, Wang et al. 2004, 2007, 2008) e as
rochas da suíte toleiítica do Alto Rio Guanhães apresentadas por este trabalho.

Figura 6-8: Padrões de elementos traços do conjuntodas rochas máficas da Suíte Alto Rio Guanhães (este
estudo), do enxame de diques de Pará de Minas (Chaves 2001), das rochas vulcânicas de Xiong'er (Zhao et al.
2002, Peng et al. 2008, He et al. 2009, Wang et al., 2010), dos diques de Taihang (Hou et al. 2001, Peng et al.
2004, 2008, Peng 2015, Wang et al. 2004, 2007, 2008): (A) normalizado para E-MORB, (B) normalizado para o
manto primitivo. Os valores de normalização são de Sun e McDonough (1989).

As gerações mais novas do enxame de diques Pará de Minas, determinadas

em torno de 1717-1702 Ma (Cederberg et al. 2016), são cronocorrelatas às idades
obtidas para as rochas metamáficas do Alto Rio Guanhães (1725 Ma) e aos
metamafitos vulcânicos e plutônicos do domínio sul do sistema de rifte Espinhaço
(1747-1700 Ma; e.g. Silva 2016) (Tabela A.13, Apêndice A). Adicionalmente, as
mesmas coincidem com as idades determinadas para os metavulcanitos da
 202

província Xiong’er (1790-1745 Ma; Wang et al. 2016), os diques do enxame de

Taihang (1780 Ma; Peng 2015) e Miyun (1730 Ma; Peng 2015) e aos metavulcanitos
do rifte Yan-Liao (1730-1200 Ma; Peng 2015).
Dessa forma, a instalação do rifte Xiong’er está temporalmente correlacionada
ao desenvolvimento do rifte Espinhaço no início do Estateriano, enquanto que o
desenvolvimento dos múltiplos estágios do rifte Yan-Liao pode estar relacionado aos
eventos tafrogênicos registrados no sistema de rifte Espinhaço, com idades variando
do Estateriano aos limites do Toniano-Criogeniano (Pedrosa-Soares & Alkmin 2011).
No entanto, registros de magmatismo anorogênico estateriano são amplamente
descritos em diversas outras massas continentais, como Amazonas, Báltica,
Laurentia, Sibéria, Austrália, Antártica e Rio de La plata (e.g. Ernst 2013 e
referências contidas). Dessa forma, são necessários estudos adicionais envolvendo
paleomagnetismo e abordagens petrotectônicas complementares para uma melhor
inferência paleogeográfica envolvendo essa diversidade de Blocos contendo
magmatismo cronocorrelato intracontinental anorogênico.

6.2 Região Central do Bloco Guanhães

6.2.1 Magmatismo Criogeniano e suas correlações

O Bloco Guanhães é praticamente todo delineado pelas bacias estaterianas-

mesoproterozoicas do sistema Espinhaço, à leste, e pelas bacias neoproterozoicas
do sistema Macaúbas, à oeste (Figura 5-1), com remanescentes de sequências
vulcanossedimenares preservadas em seu interior (Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2011,
Chemale et al. 2012, Rolim et al. 2017, Magalhães et al. 2018).
Os sistemas bacinais Macaúbas e Espinhaço registram uma série de
atividades ígneas anorogênicas que precedem o desenvolvimento do orógeno
Araçuaí (Pedrosa-Soares & Alkmim 2011). O último evento relacionado a esses
sistemas extensionais intracontinentais ocorreu no Criogeniano (ca. 725-670) e está
relacionado a geração da Provincia Alcalina do Sul da Bahia (Teixeira et al. 1997,
Rosa et al. 2007).
Registros extensionais criogenianos relacionados ao desenvolvimento de um
sistema rifte foram obtidos a partir de grãos de zircão detríticos do Grupo Macaúbas
e unidades correlatas (Kuchenbecker et al. 2015, Peixoto et al. 2015, Degler et al.
 203

2017). No sistema orogenênico Congo Ocidental, a contraparte afriacana do

orógeno Araçuaí, eventos anorogênicos criogenianos ocorrem registrados em
metavulcanitos intercalados a unidades diamictíticas (ca. 694 ± 4 Ma metabasalto;
Straathof 2011) na região de Bas Congo, e em tufos riolíticos da formação La Louilla
(ca. 713 Ma; Thiéblemont et al. 2009) ao Sul do Gabão.
Os rifts criogenianos registram estágios de oceanização em cerca de 660 Ma
(Figura 5-1) de acordo com as idades U-Pb (LA-ICP-MS) obtidas a partir de grãos de
zircão de plagiogranito do complexo ofiolítico Ribeirão da Folha (Queiroga et al.
2007, Queiroga 2010). Neste panorama, a idade do protólito das rochas
ultramáficas, ca. 650 Ma (Figura 5-17), obtida em grãos de zircão de metaultramafito
(amostra J67B) do Bloco Guanhães pode ser correlacionado aos eventos
anorogênico criogenianos, apontando um ambiente extensional associado a este
magmatismo nas regiões interiores do Bloco Guanhães (Fig. 5-25).
Esses eventos criogenianos tem sido associado aos depósitos glaciogênicos
de bacias rifte, em específico, associados às formações diamictíticas do Grupo
Macaúbas (Pedrosa-Soares & Alkmim 2011, Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2011, Babinski et
al. 2012, Kuchenbecker et al. 2015) e aos diamictitos da formação Lower diamictite e
La Louilla (Frimmel et al. 2006, Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2008, Thiéblemont et al. 2009,
Straathof 2011). Essas unidades definem uma extensa sucessão diamictítica
depositada, tanto em ambientes continentais quanto marinhos, em uma bacia
precursora ao sistema orogênico Araçuaí-Congo Ocidental (Figura 5-25). Em um
provável cenário de contemporaneidade dessas unidades diamictíticas no
Criogeniano (ca. 725-670 Ma), torna-se plausível sua correlação com o evento
glacial Esturtiano, de escala global, estabelecido em cerca de 715 Ma a 680 Ma
(MacGabhann 2005).
Embora não haja consenso da participação do Paleocontinente São
Francisco-Congo na constituição do Rodínia (Evans et al. 2015, D’Agrella-Filho and
Cordani 2017), o evento anorogênico criogeniano caracterizado no Bloco Guanhães
e suas imediações ocorre de maneira sincrônica aos estágios finais de fragmentação
do Rodínia (Pirajno & Santosh 2015, Wu et al. 2019).
Ademais, as idades de metamorfismo (605-509 Ma) registrada em
metassedimento rico em ferro (amostra J82) associado aos metaultramafito
sapontam a influência do evento Brasiliano, estando relacionadas à inversão
 204

tectônica final da bacia Macaúbas e aos estágios colisional e pós-colisional do

ógeno Araçuaí (Pedrosa-Soares et al. 2008, 2011).

6.2.2 Metamorfismo progressivo dos metaultamafitos

Os corpos metaultramáficos da região central do Bloco Guanhães definem,

em sua maioria, granofelses formados a partir de rochas precursoras hidratadas de
baixo grau, cujas assembleias minerais estabelecem uma progressão metamórfica
de baixa pressão alcançando condições de fáceis granulito, posteriormente com
modificações retrometamórficas tardias, generalizadas e indistintas, em condições
de fácies xisto verde.
Esses termos apresentam progressivas mudanças em suas assembleias
minerais as quais definem variedades de granofelses à olivina-serpentinito, anfibólio-
clorita, anfibólio-clorita-olivina, ortopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina com espinélio verde e
ortopiroxênio-clinopiroxênio-anfibólio-olivina com espinélio verde.
Instalada sobre rochas a anfibólio e clorita, a trajetória metamórfica principal
deixou evidências químicas que norteiam seu avanço e progressivas mudanças
minerais. Essas assembleias minerais, juntamente com suas relações texturais,
apontam para reações de desidratação, com condições termobarométricas de baixa
a média P e moderada T que avançam da fácies xisto verde ao granulito.
O reconhecimento de processos de desidratação de rochas metaultramaficas
hidratadas, em sua maioria serpentinitos e rochas ricas em clorita e anfibólio,
ocorrem bem definidos com as suas modificações minerais norteadas por
assembleias metaultramáficas identificadas na região dos Alpes (e.g., Fawcett &
Yoder 1966, Evans & Trommdorfs 1972, Evans & Frost 1975). Nesta região,
diversas são as assembleias minerais anidras em metaultramafitos que remetem a
processos de deserpentinização (Trommsdorf & Evans 1972, Frost 1975, Vance &
Dungan 1977, Trommsdorf et al. 1998).
Evans (1977) definiu doze assembleias minerais diagnosticas de especificas
condições termobarométricas de rochas ultrabásicas do tipo alpino e serpentinito
(sistema MSH), submetidas ao metamorfismo progressivo. São elas: A e B)
lizardita/crisólita serpentinito (fácies zeolita e prehnita-pumpellyita) ; C) brucita-
antigorita serpentinito (fácies xisto verde inferior e xisto azul); D) diopsídio-antigorita
peridotitos (fácies eclogito inferior e xisto verde superior); E-I) peridotitos com
 205

tremolita e clorita como fase aluminosa (fácies anfibolito e hornblenda hornfels); J)

lherzolitos com plagioclásio (fácies piroxênio hornfels); K) lherzolito com espinélio
(fácies piroxênio granulito); e, L ) lherzolito com granada (fácies eclogito).
As assembleias acimas adquirem um caráter complementar às anteriormente
definidas por Evans & Frost (1975) para rochas ultramáficas crustais do Alpes
Centrais. Esses autores determinaram também mudanças na variação
composicional do Cr-espinélio, como reflexo da decorrência do metamorfismo
progressivo. Foi determinado um contínuo enriquecimento em Al e Mg,
acompanhado por empobrecimento em Fe+2 e Fe+3, com um sutil enriquecimento em
Cr procedido de um empobrecimento do mesmo. Essas intensas mudanças
composicionais nos espinélios são refletidas em suas características óticas. O Cr-
espinélio progressivamente se transforma de opaco (Cr-magnetita e Fe-cromita) a
vermelho translúcido, (empobrecido em Fe+3 e baixo Al), castanho (alto conteúdo de
Al), e finalmente verde garrafa, espinélio stricto sensu (altos conteúdos de Mg e Al).
Posteriormente, trabalhos voltados para a identificação das assembleias
minerais em metaultamafitos ao redor de intrusões ígneas foram conduzidos visando
à identificação das sucessivas modificações minerais e campos de estabilidade
minerais (isógradas) de acordo com a distância do plutonito (e.g. Trommsdorf &
Evans 1974, Frost 1975, Vance & Dungan 1977, Worden et al. 1991).
Trommsdorf & Evans (1977) identificaram quatro isógradas minerais em
metaultramafitos hidratados ao redor de corpo plutônico intrusivo na região dos
Alpes Italianos: i) tremolita+olivina; ii) olivina+talco; iii) antofilita; iv) enstatita. Frost
(1975) em abordagem semelhante à metaultramafitos próximos a intrusões ígneas
na região central das Corrdilheira das Cascatas (Cascade range) determinou sete
assembleias minerais de acordo com o aumento do grau metamórfico, sendo:
serpentina-forsterita-diopsídio, serpentina- frosterita-tremolita, forsterita-talco,
forsterita-antofilita, forsterita-enstatita-antofilita, forsterita-enstatita-clorita e forsterita-
enstatita-espinélio. Ainda, determinou mudanças significativas na composição do Cr-
espinélio reliquiar, com um aumento nos teores de Mg, Al e Cr de acordo com a
progressão metamórfica ou a partir da quebra da clorita nos metaperidotitos de alto
grau.
Nos metaultramafitos do Bloco Guanhães, as mudanças nas assembleias
minerais e suas relações texturais são diagnósticas para o estabelecimento das
modificações termobarométricas submetidas às rochas, como a solubilidade de Al
 206

na clorita, anfibólio e ortopiroxênio que se mostra intensamente sensível à

progressão do metamorfismo. Na clorita, a incorporação máxima de Al atinge seu
valor em torno de 2.4 apfu, passando a subsidiar a geração de hercinita com o
incremento metamórfico, típico de metaultamafitos de alto grau (Fawcett & Yoder
1966, Evans & Frost 1975, Jenkins & Chernosky 1986).
É de relativo consenso que as modificações químicas em anfibólio são
termodinamicamente controladas e dependentes de variáveis como temperatura,
pressão e composição da rocha (e.g. Spear 1981, Hammerstrom & Zen 1986,
Hollister et al. 1987, Blundy & Holland 1990, Foden & Green 1992, Ridolfi & Renzulli
2011, Ernst 2012, Putirka 2016, Currin et al. 2018). Os anfibólios dos
metaultramafitos do Bloco Guanhães variam sua composição sistematicamente de
acordo com o grau metamórfico, com gradual aumento de Al (e Ti) com severas
influências de reações tschermakíticas. A incorporação de Al no anfibólio atingiu seu
valor máximo em torno de 1.4 apfu (XAl: 14 wt%), imediatamente antes da geração
de clinopiroxênio às suas custas (T~800°C) com o aumento do grau metamórfico
(Figura 5-23).
De modo similar, o conteúdo do Al em ortopiroxênios é considerado um
indicador petrogenético (e.g. Dobretsov 1968, Anastasiou & Seifert 1971, Obata
1976, Gasparik & Newton 1984, Witt-Eickschen & Seck 1991), desde que sua
solubilidade esteja condicionada á temperatura. Nos metaultramafitos do Bloco
Guanhães, a composição da enstatita muda gradativamente de acordo com o
incremento do metamorfismo. Ainda, conforme mostrado, seu conteúdo é sensível
diante das fases silicatadas em equilíbrio. A solubilidade de Al em condições de alto
grau, antes da entrada de clinopiroxênio no sistema, alcança seu máximo em torno
de 0.11 apfu (XAl: 3.0 wt, %) (Figura 5-23), com a progressão do metamorfismo
exsolvendo lamelas de hercinita a partir de seus grãos.
Os minerais do grupo do espinélio são considerados indicadores
petrogenéticos (e.g., Irvine 1965, 1967, Evans & Frost 1975, Jackson & Thayer
1982, Sack 1982, Dick & Bullen 1984, Suita & Strieder 1996, Cândia & Szabó 1999,
Barnes 2000, Barnes & Roeder 2001, Karipi et al. 2007). Conforme detalhado
anteriormente, os minerais do grupo do espinélio nos metaultramafitos do Bloco
Guanhães saturam-se em molécula de hercinita até a fácies granulito. Estes são
gerados a partir da quebra da clorita segundo a progressão do metamorfismo,
 207

havendo um reequilíbrio da alumina com as fases silicatadas, como as definida por

Evans & Frost (1975).
O quadro da Figura 6-1 sintetiza as mudanças minerais ocorridas de acordo
com o incremento do grau metamórfico para as assembleias metaultramáficas do
Bloco Guanhães.
 208

Figura 6-1: Evolução quimio-textural para as rochas metaultramáficas da região central do Bloco Guanhães de acordo com o incremento do grau metamórfico.
 209

6.3 Referencias bibliográficas

Anastasiou, P. & Seifert, F., 1972. Solid solubility of Al 2 O 3 in enstatite at high temperatures
and 1–5 kb water pressure. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 34(4), 272-287.
Babinski, M., Brito-Neves, B.B., Machado, N., Noce, C.M., Uhlei,n A., Van Schmus, W.R.,
1994. Problemas da metodologia U-Pb em rochas vulcânicas continentais: Caso do
Grupo Rio dos Remédios, Supergrupo Espinhaço, no Estado da Bahia. In: 38º
Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, Balneário Camboriú.
Babinski, M., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Trindade, R. I. F. D., Martins, M., Noce, C. M., Liu, D.,
2012. Neoproterozoic glacial deposits from the Araçuaí orogen, Brazil: Age,
provenance and correlations with the São Francisco craton and West Congo belt.
Gondwana Research, 21(2-3), 451-465.
Barnes, S. J., 2000. Chromite in komatiites, II. Modification during greenschist to mid-
amphibolite facies metamorphism. Journal of Petrology, 41(3), 387-409.
Barnes, S. J. & Roeder, P. L., 2001. The range of spinel compositions in terrestrial mafic
and ultramafic rocks. Journal of petrology, 42(12), 2279-2302.
Bezerra-Neto, F.E., 2016. Estudo de rochas exóticas da formação sopa- brumadinho e
possíveis implicações para a fonte dos diamantes do espinhaço meridional. MS
Dissertation, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 105 p
Blundy, J. D. & Holland, T. J. B., 1990. Calcic amphibole equilibria and a new amphibole-
plagioclase geothermometer. Contrib Mineral Petrol., 104,208-24.
Borges, N. R. A., Viveiros, J. F. M., Guimarães, I. G., 1979. Contribuição à geologia da
região de Guanhães–. Simpósio de Geologia de Minas Gerais, 1, 101-123.
Bryan, S.E., Ernst R.E., 2008. Revised definition of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs). Earth
Science Reviews, 86(1-4), 175-202.
Cândia, M. A., Gaspar, J. C., Szabó, G. A. J., 1999.. A interação de cromo-espinélio com
fases silicáticas nos processos metamórficos. Revista Brasileira de Geociências,
29(4), 633-638.
Chaves, A.O., 2001. Enxames de diques máficos do Setor Sul do Cráton do São
Francisco-MG. Tese de Doutromento, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo, 165 p.
Cederberg, J., Söderlund, U., Oliveira, E.P., Ernst, R.E., Pisarevsky, S.A., 2016. U-Pb
baddeleyite dating of the Proterozoic Pará de Minas dyke swarm in the São
Francisco craton (Brazil) - implications for tectonic correlation with the Siberian,
Congo and North China cratons. GFF- Scandinavian Journal of Earth Sciences,
138,219-240.
Chemale Jr., F., Dussin, I.A., Alkmim, F.F., Martins, M.S., Queiroga, G.N., Armstrong, R.,
Santos, M.N., 2012a. Unravelling a Proterozoic basin history through detrital zircon
geochronology: the case of the Espinhaço Supergroup, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Gondwana Research, 22(1), 200-206.
Chemale Jr., F., Kawashita, K., Dussin, I.A., Ávila, J.N., Justino, D., Bertotti, A. 2012b. U-
Pb zircon in situ dating with LA-MC-ICP- MS using a mixed detector configuration.
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 84(2), 275-295.
Cordani, U.G., Pimentel, M.M., Ganade de Araújo, C.E., Fuck, R.A., 2013. The significance
of the Transbrasiliano-Kandi tectonic corridor for the amalgamation of West
Gondwana. Brazilian Journal of Geology, 43(3), 583-597
 210

Costa, A.F.O., 2017. Evolução tectono-estratigráfica da porção norte do Espinhaço

Central, Norte de Minas Gerais. Tese de Doutorado, Departamento de
Geologia/Escola de Minas, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 220 p
Cruz, S.C.P. & Alkmim, F.F., 2017. The Paramirim Aulacogen. In: Heilbron M., Cordani
U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy
of a Miniature Continent. Cham, Springer, p. 97-115
Currin, A., Wolff, P. E., Koepke, J., Almeev, R. R., Zhang, C., Zihlmann, B., Ildefonse, B,
Teagle, D. A., 2018. Chlorine-rich amphibole in deep layered gabbros as evidence for
brine/rock interaction in the lower oceanic crust: A case study from the Wadi Wariyah,
Samail Ophiolite, Sultanate of Oman. Lithos, 323, 125-136.
D’Agrella-Filho, M.S. & Cordani, U.G., 2017. The Paleomagnetic record of the São
Francisco-Congo craton. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São
Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent.
Cham, Springer, p. 305-320.
Danderfer, A., Lana, C.C., Nalini, Jr. H.A., Costa, A.F.O., 2015. Constraints on the
sthatherian Evolution of the intraplate rifting in a Paleo- Mesoproterozoic
paleocontinent: New stratigraphic and geochronology record from the eastern São
Francisco craton. Gondwana Research, 28, 668-688
Degler, R., Pedrosa-Soares, A., Novo, T., Tedeschi, M., Silva, L. C., Dussin, I., Lana, C.,
2018. Rhyacian-Orosirian isotopic records from the basement of the Araçuaí-Ribeira
orogenic system (SE Brazil): Links in the Congo-São Francisco palaeocontinent.
Precambrian Research, 317, 179-195.
DePaolo, D.J., 1981. Trace element and isotopic effects of combined wallrock assimilation
and fractional crystallization. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 53(2), 189-202.
Dick H.J.B. & Bullen T. 1984. Chromian spinel as a petrogenetic indicator in abyssal and
alpine-type peridotites and spatially associated lavas. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 86:54–
76.
Dobretsov, N. L., 1968. Paragenetic types and compositions of metamorphic pyroxenes.
Journal of Petrology, 9(3), 358-377.
Dussin, I.A., 2017. Geocronologia U-Pb e Lu-Hf em zircão, Aplicada às Bacias
Proterozóicas. Estudo de Caso: Evolução Sedimentar e Tectônica da Bacia do
Espinhaço – Setor Meridional, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Minas Gerais, Verlag-Novas
Edições Acadêmicas, 124 p.
Dussin, T.M., 1994. Associacions vulcano- plutoniques de l’Espinhaço Meridional (SE -
Brésil): un exemple d’évolution de la croûte protérozoïque. PhD Thesis, Université
D’Orléans, Orléans, 177 p.
Dussin,T.M., Dussin I.A., Macambira M.J.B., 2000. Chronology of Mesoproterozoic
Guanhães River sequence: 207Pb/206Pb single zircon evaporation data of
metavolcanic rocks (Minas Gerais, Brazil). In: 31º Internacional Geolological
Congress, Rio de Janeiro. Abstracts. CD-ROM.
Eby, G.N., 1992. Chemical subdivision of the A-type granitoids: petrogenetic and tectonic
implications. Geology, 20, 641-644.
Ernst, R.E., 2014. Large igneous provinces. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 667
p.
Ernst, R.E., Pereira, E., Hamilton, M.A., Pisarevsky, S.A., Rodrigues, J., Tassinari, C.C.G.,
Teixeira, W., Van-Dunem, V., 2013. Mesoproterozoic intraplate magmatic ‘bar-code’
record of the Angola portion of the Congo Craton: newly dated magmatic events at
 211

1505 and 1110 Ma and implications for Nuna (Columbia) supercontinent

reconstructions. Precambrian Research, 230, 103-118.
Ernst, W. G., 2012. Amphiboles: Crystal chemistry phase relations and occurrence (Vol. 1).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Evans, B. W., 1977. Metamorphism of alpine peridotite and serpentinite. Annual Review of
Earth and Planetary Sciences, 5(1), 397-447.
Evans, B. W. & Frost, B. R., 1975. Chrome-spinel in progressive metamorphism - A
preliminar analysis. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, 39, 959-972.
Evans, B. W., Trommsdorff, V. 1974. On elongate olivine of metamorphic origin. Geology,
2(3), 131-132.
Evans, B. W. & Trommsdorff, V., 1974. Stability of enstatite+ talc, and CO 2-metasomatism
of metaperidotite, Val d'Efra, Lepontine Alps. American Journal of Science, 274(3),
274-296.
Evans, D. A. D., Trindade, R. I. F., Catelani, E. L., D'Agrella-Filho, M. S., Heaman, L. M.,
Oliveira, E. P., Salminen, J. M., 2015. Return to Rodinia? Moderate to high
palaeolatitude of the São Francisco/Congo craton at 920 Ma. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 424, SP424-1.
Fawcett, J. J. & Yoder Jr, H. S., 1966. Phase relationships of chlorites in the system MgO-
Al2O3-SiO2-H2O. American Mineralogist: Journal of Earth and Planetary Materials,
51(3-4_Part_1), 353-380.
Foden, J. D. & Green, D. H., 1992. Possible role of amphibole in the origin of andesite:
some experimental and natural evidence. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology,
109(4), 479-493.
Frimmel, H. E., Tack, L., Basei, M. S., Nutman, A. P., Boven, A., 2006. Provenance and
chemostratigraphy of the Neoproterozoic West Congolian Group in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 46(3), 221-239.
Frost B. R. 1975. Contact metamorphism of serpentinite, chloritic blackwall and rodingite at
Paddy - Go- Easy Pass, Central Cascades, Washington. Journal of Petrology,
16(2):272-313
Gasparik, T. & Newton, R. C., 1984. The reversed alumina contents of orthopyroxene in
equilibrium with spinel and forsterite in the system MgO-Al 2 O 3-SiO 2. Contributions
to Mineralogy and Petrology, 85(2), 186-196.
Girardi, V. A., Teixeira, W., Mazzucchelli, M., de Oliveira, E. P., da Costa, P. C. C., 2017.
Mafic Dykes: Petrogenesis and Tectonic Inferences. In São Francisco Craton,
Eastern Brazil (pp. 145-169). Springer, Cham.
Grossi Sad, J. H., Chiodi Filho, C., Santos, J. F., Magalhães, J. M. M., Carelos, P. M.,
1990. Duas suites graníticas do bordo sudeste do Craton São Francisco, em Minas
Gerais: Petroquímica e Potencial Metalogenético. Anais, 36o Congresso Brasileiro
Geologia, Vol. 4, Natal, p. 1836-1841.
Hammarstrom, J. M., and Zen, E-an., 1986, Aluminium in hornblende: an empirical igneous
geobarometer: American Mineralogist, v. 71(11/12), p. 1297-1313.
He, Y., Zhao, G., Sun, M., Xia, X., 2009. SHRIMP and LA-ICP-MS zircon geochronology of
the Xiong’er volcanic rocks: implications for the Paleo-Mesoproterozoic evolution of
the southern margin of the North China Craton. Precambrian Research, 168(3-4),
213-222.
Heilbron, M., Cordani, U.G., Alkmim, F.F., Reis, H.L., 2017. Tectonic Genealogy of a
Miniature Continent. In: Heilbron M., Cordani U.G., Alkmim F.F. (eds.), São
 212

Francisco Craton, Eastern Brazil: Tectonic Genealogy of a Miniature Continent.

Cham, Springer, p. 321-331.
Hollister, L. S., Grissom, G. C., Peters, E. K., Stowell, H. H., Sisson, V. B., 1987.
Confirmation of the empirical correlation of Al in hornblende with pressure of
solidification of calc-alkaline plutons: American Mineralogist, 72(3-4), 231-239.
Hou, G.T., Santosh, M., Qian, X.L., Lister, G.S., Li J., 2008. Configuration of the Late
Paleoproterozoic supercontinent Columbia: insights from radiating mafic dyke
swarms. Gondwana Research, 14(3), 395-409.
Irvine, T. N., 1965. Chromian spinel as a petrogenetic indicator: Part 1. Theory. Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences, 2(6), 648-672.
Irvine, T. N., 1967. Chromian spinel as a petrogenetic indicator: Part 2. Petrologic
applications. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 4(1), 71-103.
Jackson, E. D. & Thayer, T. P., 1972, Some criteria for distinguishing between stratiform,
concentric and alpine peridotite gabbro complexes: Internat. Geol. Cong., 24th,
Montreal 1972, Sec. 2, p. 289-296
Jenkins, D. M. & Chernosky, J. V., 1986, Phase equilibria and crystallochemical properties
of Mg-chlorites :American Mineralogist, v. 71, p. 924–936.
Karipi, S., Tsikouras, B., Hatzipanagiotou, K., Grammatikopoulos, T. A., 2007. Petrogenetic
significance of spinel-group minerals from the ultramafic rocks of the Iti and
Kallidromon ophiolites (Central Greece). Lithos, 99(1-2), 136-149.
Kuchenbecker, M., Pedrosa‑Soares, A.C., Babinski, M., Fanning, M. 2015. Detrital zircon
age patterns and provenance assessment for pre‑glacial to post‑glacial successions
of the Neoproterozoic Macaúbas Group, Araçuaiorogen, Brazil. Precambrian
Research, 266, 12‑26.
Loiselle, M.C. & Wones, D.R., 1979. Characteristic and origin of anorogenic granites.
Abstracts, Geological Society of America, v. 11, p. 468.
Machado, N., Schrank, A., Abreu, F.R., Knauer, L.G, Almeida-Abreu, P.A., 1989.
Resultados preliminares da geocronologia U-Pb na Serra do Espinhaço Meridional.
In: 5º Simpósio de Geologia de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. Anais. 5, 171-174.
MacGabhann, B.A., 2005. Age constraints on Precambrian glaciations and the subdivision
of Neoproterozoic time. IUGS Ediacaran Subcommission Circular, 13 p.
Magalhães, J. R., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Dussin, I., Muntener, O., Silva, L. C., Pinheiro, M.
A. P., Knauer, L. G., Bouvier, A. S., Baumgartner, L., 2018. First Lu-Hf, δ18O and
trace elements in zircon signatures from the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic
province (Eastern Brazil): Geotectonic implications. Brazilian Journal of Geology. V.
48(4), 735-759 p.
Moreira, H.M., 2017. Caracterização petrológica, geoquímica e geocronológica de corpos
intrusivos máficos da Porção Central da Serra do Espinhaço. Dissertação de
Mestrado, Departamento de Geologia/Escola de Minas, Universidade Federal de
Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 176 p.
Noce, C.M., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Silva, L.C., Armstrong, R., Piuzana, D., 2007b.
Evolution of polycyclic basement complexes in the Araçuaí Orogen, based on U–Pb
SHRIMP data: Implications for Brazil–Africa links in Paleoproterozoic time.
Precambrian Research, 159(1-2), 60-78
Obata, M., 1976. The solubility of Al2O3 in orthopyroxenes in spinel and plagioclase
peridotites and spinel pyroxenite. American Mineralogist, 61(7-8), 804-816.
 213

Pearce, J.A., Harris, N.B.W., Tindle, A.G., 1984. Trace element discrimination diagrams for
the tectonic interpretation of granitic rocks. Journal of Petrology, 25, 956-983.
Peccerillo, A., Barberio, M.R., Yirgu, G., Ayalew, D., Barbieri, M., Wu, T.W., 2003.
Relationships between mafic and peralkaline felsic magmatism in continental rift
settings: a petrological, geochemical and isotopic study of the Gedemsa Volcano,
Central Ethiopian Rift. Journal of Petrology, 44, 2003-2032.
Peixoto, E., Alkmim, F. F., Pedrosa‐Soares, A., Lana, C., & Chaves, A. O., 2018.
Metamorphic record of collision and collapse in the Ediacaran‐Cambrian Araçuaí
orogen, SE‐Brazil: Insights from P–T pseudosections and monazite dating. Journal of
Metamorphic Geology, 36(2), 147-172.
Peixoto, E., Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., Alkmim, F. F., Dussin, I.A., 2015. A suture-related
accretionary wedge formed in the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí orogen (SE Brazil) during
Western Gondwanaland assembly. Gondwana Research, 27, 878-896.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C. & Alkmim, F.F., 2011. How many rifting events preceded the
development of the Araçuaí-West Congo orogeny? Geonomos, 19(2), 244-251.
Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Alkmim, F.F., Tack, L., Noce, C.M., Babinski, M., Silva, L.C.D.,
Martins-Neto, M.A., 2008. Similarities and differences between the Brazilian and
African counterparts of the Neoproterozoic Araçuaí-West Congo orogen. Geological
Society of London Special Publication, London, 294(1), 153-172.
Pedrosa-Soares, A. C., De Campos, C. P., Noce, C., Silva, L. C., Novo, T., Roncato, J.,
Dussin, I., 2011. Late Neoproterozoic-Cambrian granitic magmatism in the Araçuaí
orogen (Brazil), the Eastern Brazilian Pegmatite Province and related mineral resources.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 350(1), 25-51.
Peng, P., 2015. Precambrian mafic dyke swarms in the North China Craton and their
geological implications. Science China Earth Sciences, 58(5), 649-675.
Peng, P., Zhai, M., Ernst, R.E., Guo, J., Liu F., Hu, B., 2008. A 1.78 Ga large igneous
province in the North China craton: the Xiong’er Volcanic Province and the North China
dyke swarm. Lithos, 101(3-4), 260-280.
Peng, P., Zhai M., Zhang, H., Zhao, T., Ni Z., 2004. Geochemistry and Geological
Significance of the 1.8 Ga Mafic Dyke Swarms in the North China craton: an Example
from the Juncture of Shanxi, Hebei and Inner–Mongolia. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 20,
439-456.
Pimentel, M.M., Heaman, L.M., Fuck, R.A., Marini, O.J., 1991. U–Pb zircon geochronology of
Precambrian tin-bearing continental-type acid magmatism in central Brazil.
Precambrian Research, 52, 321-335.
Pimentel, M.M., Machado, N., Lobato, L.M., 1994. Geocronologia U/Pb de rochas graníticas
e gnáissicas da região de Lagoa Real, Bahia, e implicações para a idade da
mineralização de urânio. In: 38º Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia, Balneário
Camboriú. Boletim, p. 389-390.
Pirajno, F. & Santosh, M., 2015. Mantle plumes, supercontinents, intracontinental rifting and
mineral systems. Precambrian Research, 259, 243-261.
Putirka, K., 2008. Thermometers and Barometers for Volcanic Systems. In: Putirka, K.,
Tepley, F. (Eds.), Minerals, Inclusions and Volcanic Processes, Reviews in Mineralogy
and Geochemistry. Mineralogical Soc. Am., 69, 61-120.
Putirka, K., 2016. Amphibole thermometers and barometers for igneous systems and some
implications for eruption mechanisms of felsic magmas at arc volcanoes. American
Mineralogist, 101(4), 841-858.
 214

Queiroga, G. N., 2010. Caracterização de restos de litosfera oceânica do Orógeno Araçuaí

entre os paralelos 17º e 21ºS. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte..
Queiroga, G. N., Soares, A. C. P., Noce, C. M., Alkmim, F. F. D., Pimentel, M. M., Dantas, E.,
Prichard, H., 2007. Age of the Ribeirão da Folha ophiolite, Araçuaí orogen: the U-Pb
zircon (LA-ICPMS) dating of a plagiogranite. Geonomos, 15(1), 61-65.
Rey, P., Teyssier, C., and Whitney, D.L., 2009. Crustal melting and core complex dynamics:
Geology, 37, 391–394.
Ridolfi, F. & Renzulli, A., 2012. Calcic amphiboles in calc-alkaline and alkaline magmas:
thermobarometric and chemometric empirical equations valid up to 1,130° C and 2.2
GPa. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 163(5), 877-895.
Rogers, J. J., 1996. A history of continents in the past three billion years. The journal of
geology, 104(1), 91-107.
Rogers, J. J., Santosh, M., 2004. Continents and supercontinents. Oxford University Press.
Rollinson, H., 1993. Using geochemical data: evaluation, presentation, interpretation. New
York, Longman Scientific, 352 p.
Rolim, V. K., Rosière, C. A., Santos, J. O. S., McNaughton, N. J., 2016. The Orosirian-
Statherian banded iron formation-bearing sequences of the southern border of the
Espinhaço Range, Southeast Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 65:
43-66.
Rosa, M.L.S., Conceição, H., Macambira, M., Galarza, M.C., Cunha, M., Menezes, R.,
Marinho, M.M., Cruz-Filho, B.E., Rios D.C., 2007. Neoproterozoic anorogenic
magmatism in the Southern Bahia Alkaline Province of NE Brazil: U–Pb and Pb–Pb
ages of the blue sodalite syenites. Lithos, 97, 88-97.
Sack, R. O., 1982. Spinels as petrogenetic indicators: activity-composition relations at low
pressures. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 79(2), 169-186.
Sack, R. O. & Ghiorso, M. S., 1991. Chromian spinels as petrogenetic indicators;
thermodynamics and petrological applications. American Mineralogist, 76(5-6), 827-
847.
Schobbenhaus, C., Hoppe, A., Baumann, A., Lork, A., 1994. Idade U/Pb do vulcanismo Rio
dos Remédios, Chapada Diamantina, Bahia. In: 38º Congresso Brasileiro de Geologia,
Balneário Camboriú. Boletim, p. 397-399.
Silva, L.C., Pedrosa-Soares, A.C., Armstrong, R., Pinto, C.P., Magalhães, J.T.R., Pinheiro,
M.A.P., Santos, G.G., 2016. Disclosing the Paleoarchean to Ediacaran history of the
São Francisco craton basement: The Porteirinha domain (northern Araçuaí orogen,
Brazil). Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 68:50-67.
Silveira-Braga, F.C., Rosière, C.A., Queiroga, G.N., Rolim, V.K., Santos, J.O.S.,
McNaughton, N.J., 2015. The Statherian itabirite-bearing sequence from the Morro
Escuro Ridge, Santa Maria de Itabira, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences, 58, 33-53.
Silveira-Braga, F. C., Rosière, C. A., Santos, J. O. S., Hagemann, S. G., McNaughton, N. J.,
Salles, P. V., 2019. The Horto-Baratinha itabirite-hosted iron ore: A basal fragment of
the Espinhaço basin in the eastern São Francisco Craton. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences, 90, 12-33.
Spear, F. S., 1981. Amphibole-plagioclase equilibria: an empirical model for the relation
albite+ tremolite= edenite+ 4 quartz. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 77(4),
355-364.
 215

Straathof, G. B., 2011. Neoproterozoic low latitude glaciations: an African perspective. Tese
de Doutoramento. The University of Edimburg, 264p.
Suita, M. T. F. & Strieder, A. J., 1996. Cr-spinels from Brazilian mafic-ultramafic complexes:
metamorphic modifications. International Geology Review,38(3), 245-267.
Teixeira, W., Kamo, S. L.,Arcanjo, J. B. A., 1997. U-Pb zircon and baddeleyite age and
tectonic interpretation of the Itabuna alkaline suite, São Francisco Cráton, Brazil.
Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 10(1), 91-98.
Thiéblemont, D., Goujou, J.C., Gouin,J., Prian, J.P., Cocherie, A., Guerrot, C., Tegyey, M.,
2009. Notice explicative de la Carte géologique de la République du Gabon à 1/200
000, feuille Mayumba-Ndindi. Editions DGMB – Ministère des Mines, du Pétrole, des
Hydrocarbures, Libreville, 78 p.
Trommsdorff, V. & Evans, B. W., 1972. Progressive metamorphism of antigorite schist in the
Bergell tonalite aureole (Italy). American Journal of Science, 272(5), 423-437.
Trommsdorff, V. & Evans, B. W., 1977. Antigorite-ophicarbonates: contact metamorphism in
Valmalenco, Italy. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 62(3), 301-312.
Trommsdorff, V., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, V. L., Gomez-Pugnaire, M. T., Müntener, O., 1998. High
pressure breakdown of antigorite to spinifex-textured olivine and orthopyroxene, SE
Spain. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 132(2), 139-148.
Teixeira, W., Oliveira, E.P., Peng, P., Dantas, E.L., Hollanda, M.H. 2017. U-Pb
geochronology of the 2.0 Ga Itapecerica graphite-rich supracrustal succession in the
São Francisco Craton: Tectonic matches with the North China Craton and
paleogeographic inferences. Precambrian Research, 293, 91-111.
Vance, J. A. & Dungan, M. A., 1977. Formation of peridotites by deserpentinization in the
Darrington and Sultan areas, Cascade Mountains, Washington. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 88(10), 1497-1508.
Xu, H., Yang, Z., Peng, P., G. K., Jin, Z., Zhu, R., 2017. Magnetic fabrics and rock
magnetism of the Xiong’er volcanic rocks and their implications for tectonic correlation
of the North China Craton with other crustal blocks in the Nuna/Columbia
supercontinent. Tectonophysics, 712, 415-425.
Wang, Y.J., Fan, W.M., Zhang, Y.H., Guo, F., Zhang, H.F., Peng, T.P., 2004. Geochemical,
40Ar/39Ar geochronological and Sr–Nd isotopic constraints on the origin of
Paleoproterozoic mafic dikes from the southern Taihang Mountains and implications
for the ca. 1800 Ma event of the North China craton. Precambrian Research, 135, 55-
77.
Wang, X.L., Jiang, S.Y., Dai, B.Z., 2010. Melting of enriched Archean subcontinental
lithospheric mantle: Evidence from the ca. 1760 Ma volcanic rocks of the Xiong’er
Group, southern margin of the North China Craton. Precambrian Research, 182(3),
204-216.
Wang, Y.J., Zhao, G.C., Fan, W.M., Peng, T.P., Sun, L.H., Xia, X., 2007. LA–ICP–MS U
Pb zircon geochronology and geochemistry of Paleoproterozoic mafic dykes from
western Shandong Province: implications for back-arc basin magmatism in the
Eastern Block, North China Craton. Precambrian Research, 154 107-124.
Whalen, J. B. Currie, K. L., Chappell, B. W.,1987. A-type granites: geochemical
characteristics, discrimination and petrogenesis. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 95:407-419.
Whitney, D. L., Teyssier, C., Rey, P., & Buck, W. R. (2013). Continental and oceanic core
complexes. Bulletin, 125(3-4), 273-298.
 216

Witt-Eickschen, G. & Seek, H. A., 1991. Solubility of Ca and Al in orthopyroxene from spine1
peridotite: na improved version of an empirical geothermometer: Contributions to
Mineralogy and Petrology, 106(4), 431439.
Worden, R.H., Droop, G.T.R. & Champness, P.E., 1991. The reaction antigorite . olivine þ
talc þ H2O in the Bergell aureole, N. Italy. Mineralogical Magazine, 55, 367–377.
Wu, F. Y., Yang, J. H., Xu, Y. G., Wilde, S. A., & Walker, R. J., 2019. Destruction of the North
China Craton in the Mesozoic. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Zhao, G., Sun, M., Wilde, S.A., Li S., 2004. A Paleo-Mesoproterozoic supercontinent:
assembly, growth and breakup. Earth- Science Reviews, 67(1-2), 91-123.
Zhao, T.P., Zhou, M.F., Zhai, M., Xia, B., 2002. Paleoproterozoic rift- related volcanism of the
Xiong’er Group, North China craton: implications for the breakup of Columbia.
International Geology Review, 44(4), 336-351.
 217

7 Conclusões

Os dados obtidos por essa tese possibilitaram alcançar as seguintes

conclusões:
• O Bloco Guanhães registra uma história geodinâmica constituída por
elementos do Arqueano ao Neoproterozoico, com eventos metamórfico-magmáticos
desenvolvidos no Orosiano, Estateriano, Criogeniano e Ediacarano-Cambriano.
• Os metavulcanitos máficos e félsicos intercalados nas unidades
metassedimentares do Alto Rio Guanhães forneceram idades U-Pb (LA-ICPMS) de
1725±4 Ma e 1748±3 Ma, respectivamente. O hornblenda-biotita granito do pluton
Açucena, Suíte Borrachudos, apresentou idade U-Pb (SHRIMP) em zircão de
1740±8 Ma, evidenciando contemporaneidade entre esses eventos magmáticos.
• As rochas metamáficas do Alto Rio Guanhães apresentam assinatura
química toleiítica e estão relacionadas geneticamente à magmatismo intraplaca
continental. A fonte do magmatismo básico está relacionada à fusão de seção
mantélica subcontinental enriquecida, estabilizada no campo do espinélio, com
evidências evolutivas envolvendo processos de cristalização fracionada com
assimilação concomitante.
• As rochas ácidas a intermediárias apresentam características químicas
típicas de ambientes intraplacas (anorogênico), e estão associadas a processos de
fusão parcial de seções crustais inferiores, provavelmente de idade arqueana, por
underplating.
• O Sistema de rifte Espinhaço é caracterizado por um expressivo volume de
magmatismo ácido durante seus estágios iniciais, com o magmatismo básico
subordinado e restrito às sequencias superiores nos domínios sul, central e no Bloco
Guanhães.
• As rochas félsicas, ácidas e subordinadamente intermediárias compõem um
evento magmático de longa duração no Estateriano, cujo período entre 1750-1710
Ma define o principal intervalo de magmatogênese do sistema de rifte Espinhaço.
• Magmatismos estaterianos contemporâneos aos determinados para o
sistema de rifte Espinhaço ocorrem em outras regiões sul cratônicas, como o
enxame de diques Pará de Minas, que juntamente com as rochas metamáficas do
Alto Rio Gunhães correspondem à manifestação de um evento distensivo continental
do tipo rifte.
 218

• A característica volumétrica, composicional e tectônica do magmatismo

associado ao rifte Espinhaço suporta a evidência de uma grande província ígnea de
natureza ácida (SLIP) estateriana atuante no Palecontinente São Francisco-Congo.
• Os metaultramafitos do Bloco Guanhães sugerem protólitos híbridos
contaminados por material crustal e cumulados correlatos, não-depletados em Al e
enriquecidos em Mg.
• Os metaultramafitos dessas associações, em sua maioria crustais, registram
metamorfismo térmico progressivo instaurado sobre rochas precursoras altamente
hidratadas, variando desde o fácies xisto verde a granulito.
• A solubilidade de Al na clorita, anfibólio e ortopiroxênio dos metaultramafitos
e intensamente sensível ao aumento do grau metamórfico. A incorporação de Al na
clorita atinge seu valor máximo em torno de 2.4 apfu, passando a subsidiar a
geração de hercinita com o incremento metamórfico e sua consequente
desestabilização térmica. A incorporação de Al no anfibólio atinge seu valor máximo
em torno de 1.4 apfu (XAl: 14 wt%), com a progressão do metamorfismo termal
gerando clinopiroxênio às suas custas. A incorporação de Al no ortopiroxênio atinge
seu valor máximo em torno de 0.11 apfu (XAl: 3.0 wt, %), com a progressão do
metamorfismo exsolvendo lamelas de hercinita a partir de seus grãos.
 Uma análise detalhada das assembléias minerais juntamente com
estimativas quantitativas geotermobarométricas clássicas e de pseudo-observação
sugerem condições de pressões baixas a moderadas e temperaturas moderadas a
altas (até 850 °C), para o metamorfismo regional relacionado orógeno Araçuaí-
Congo oriental.
• A idade dos protólitos ígneo dos metaultramafitos foi estimada em torno de
650 Ma e reflete um evento extensional associado às bacias precursoras do orógeno
Araçuaí-Congo oriental. As idades de metamorfismo entre 605 e 509 Ma, obtidas em
grãos de zircão de rocha metassedimentar rica em ferro, associada às
metaultramáficas, sugerem que o metamorfismo está relacionado aos estágios sin-
colisional e pós-colisional do sistema orogênico.
 O magmatismo ultramáfico registrado no Bloco Guanhães pode ser
correlacionado ao evento anorogênico criogeniano encontrado em outras partes do
sistema orogênico Araçuaí - Oeste do Congo e região cratônica circundante.
 219

8 Apêndice A - First Lu-Hf, δ18O and trace elements in zircon

signatures from the Statherian Espinhaço anorogenic province
(Eastern Brazil): geotectonic implications of a silicic large igneous
province
 220

Tabela A-1: Whole rolck litochemistry. References: 1) This study; 2) Dussin (1994); 3) Soares Filho (1987);
4) Fernandes et al. (1994); 5) Grossi-Sad et al. (1990); 6) Oliveira (2002); 7) Chemale (1987); 8) Braga (2012);
9) Grossi-Sad (1997); 10) Knauer & Grossi-Sad (1997).
Sample J02 J02A J03 J12 J15 J25B J25D J33 J34B J36 J38
SiO2 48.83 48.69 71.46 47.84 47.73 45.07 49.29 47.53 48.54 46.29 48.19
MgO 6.65 6.97 0.45 6.47 6.13 7.40 6.66 7.22 7.33 8.02 7.66
TiO2 2.48 2.04 0.62 2.53 2.80 2.50 2.44 2.77 1.84 1.83 1.89
Al2O3 13.92 14.16 12.14 14.15 13.35 14.53 14.23 14.70 14.40 15.63 14.91
Fe2O3T 13.99 13.37 5.79 15.31 14.76 15.94 14.64 15.12 12.29 13.98 12.56
MnO 0.21 0.20 0.07 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.18
CaO 11.06 10.99 1.61 10.97 10.78 11.18 10.07 10.18 11.32 11.29 11.51
Na2O 1.22 1.87 2.82 0.88 2.25 0.98 0.90 0.96 2.23 1.14 1.39
K2O 0.31 0.27 4.01 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.16 0.17 0.23 0.20 0.20
P2O5 0.30 0.27 0.14 0.40 0.35 0.26 0.36 0.32 0.18 0.23 0.21
LOI 0.70 0.90 0.60 0.70 1.10 1.30 0.80 0.50 1.20 0.90 1.00
Total 99.67 99.73 104.92 99.71 99.70 99.68 99.76 99.69 99.73 99.71 99.70
Ni 61.00 83.00 63.00 122.00 81.00 55.00 72.00 90.00 94.00 91.00
Cr 143.68 218.94 184.73 102.63 143.68 102.63 82.10 205.26 102.63 232.63
Sc 37.00 39.00 7.00 43.00 36.00 41.00 38.00 35.00 37.00 39.00 37.00
Co 45.60 46.40 5.70 47.60 62.20 53.30 46.00 51.90 50.00 53.60 48.90
Ba 101.00 35.00 1028.00 61.00 139.00 52.00 11.00 21.00 70.00 109.00 52.00
Sr 307.30 183.80 95.00 140.60 338.60 161.90 137.00 275.70 226.50 221.20 236.50
Rb 2.40 1.10 148.30 1.20 3.40 1.30 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.20 1.00
Nb 23.80 17.50 35.00 20.40 25.60 18.40 16.80 24.40 13.20 12.40 14.90
Y 33.30 29.10 127.00 55.00 43.10 38.20 34.50 32.80 23.50 33.10 24.50
Zr 217.40 169.30 497.50 212.90 223.80 197.70 158.10 189.40 118.50 141.30 142.70
La 28.50 17.80 136.90 39.00 33.40 27.20 19.00 24.30 17.50 24.50 20.30
Ce 57.30 36.30 243.80 62.90 62.80 51.20 42.40 52.20 22.30 42.50 39.50
Pr 7.08 4.72 26.89 10.02 8.35 7.47 5.55 6.52 4.63 6.13 5.04
Nd 29.00 19.80 96.30 42.00 35.50 31.70 24.20 28.00 19.30 25.80 21.60
Sm 6.93 5.25 18.75 9.97 8.32 7.25 6.12 6.64 4.03 5.75 4.68
Eu 2.05 1.62 2.27 3.21 2.57 2.36 2.10 2.26 1.58 1.88 1.62
Gd 7.13 5.40 18.56 11.75 8.71 7.95 6.76 7.15 4.70 6.16 5.31
Tb 1.16 0.94 2.82 1.82 1.41 1.29 1.10 1.12 0.75 1.02 0.86
Dy 6.52 5.48 17.24 11.05 8.19 7.75 6.67 6.58 4.21 6.09 4.82
Ho 1.24 1.11 3.50 2.22 1.56 1.42 1.33 1.19 0.83 1.25 0.92
Er 3.63 2.89 10.95 5.60 4.47 4.13 3.55 3.35 2.37 3.63 2.53
Tm 0.51 0.45 1.47 0.77 0.58 0.61 0.53 0.47 0.33 0.51 0.38
Yb 2.99 2.82 8.64 4.45 3.76 3.77 3.17 2.81 2.26 3.19 2.35
Lu 0.46 0.40 1.34 0.65 0.54 0.52 0.47 0.44 0.32 0.46 0.37
Hf 5.40 4.20 13.10 4.80 5.30 5.00 4.10 4.50 3.00 3.50 3.50
Ta 1.50 1.20 2.30 1.10 1.30 1.10 1.10 1.30 0.80 0.90 0.90
Pb 11.00 3.50 12.20 4.60 0.70 2.60 2.50 3.70 0.80 3.10 21.10
Th 2.30 2.10 31.90 2.00 2.30 2.30 1.40 1.90 1.10 1.10 1.20
U 0.60 0.60 5.00 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40
Reference 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 221

Sample J39 ER.14A ER.14B ER.14C ER.16 ER.118 BS-465 4540 5077 5086
SiO2 48.90 76.43 74.70 75.39 67.59 71.34 78.60 76.30 76.20 76.10
MgO 6.12 0.08 0.08 0.30 0.55 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.03
TiO2 2.80 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.56 0.64 0.20 0.13 0.26 0.23
Al2O3 13.68 11.89 11.42 11.57 12.50 12.05 10.50 10.62 10.81 11.04
Fe2O3T 15.77 0.92 3.51 3.70 7.43 6.76 2.13 1.84 3.01 2.30
MnO 0.22 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02
CaO 10.48 0.83 0.46 0.39 1.77 0.54 0.29 0.85 0.70 0.77
Na2O 1.02 3.47 2.82 3.12 4.19 3.45 2.50 3.88 5.03 4.38
K2O 0.24 5.27 5.35 5.00 4.50 4.09 5.20 5.48 5.30 5.48
P2O5 0.28 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.02
LOI 0.20 0.73 0.76 0.52 1.21 0.58 0.44
Total 99.71 99.03 98.32 99.71 99.61 100.00
Ni 61.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 18.00
Cr 75.26 5.00 6.00 11.00 7.00 15.00
Sc 38.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 9.80 7.40
Co 52.10 5.00
V 389.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 19.00
Ba 42.00 165.00 118.00 111.00 658.00 1598.00 178.00 131.00 272.00 705.00
Sr 176.70 25.00 12.00 16.00 70.00 92.00 34.00 27.00 5.00
Rb 0.90 245.00 278.00 258.00 222.00 106.00 400.00 512.00 217.00 209.00
Nb 22.00 122.00 109.00 101.00 87.00 23.00 39.00 56.00 34.00
Y 37.20 135.00 351.00 251.62 163.03 78.46 127.00 103.00 70.00
Zr 191.00 774.00 695.00 706.00 877.00 522.00 470.00 314.00 621.00 381.00
La 22.90 78.75 515.20 229.71 164.52 171.95 92.50 145.60 234.60 137.60
Ce 48.00 149.20 397.90 418.41 297.21 260.42 217.00 259.10 438.60 251.20
Pr 6.30
Nd 26.60 56.72 354.20 167.35 120.10 122.22 50.70 93.00 178.10 102.10
Sm 6.44 11.47 66.76 37.56 25.58 22.34 15.60 17.76 30.32 17.97
Eu 2.11 0.58 2.45 2.00 2.88 4.03 0.41 0.50 1.13 1.54
Gd 7.17 12.98 61.29 30.48 20.92 16.84 8.20 17.41 24.73 15.82
Tb 1.20
Dy 7.41 20.60 59.77 32.38 21.79 14.18 9.30 19.70 20.25 13.44
Ho 1.38 2.30 4.45 4.25 2.83
Er 3.80 13.46 31.15 17.14 11.20 6.56 7.60 13.54 11.25 7.59
Tm 0.56 1.30
Yb 3.41 13.76 26.43 17.60 12.12 6.55 13.81 10.00 6.91
Lu 0.51 2.08 3.93 2.53 1.87 0.94 1.30 1.59 1.19 0.82
Hf 4.90 27.50 25.30 16.00
Ta 1.00 8.30 8.00 7.00
Pb 3.00 100.00 100.00 78.00 79.00
Th 2.10 46.00 47.00 48.00 38.00 16.00 72.00 50.00 45.00
U 0.50 10.50 9.69 15.00
Ref 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4
 222

Sample 5088 5218 5219 5220 A.111b A.211 A.220 A.69B Ac AK 016 AK 048
SiO2 73.40 71.00 77.50 74.70 74.05 71.30 75.10 67.80 74.30 74.74 73.36
MgO 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.40 0.25 0.04 0.16
TiO2 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.21 0.30 0.17 0.62 0.21 0.23 0.40
Al2O3 12.13 13.72 10.98 11.43 11.70 12.60 11.20 12.40 12.20 11.94 12.13
Fe2O3T 2.52 2.52 1.73 2.27 1.04 3.40 2.22 7.79 2.60 3.11 4.12
MnO 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.05
CaO 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.87 0.85 1.10 0.72 2.10 0.95 0.95 1.52
Na2O 4.99 5.19 4.65 4.58 2.90 4.20 3.60 3.90 3.20 3.25 2.90
K2O 5.25 5.90 5.60 5.25 6.30 5.70 5.60 4.20 5.80 5.23 4.77
P2O5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.05
LOI 0.88 1.29 1.40 1.10
Total 98.17 99.78 100.00 99.98 99.79 99.76
Ni
Cr
Sc 18.00
Co 0.00 6.00
V 56.00 0.00 6.00
Ba 499.00 67.00 75.00 471.00 160.00 950.00 360.00 640.00 840.00 471.00 1230.00
Sr 38.00 15.00 15.00 94.00 35.00 93.00 51.00 60.00 120.00 36.00 123.00
Rb 254.00 529.00 456.00 233.00 360.00 190.00 280.00 230.00 230.00 204.00 150.00
Nb 51.00 183.00 58.00 15.00 50.00 62.00 28.00 57.00 28.00 117.00 25.00
Y 72.00 85.00 120.00 48.00 72.00 92.00 22.00 120.00 140.00 148.00 73.00
Zr 426.00 137.00 262.00 297.00 220.00 410.00 270.00 960.00 660.00 586.00
La 130.50 77.30 79.90 95.30 156.80 337.60 90.27 162.80 214.60 154.00 80.00
Ce 242.40 145.40 159.20 180.50 283.10 591.00 163.90 295.80 231.20 247.00 150.00
Pr 32.10 17.30
Nd 100.60 52.50 62.10 68.60 121.60 269.60 69.87 127.00 145.80 117.00 67.00
Sm 19.09 10.99 13.47 11.71 32.10 59.60 18.64 25.70 28.35 23.00 13.00
Eu 1.41 0.32 0.50 0.88 0.89 4.60 0.99 2.80 2.12 1.23 1.94
Gd 17.71 11.07 14.40 9.61 22.33 38.85 13.80 22.10 29.14 22.00 12.00
Tb 3.80 2.00
Dy 14.75 12.99 17.52 8.22 21.01 27.68 12.14 21.30 27.99 23.00 12.00
Ho 2.98 2.94 4.08 1.75 6.01 4.40 2.20
Er 7.73 8.63 12.45 4.58 11.31 14.43 7.56 13.20 17.34 14.00 7.20
Tm 2.05 0.70
Yb 6.27 9.00 12.91 4.10 8.82 11.38 5.96 11.30 15.55 11.00 6.12
Lu 0.70 1.02 1.53 0.47 1.02 1.45 0.79 1.40 1.82 1.63 0.92
Hf 9.00 21.00 14.00
Ta 20.00 4.30 2.30
Pb 72.00 109.00 83.00 71.00 23.00 32.00 30.00
Th 40.00 119.00 86.00 49.00 42.00 19.00
U 33.00 20.00 5.60 4.70
Ref 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 5 6 6
 223

Sample AK 147 AK162 FDG-1 FDG-2 FDG-3 FDG-4 FDG-5 FDG-6 FDG-7
SiO2 73.96 73.55 73.80 73.90 73.00 73.90 74.50 73.60 74.20
MgO 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.17 0.02 0.09 0.06
TiO2 0.15 0.19 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.25
Al2O3 11.90 12.71 10.80 11.10 11.20 11.30 11.20 11.60 11.00
Fe2O3T 2.70 2.48 3.25 3.20 3.20 3.73 3.25 3.00 3.10
MnO 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
CaO 1.17 0.78 1.10 1.00 1.10 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.88
Na2O 3.31 3.08 3.50 3.70 3.60 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.70
K2O 5.03 5.41 5.90 5.50 5.60 5.40 5.60 6.10 5.70
P2O5 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
LOI
Total 98.86 98.29 99.90 99.72 99.81 99.85 99.91 99.66 99.61
Ni 16.00 18.00 13.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 18.00
Cr
Sc
Co 0.00 0.00
V 0.00 0.00 37.00 36.00 58.00 60.00 53.00 50.00 45.00
Ba 199.00 1010.00 358.00 358.00 448.00 448.00 448.00 448.00 358.00
Sr 24.00 60.00 25.00 30.00 37.00 30.00 37.00 38.00 31.00
Rb 245.00 145.00 250.00 330.00 300.00 270.00 280.00 300.00 330.00
Nb 60.00 31.00 73.00 84.00 81.00 86.00 78.00 68.00 82.00
Y 191.00 89.00 110.00 130.00 130.00 130.00 110.00 100.00 130.00
Zr 528.00 745.00 510.00 530.00 550.00 580.00 520.00 430.00 460.00
La 204.00 168.00 143.70 140.60 125.10 160.90 136.10 111.80 151.30
Ce 329.00 125.00 258.40 245.70 225.60 278.20 236.40 200.00 261.90
Pr 40.60 34.10
Nd 142.00 125.00 99.00 94.10 94.40 104.40 90.10 76.90 98.10
Sm 27.00 23.00 21.80 20.80 22.00 21.70 19.10 17.30 21.20
Eu 0.66 2.06 1.50 1.30 1.50 1.60 1.30 1.20 1.40
Gd 25.00 20.00 18.00 17.70 18.90 17.70 16.40 14.70 18.20
Tb 4.30 3.00
Dy 26.00 16.00 16.40 17.10 17.70 15.90 15.40 13.90 18.30
Ho 5.10 2.90 3.10 3.20 3.30 2.90 2.80 2.60 3.50
Er 17.00 8.30 9.90 10.60 10.50 9.30 9.30 8.50 11.80
Tm 2.48 1.04 1.37 1.38 1.36 1.31 1.21 1.05 1.62
Yb 14.00 5.10 7.80 9.60 9.30 7.50 8.40 7.60 10.10
Lu 2.05 0.62 0.84 1.10 1.02 0.82 0.96 0.86 1.20
Hf 19.00 22.00
Ta 2.10 1.30 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Pb 26.00 15.00 26.00 36.00 33.00 38.00 18.00 23.00 28.00
Th 4.40 31.00 28.00 25.00 20.00 26.00 15.00 32.00 38.00
U 4.60 3.40
Ref 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
 224

PTG-172-
Sample FSD-006-501 Grn IT.106 Ita Pt PTG-036-003 PTG-060 001
SiO2 74.8 74.50 71.50 74.26 75.07 71.58 74.44 75.61
MgO 7
0.5 0.36 0.28 0.10 0.06 0.42 0.2 0.19
TiO2 4
0.2 0.19 0.35 0.23 0.24 0.38 7
0.1 0.24
Al2O3 2
11.9 11.80 13.00 11.45 12.43 13.40 5
13.67 13.13
Fe2O3T 3
2.2 2.55 4.45 3.52 2.06 3.26 1.3 2.31
MnO 0
0.0 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 4
0.0 0.03
CaO 4
0.7 0.82 1.30 0.89 0.75 2.06 3
0.9 2.32
Na2O 1
1.8 3.50 4.10 3.55 3.23 2.27 2
3.5 3.84
K2O 4
6.5 5.40 4.70 5.37 5.02 5.60 9
5.1 1.86
P2O5 7
0.0 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.10 2
0.0 0.05
LOI 2
0.9 0.60 0.50 6
0.3 0.20
Total 0
99.8 99.95 99.60 0
99.86 99.77
Ni 4
1.9 12.00 15.50 1.90 3.7 1.50
Cr 0 0
Sc
Co 0.6 3.40 1.8 2.40
V 0 10.00 25.00 0
9.0
Ba 299.00 390.00 ####### 260.00 522.00 1502.00 0
870.00 880.00
Sr 28.3 30.00 140.00 32.00 40.00 172.80 129.60 187.80
Rb 0
287.40 330.00 160.00 289.00 295.00 192.30 231.60 43.90
Nb 35.5 56.00 26.00 72.00 50.00 31.10 10.50 26.90
Y 0
84.0 62.00 28.00 134.00 165.00 139.00 27.10 95.20
Zr 0
435.40 520.00 500.00 334.00 605.30 126.50 402.20
La 110.90 105.20 22.90 132.52 62.47 227.10 36.80 82.30
Ce 233.70 172.80 63.10 234.02 151.50 470.80 73.90 234.80
Pr 23.7 49.40 7.6 19.42
Nd 0
85.5 80.58 31.50 92.19 72.11 176.90 6
24.50 70.90
Sm 0
16.0 14.82 7.50 19.84 13.92 31.35 4.5 13.97
Eu 1
0.6 0.89 2.10 1.33 0.78 2.89 5
0.4 2.22
Gd 8
15.1 12.66 7.20 16.78 11.82 28.28 8
4.2 13.78
Tb 8
2.5 4.60 3
0.7 2.65
Dy 4
14.4 11.25 7.10 15.74 9.96 26.08 5
4.2 16.00
Ho 6
2.9 2.38 2.91 2.09 5.20 9
0.8 3.47
Er 8
8.3 7.08 4.20 6.41 6.18 13.44 9
2.6 10.15
Tm 8
1.2 1.85 3
0.4 1.44
Yb 2
7.7 7.11 3.90 0.42 6.58 10.77 0
2.5 8.69
Lu 0
1.1 0.82 0.51 0.95 0.79 1.45 5
0.4 1.29
Hf 5
13.7 16.60 0
3.9 12.00
Ta 0
2.6 1.90 0
1.4 1.20
Pb 0
5.3 24.00 33.00 46.00 8.20 0
3.1 5.60
Th 0
42.8 25.50 24.60 0
23.00 17.20
U 0
8.6 34.00 11.50 3.70 6.1 2.30
Ref 08 9 2 5 5 8 08 8
 225

Sample SdP SF SF.145 SF.52 SF.90 SFx SP SP.101A SP.97A Ur.197

SiO2 74.50 74.50 72.70 76.45 72.54 76.20 76.20 75.60 76.20 70.90
MgO 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.18
TiO2 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.46
Al2O3 11.70 11.70 12.60 12.17 13.27 11.40 11.40 12.70 11.40 13.70
Fe2O3T 2.10 2.10 3.58 2.24 2.47 2.10 2.02 1.59 2.14 5.42
MnO 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07
CaO 0.82 0.82 0.98 0.70 0.92 0.67 0.67 1.60 0.67 1.60
Na2O 0.90 2.90 2.50 3.10 2.93 3.10 3.10 3.80 3.10 3.00
K2O 6.30 6.30 6.40 5.18 6.64 5.20 5.20 4.00 5.20 4.30
P2O5 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.08
LOI 1.07 0.36 0.68 0.42 0.50 0.66
Total 99.99 100.16 99.41 100.16 100.00 99.92
Ni 6.90 4.60
Cr 3.80 10.30
Sc 9.00 2.00 2.30
Co 0.60 0.50
V 52.00 1.20 0.50 68.00 61.00
Ba 160.00 160.00 2240.00 229.00 823.00 260.00 260.00 740.00 260.00 #######
Sr 35.00 35.00 160.00 31.60 54.20 30.00 30.00 140.00 30.00 120.00
Rb 360.00 360.00 170.00 242.00 265.00 400.00 400.00 160.00 400.00 200.00
Nb 50.00 50.00 54.00 19.50 22.60 48.00 48.00 36.00 48.00 44.00
Y 72.00 72.00 240.00 80.50 113.00 49.00 49.00 23.00 49.00 94.00
Zr 220.00 220.00 580.00 218.00 270.00 280.00 280.00 400.00 280.00 780.00
La 156.80 156.00 43.40 85.73 151.90 147.70 147.70 135.10 147.70 48.30
Ce 283.10 283.10 88.80 170.60 277.00 256.90 250.90 217.00 250.90 183.90
Pr
Nd 121.60 121.60 53.40 66.07 105.40 104.10 104.10 97.21 104.10 63.20
Sm 32.31 32.31 10.90 13.53 20.16 26.35 26.35 22.05 26.35 15.80
Eu 0.89 0.89 3.30 0.49 1.07 0.98 0.98 1.50 0.98 2.20
Gd 22.33 23.33 9.40 12.24 18.14 18.17 18.17 13.29 18.17 16.10
Tb
Dy 21.01 21.01 6.80 13.16 18.17 17.91 17.91 10.09 17.91 17.10
Ho 3.79 3.79 3.44 3.44
Er 11.31 11.31 3.10 7.60 10.25 10.94 10.94 5.71 10.94 10.40
Tm
Yb 8.82 8.01 2.30 7.85 10.80 9.39 9.39 4.88 9.39 9.00
Lu 1.02 1.01 0.30 0.99 1.36 1.12 1.12 0.64 1.12 1.10
Hf 10.10 11.00
Ta 1.50 2.60
Pb 23.00 23.00 10.00 10.00
Th 45.90 37.00
U 52.00 6.70 8.00 60.00
Ref 10 5 2 2 2 10 5 2 2 2
 226

Sample Ur.35A Ur.35B Ur.48 Ur.6A Ur.87

SiO2 69.00 70.50 70.10 72.20 71.93
MgO 0.29 0.24 0.22 0.40 0.12
TiO2 0.58 0.43 0.47 0.43 0.36
Al2O3 12.10 13.20 13.50 12.80 13.73
Fe2O3T 5.78 4.90 5.05 4.35 4.10
MnO 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.05
CaO 1.80 1.50 1.60 1.50 1.10
Na2O 4.20 4.10 4.00 3.10 3.07
K2O 5.40 4.60 4.80 4.60 5.42
P2O5 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.06
LOI 0.66 0.74 0.49 0.65 1.37
Total 99.50 99.88 99.93 99.91 100.89
Ni 1.10
Cr 1.80
Sc 10.00 7.00 18.00 3.90
Co 6.00 1.50
V 102.00 66.00 80.00 2.20
Ba 1150.00 1180.00 ####### 940.00 #######
Sr 150.00 140.00 150.00 140.00 120.00
Rb 140.00 150.00 190.00 250.00 141.00
Nb 36.00 26.00 26.00 20.00 22.30
Y 78.00 52.00 42.00 112.00 34.30
Zr 880.00 660.00 620.00 520.00 415.00
La 49.30 118.80 100.50 139.50 48.98
Ce 96.70 193.90 182.20 246.50 93.48
Pr
Nd 59.90 79.50 73.80 101.10 41.84
Sm 14.30 14.40 13.80 19.80 7.87
Eu 2.50 2.60 2.50 2.30 2.25
Gd 12.80 12.00 11.70 17.20 6.60
Tb
Dy 12.60 10.40 9.90 16.80 6.51
Ho
Er 7.10 5.70 5.80 11.20 3.40
Tm
Yb 5.90 4.60 5.10 10.70 3.63
Lu 0.73 0.55 0.65 1.30 0.49
Hf 12.40
Ta 1.30
Pb
Th 8.20
U 1.00
Ref 2 2 2 2 2
 227

Tabela A-2: Mineral chemistry: Amphiboles

Sample Rock Spot number Amphibole classification SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O Cr2O3 Total
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 10 ferri-tschermakite 43.87 0.62 14.46 16.15 0.20 9.61 12.09 1.26 0.43 0.00 98.7
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 11 ferri-tschermakite 42.53 0.63 15.68 16.20 0.25 8.63 12.18 1.13 0.51 0.00 97.7
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 12 ferri-tschermakite 43.42 0.70 14.77 16.55 0.16 9.04 11.94 1.09 0.44 0.03 98.1
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 13 ferri-tschermakite 43.46 0.74 15.10 16.21 0.25 9.10 12.01 1.16 0.45 0.00 98.5
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C3 - 3 magnesio-hornblende 45.29 0.40 14.26 14.55 0.22 10.53 11.38 1.22 0.20 0.01 98.0
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C2 - 4 alumino-tschermakitic hornblende 44.39 0.50 15.58 14.38 0.25 9.83 11.26 1.11 0.29 0.01 97.6
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C2 - 5 alumino-magnesio-hornblende 45.05 0.49 14.73 14.00 0.23 10.32 11.37 1.19 0.25 0.00 97.6
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 4 alumino-magnesio-hornblende 45.83 0.41 13.94 13.63 0.19 10.38 11.39 1.10 0.19 0.00 97.1
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 5 alumino-tschermakitic hornblende 44.53 0.67 15.15 13.37 0.15 10.08 11.27 1.04 0.24 0.00 96.5
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 6 ferri-tschermakite 44.06 0.48 16.14 14.20 0.21 9.46 11.40 1.19 0.35 0.08 97.6
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 11 ferri-tschermakite 44.29 0.59 15.97 14.70 0.20 9.66 11.48 1.15 0.27 0.00 98.3
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 12 ferri-tschermakitic hornblende 44.88 0.52 15.29 14.03 0.35 9.94 11.43 1.20 0.25 0.02 97.9
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 4 alumino-tschermakitic hornblende 45.25 0.52 15.07 14.16 0.18 10.43 11.28 1.13 0.29 0.00 98.3
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 12 alumino-tschermakitic hornblende 44.72 0.62 15.63 14.50 0.25 10.03 11.37 1.22 0.33 0.00 98.7
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 13 alumino-tschermakitic hornblende 44.17 0.49 15.80 14.35 0.25 10.02 11.50 1.33 0.39 0.00 98.3
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 17 ferri-tschermakite 44.08 0.51 16.21 14.47 0.26 9.96 11.58 1.15 0.38 0.01 98.6
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 18 ferri-tschermakite 43.76 0.42 16.53 14.25 0.23 9.69 11.36 1.28 0.41 0.04 98.0
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 4 ferri-tschermakite 44.03 0.43 16.52 14.84 0.27 10.11 11.65 1.16 0.38 0.00 99.4
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 5 ferri-tschermakitic hornblende 45.50 0.51 14.28 14.37 0.15 11.10 11.49 1.17 0.21 0.03 98.8
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 6 ferri-tschermakitic hornblende 45.85 0.46 13.85 14.11 0.22 11.01 11.24 1.22 0.21 0.03 98.2
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 7 ferri-tschermakitic hornblende 45.60 0.60 13.75 14.34 0.15 11.15 11.27 1.07 0.21 0.10 98.2
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 8 ferri-tschermakitic hornblende 46.64 0.47 12.64 14.37 0.20 11.54 11.35 1.10 0.17 0.08 98.5
 228

Tabela A-3: Mineral chemistry: Plagioclase

Sample Rock Spot number Plagioclase classification SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O Cr2O3 Total
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C1 - 3 bytownite 49.77 0.1 33.70 0.13 0.09 0.00 14.94 2.80 0.03 0.01 101.5
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C1 - 5 bytownite 49.24 0.0 31.92 0.09 0.10 0.00 14.88 3.00 0.02 0.00 99.3
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C2 - 1 labradorita 51.68 0.0 30.55 0.12 0.03 0.00 12.56 3.91 0.07 0.00 98.9
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C3 - 4 labradorita 53.69 0.0 29.95 0.13 0.03 0.00 12.52 4.35 0.05 0.00 100.8
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C2 - 2 labradorita 52.77 0.0 30.68 0.05 0.01 0.00 13.41 3.69 0.05 0.04 100.7
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C3 - 5 labradorita 51.70 0.0 30.92 0.15 0.01 0.00 13.85 3.64 0.05 0.00 100.3
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C1 - 4 labradorite 51.99 0.0 31.17 0.07 0.03 0.03 13.89 3.64 0.04 0.00 100.9
J02 Amphibolite J 02- C1 - 6 labradorite 51.41 0.0 30.31 0.02 0.00 0.00 13.22 3.83 0.04 0.00 98.8
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C1 - 1 bytownita - anortita 46.36 0.0 33.70 0.09 0.12 0.00 17.39 1.26 0.02 0.00 98.9
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C1 - 5 bytownita - anortita 47.00 0.0 33.43 0.13 0.04 0.00 17.03 1.08 0.01 0.04 98.8
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C3 - 1 bytownita - anortita 46.60 0.0 33.64 0.20 0.04 0.01 17.44 1.20 0.01 0.00 99.1
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C4 - 1 bytownita - anortita 46.50 0.0 33.42 0.18 0.01 0.00 17.08 1.26 0.01 0.08 98.5
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C4 - 3 anortita 46.68 0.1 33.76 0.10 0.00 0.00 17.47 1.14 0.00 0.00 99.2
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C1 - 2 bytownita - anortita 47.08 0.0 33.35 0.07 0.00 0.00 16.74 1.45 0.02 0.00 98.7
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C3 - 2 bytownita - anortita 46.35 0.0 33.56 0.02 0.00 0.00 17.15 1.16 0.01 0.00 98.3
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C4 - 12 bytownita - anortita 47.06 0.0 33.73 0.17 0.01 0.01 17.60 1.23 0.02 0.00 99.8
J12 Amphibolite J 12- C4 - 2 bytownita - anortita 46.30 0.0 33.80 0.16 0.05 0.00 17.27 1.25 0.00 0.05 98.9
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C1 - 1 Bytownita 50.38 0.0 33.91 0.04 0.00 0.00 14.64 2.98 0.03 0.00 102.0
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C3 - 2 Bytownita 46.44 0.0 34.25 0.15 0.05 0.00 17.93 1.39 0.02 0.00 100.2
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 1 Bytownita 45.57 0.0 35.23 0.08 0.11 0.00 18.66 1.16 0.00 0.08 100.9
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C1 - 2 Bytownita 48.26 0.0 33.24 0.18 0.03 0.01 14.40 2.30 0.02 0.00 98.4
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C3 - 3 Bytownita 46.40 0.1 34.90 0.22 0.00 0.01 18.14 1.39 0.00 0.01 101.1
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 2 Bytownita 47.09 0.0 34.07 0.08 0.01 0.01 17.61 1.69 0.01 0.01 100.6
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C1 - 3 Bytownita 45.60 0.0 34.83 0.18 0.00 0.00 18.08 1.44 0.02 0.00 100.2
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C3 - 4 Bytownita 46.39 0.0 35.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 18.25 1.42 0.02 0.00 101.5
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 15 Bytownita 49.20 0.0 32.81 0.14 0.00 0.00 15.41 2.71 0.02 0.06 100.3
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 8 Anortita 46.04 0.0 35.39 0.09 0.00 0.00 18.33 1.14 0.01 0.02 101.0
 229

Sample Rock Spot number Plagioclase classification SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O Cr2O3 Total
J25D Amphibolite J 25D - C2 - 7 Bytownita 46.62 0.0 33.46 0.21 0.01 0.00 17.31 1.70 0.01 0.01 99.3
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C2 - 1 Bytownita 47.06 0.0 34.64 0.17 0.00 0.02 17.76 1.34 0.00 0.02 101.0
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 1 Bytownita 47.18 0.0 33.85 0.20 0.00 0.00 17.15 1.62 0.00 0.00 100.0
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 9 Bytownita 51.04 0.0 31.65 0.12 0.03 0.00 14.68 3.12 0.02 0.03 100.7
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C2 - 2 Bytownita 47.51 0.0 33.75 0.05 0.00 0.00 17.16 1.58 0.05 0.00 100.1
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 10 Bytownita 47.05 0.0 34.26 0.07 0.07 0.00 17.99 1.32 0.00 0.00 100.8
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C1 - 2 Bytownita-anortita 47.06 0.0 34.09 0.04 0.06 0.01 17.67 1.18 0.01 0.02 100.2
J33 Amphibolite J 33 - C2 - 3 Bytownita 49.04 0.0 33.12 0.16 0.01 0.00 16.06 2.34 0.01 0.09 100.9
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-7 Andesine 58.38 0.0 26.89 0.03 0.03 0.01 8.93 6.89 0.07 0.00 101.2
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 1 Andesine 60.44 0.0 25.06 0.14 0.06 0.02 6.70 7.91 0.11 0.02 100.4
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 13 Andesine 58.39 0.0 27.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.90 6.98 0.07 0.02 101.5
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-1 Andesine 58.51 0.0 27.24 0.15 0.04 0.00 8.95 6.81 0.09 0.00 101.8
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 8 Andesine 59.62 0.0 25.20 0.10 0.01 0.01 6.93 8.13 0.06 0.00 100.1
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-9 Andesine 60.90 0.0 25.31 0.04 0.01 0.00 7.27 7.71 0.08 0.00 101.3
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 2 Andesine 62.11 0.0 24.96 0.13 0.05 0.00 6.64 7.91 0.08 0.06 101.9
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 9 Andesine 61.32 0.0 25.31 0.09 0.01 0.00 6.88 8.24 0.09 0.03 102.0
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-2 Andesine 58.54 0.0 27.13 0.02 0.05 0.00 9.12 6.70 0.09 0.00 101.7
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-8 Andesine 57.81 0.0 26.81 0.03 0.00 0.00 8.97 6.85 0.06 0.00 100.5
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C2-3 Andesine 57.84 0.0 27.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 9.13 6.89 0.05 0.03 101.1
J34B Amphibolite J 34 B - C1 - 14 Andesine 58.17 0.0 26.92 0.11 0.01 0.00 8.97 6.39 0.04 0.02 100.6
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 1 Andesine 47.35 0.0 33.65 0.02 0.05 0.00 17.36 1.61 0.02 0.05 100.1
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 1 Bytownita 49.35 0.0 32.37 0.06 0.01 0.00 15.38 2.61 0.03 0.00 99.8
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 10 Labradorite 55.60 0.0 28.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 10.89 5.68 0.03 0.10 100.7
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 14 Bytownita 46.51 0.0 34.31 0.27 0.06 0.03 17.93 1.50 0.02 0.00 100.6
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 16 Labradorite 52.32 0.0 30.34 0.09 0.03 0.00 13.25 4.03 0.00 0.00 100.1
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 2 Bytownita 47.93 0.0 33.63 0.04 0.00 0.00 16.67 2.08 0.01 0.04 100.4
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 2 Bytownita 47.78 0.0 33.74 0.04 0.00 0.00 17.13 1.66 0.02 0.00 100.4
 230

Sample Rock Spot number Plagioclase classification SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O Cr2O3 Total
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 11 Labradorite 53.51 0.0 30.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.94 4.27 0.03 0.00 100.9
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C2 - 3 Bytownita 51.18 0.0 31.12 0.13 0.00 0.00 14.35 3.16 0.03 0.05 100.0
J36 Amphibolite J 36 - C1 - 15 Labradorite 52.29 0.0 30.98 0.05 0.03 0.01 13.67 3.94 0.00 0.00 101.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 1 Oligoclase 64.10 0.0 21.86 0.07 0.00 0.00 3.10 9.02 0.29 0.04 98.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 3 Oligoclase 63.14 0.0 22.49 0.14 0.04 0.00 3.97 8.72 0.24 0.00 98.7
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 6 Oligoclase 64.09 0.0 21.81 0.14 0.00 0.01 3.36 8.96 0.22 0.05 98.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 7 Oligoclase 64.42 0.0 22.64 0.17 0.06 0.03 3.81 8.65 0.22 0.00 100.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 12 Oligoclase 63.99 0.0 22.18 0.21 0.05 0.00 3.30 9.16 0.25 0.00 99.1
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C1-1 Oligoclase 64.49 22.13 0.16 0.00 3.59 9.67 0.12 100.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C1-2 Oligoclase 62.89 22.33 0.05 0.01 3.47 9.66 0.13 98.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C1-5 Oligoclase 62.80 22.11 0.08 0.01 3.60 9.71 0.12 98.4
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C1-7 Oligoclase 61.87 22.61 0.39 0.01 3.94 9.57 0.17 98.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C1-8 Oligoclase 62.21 22.75 0.16 0.00 4.20 9.31 0.16 98.8
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C2-1 Oligoclase 61.21 22.89 0.37 0.00 4.17 9.46 0.18 98.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C2-3 Oligoclase 63.94 21.93 0.05 0.01 3.15 9.98 0.16 99.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C2-4 Oligoclase 62.55 22.80 0.15 0.00 4.14 9.46 0.17 99.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C2-5 Oligoclase 62.93 22.10 0.03 0.00 3.31 9.98 0.16 98.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C2-6 Oligoclase 61.73 22.89 0.24 0.00 4.26 9.28 0.17 98.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C3-1 Oligoclase 62.04 22.79 0.30 0.01 4.19 9.39 0.22 99.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C3-2 Oligoclase 63.31 21.76 0.14 0.00 3.00 9.95 0.22 98.4
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C3-3 Oligoclase 63.06 21.81 0.06 0.01 2.97 9.91 0.19 98.1
J03 Meta-rhyolite plg-J03-C3-4 Oligoclase 63.05 21.92 0.06 0.00 3.11 10.07 0.19 98.4
 231

Tabela A-4: Mineral chemistry: K-feldspar

Sample Rock Spot number SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO Na2O K2O SrO Total
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-1 64.88 18.32 0.24 0.000 0.00 0.53 15.70 0.07 99.7
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-2 64.69 18.51 0.11 0.000 0.00 0.78 15.32 0.10 99.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-4 64.69 18.36 0.06 0.000 0.00 0.71 15.38 0.05 99.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-5 64.75 18.31 0.22 0.005 0.00 0.54 15.72 0.06 99.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-7 65.00 18.45 0.04 0.001 0.00 0.80 15.48 0.02 99.8
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C1-9 64.78 18.35 0.08 0.010 0.00 0.79 15.38 0.04 99.4
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C2-1 63.40 17.94 0.14 0.000 0.00 0.61 15.88 0.01 98.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C2-2 63.70 18.14 0.04 0.007 0.00 0.80 15.62 0.00 98.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C2-7 63.44 18.09 0.05 0.015 0.00 0.51 16.07 0.01 98.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C2-8 64.64 18.49 0.03 0.004 0.00 0.60 15.87 0.10 99.7
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C2-9 65.35 18.47 0.01 0.000 0.00 0.64 15.44 0.02 99.9
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C3-4 65.30 18.45 0.28 0.006 0.00 0.59 15.65 0.06 100.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite kf-J03-C3-5 65.28 18.58 0.16 0.015 0.00 0.64 15.53 0.10 100.3
 232

Tabela A-5: Mineral chemistry: Biotite

Sample Rock Spot number SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O Total
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-1 35.07 2.81 16.33 30.89 0.36 2.53 0.010 0.05 9.14 97.9
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-4 34.15 2.71 16.37 30.52 0.37 2.52 0 0.05 9.17 96.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-5 33.93 2.84 16.54 30.34 0.28 2.41 0.013 0.06 9.31 96.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-6 35.06 2.80 16.47 30.33 0.30 2.52 0 0.08 9.39 97.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-7 35.27 2.64 16.71 29.67 0.38 2.51 0 0.05 9.18 97.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-8 34.83 2.71 16.39 30.44 0.39 2.52 0 0.03 9.10 97.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C1-9 34.31 2.77 16.05 30.53 0.37 2.52 0.003 0.05 9.01 96.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C2-1 34.71 2.64 16.62 30.30 0.35 2.50 0 0.06 9.15 96.8
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C2-2 34.62 2.51 16.66 29.90 0.32 2.61 8E-04 0.05 9.31 96.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C2-3 34.61 2.84 16.52 30.59 0.31 2.56 0.008 0.05 9.16 97.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-1 34.62 2.59 16.21 30.38 0.34 2.54 0.006 0.07 9.17 96.5
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-2 34.90 2.58 16.35 30.19 0.36 2.50 0.006 0.03 9.13 96.7
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-3 34.99 2.68 16.25 30.64 0.35 2.54 0.004 0.06 9.08 97.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-4 34.75 2.61 16.42 30.67 0.35 2.46 0.012 0.02 9.27 97.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-5 34.87 2.59 16.02 30.76 0.37 2.59 0 0.05 9.37 97.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite bio-J03-C3-6 34.84 2.46 16.27 31.22 0.39 2.56 0 0.03 9.35 97.8
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C3 - 1 34.98 2.45 16.31 29.87 0.26 2.85 0.021 0.06 9.19 96.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C3 - 2 34.50 2.57 15.70 30.65 0.28 2.62 0.030 0.09 9.22 95.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C3 - 7 34.82 2.46 15.82 29.43 0.35 2.65 0.031 0.10 9.31 95.0
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C3 - 8 35.06 2.50 16.30 30.02 0.23 2.67 0.024 0.06 9.25 96.1
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 5 35.04 2.59 16.13 29.91 0.17 2.69 0.016 0.15 9.13 95.8
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C4- 8 34.90 2.67 16.03 29.16 0.30 2.55 0.034 0.05 9.38 95.1
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 3 34.66 2.58 15.95 29.97 0.24 2.51 0.027 0.11 9.21 95.2
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 5 34.49 2.56 16.13 28.78 0.21 2.61 0.049 0.18 9.33 94.3
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 10 34.96 2.68 16.02 29.65 0.20 2.66 0.000 0.08 9.35 95.6
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 14 34.52 2.75 16.06 30.36 0.20 2.56 0.011 0.06 9.36 95.9
J03 Meta-rhyolite J 03 - C2 - 15 35.15 2.75 15.92 29.57 0.15 2.47 0.005 0.05 9.31 95.4
 233

Tabela A-6: U–Pb LA–ICPMS zircon data of the ortho-amphibolite from the Alto Rio Guanhães region. Sample J02
Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb
207
number Pb*/235U ± 206
Pb*/238U ± r1 207
Pb*/206Pb* ± 206
Pb/238U ± 207
Pb/235U ± 207
Pb/206Pb ± Disc. ppm ppm ppm
D_I_1.1 4.7030 1.00 0.3251 0.56 0.56 0.1049 0.83 1815 10 1768 18 1713 14 -6 60 71 29
D_I_2.1 4.5529 1.38 0.3149 1.10 0.80 0.1048 0.83 1765 19 1741 24 1712 14 -3 32 36 14
D_I_3.1 4.8116 1.54 0.3330 1.21 0.79 0.1048 0.95 1853 22 1787 28 1711 16 -8 25 35 14
D_I_4.1 4.7741 1.23 0.3286 0.97 0.79 0.1054 0.76 1832 18 1780 22 1721 13 -6 20 78 19
D_I_5.1 4.6254 1.47 0.3194 1.12 0.76 0.1050 0.96 1787 20 1754 26 1715 16 -4 23 38 14
D_I_6.1 4.5067 1.35 0.3113 1.06 0.78 0.1050 0.84 1747 19 1732 23 1714 14 -2 39 55 18
D_I_7.1 4.3546 1.64 0.3027 1.34 0.82 0.1043 0.93 1705 23 1704 28 1703 16 0 24 42 14
D_I_8.1 4.4535 0.96 0.3072 0.35 0.37 0.1051 0.89 1727 6 1722 16 1717 15 -1 35 39 16
D_I_9.1 4.5839 2.16 0.3162 1.87 0.86 0.1051 1.09 1771 33 1746 38 1717 19 -3 15 20 9
D_I_10.1 4.4250 1.24 0.3056 0.63 0.50 0.1050 1.07 1719 11 1717 21 1715 18 0 17 20 9
D_I_11.1 4.5526 0.99 0.3138 0.32 0.33 0.1052 0.94 1759 6 1741 17 1718 16 -2 18 25 11
D_I_12.1 4.7881 1.75 0.3307 0.55 0.31 0.1050 1.66 1842 10 1783 31 1714 28 -7 17 51 13
D_I_13.1 4.4723 1.11 0.3077 0.46 0.42 0.1054 1.01 1729 8 1726 19 1721 17 0 24 30 13
D_I_14.1 4.0946 1.38 0.2818 0.66 0.48 0.1054 1.21 1601 11 1653 23 1721 21 7 28 36 16
D_I_15.1 4.4596 1.41 0.3071 1.11 0.78 0.1053 0.88 1726 19 1723 24 1720 15 0 22 33 13
D_II_16.1 4.4232 1.70 0.3051 1.45 0.85 0.1051 0.90 1717 25 1717 29 1717 15 0 38 46 17
D_II_17.1 4.4347 3.03 0.3055 2.87 0.95 0.1053 0.97 1719 49 1719 52 1719 17 0 34 46 16
D_II_18.1 4.4490 1.09 0.3065 0.51 0.47 0.1053 0.96 1723 9 1722 19 1719 17 0 30 41 15
D_II_19.1 4.5409 1.10 0.3072 0.53 0.48 0.1072 0.97 1727 9 1738 19 1753 17 1 29 47 17
D_II_20.1 4.5417 1.43 0.3078 1.25 0.88 0.1070 0.68 1730 22 1739 25 1749 12 1 58 103 36
D_II_21.1 4.3280 0.98 0.3008 0.77 0.78 0.1043 0.61 1695 13 1699 17 1703 10 0 88 149 51
D_II_22.1 4.0688 2.54 0.2958 2.34 0.92 0.0997 0.99 1671 39 1648 42 1619 16 -3 31 62 15
D_II_23.1 4.4435 1.70 0.3051 1.35 0.79 0.1056 1.04 1716 23 1720 29 1725 18 1 38 50 17
D_II_24.1 4.5954 1.64 0.3112 1.46 0.89 0.1071 0.74 1747 25 1748 29 1750 13 0 101 126 48
D_II_25.1 4.5014 1.42 0.3085 0.95 0.67 0.1058 1.05 1733 16 1731 25 1729 18 0 28 40 14
D_II_26.1 4.4403 2.08 0.3060 1.80 0.86 0.1052 1.04 1721 31 1720 36 1718 18 0 39 45 17
D_II_27.1 4.0191 2.44 0.2814 2.19 0.90 0.1036 1.06 1598 35 1638 40 1690 18 5 29 61 17
D_III_28.1 3.8759 3.51 0.2834 3.41 0.97 0.0992 0.83 1609 55 1609 56 1609 13 0 23 60 14
D_III_29.1 3.8785 0.96 0.2833 0.54 0.56 0.0993 0.79 1608 9 1609 15 1611 13 0 25 107 29
D_III_30.1 4.4860 1.71 0.3047 1.45 0.85 0.1068 0.91 1714 25 1728 30 1745 16 2 27 49 16
D_III_31.1 4.9331 0.95 0.3412 0.38 0.40 0.1049 0.87 1892 7 1808 17 1712 15 -11 21 45 13
D_III_32.1 4.7973 0.93 0.3343 0.74 0.79 0.1041 0.57 1859 14 1784 17 1698 10 -9 10 60 9
D_III_33.1 4.4733 1.44 0.3092 0.81 0.56 0.1049 1.20 1737 14 1726 25 1713 20 -1 13 22 8
D_III_34.1 4.4004 1.92 0.3061 1.75 0.91 0.1043 0.80 1721 30 1712 33 1702 14 -1 7 10 4
 234

Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb

207
number Pb*/235U ± 206
Pb*/238U ± r1 207
Pb*/206Pb* ± 206
Pb/238U ± 207
Pb/235U ± 207
Pb/206Pb ± Disc. ppm ppm ppm
D_III_35.1 15.4654 2.42 0.5657 0.94 0.39 0.1983 2.23 2890 27 2844 69 2812 63 -3 32 28 22
D_III_36.1 4.3871 1.73 0.3029 1.50 0.87 0.1051 0.86 1706 26 1710 30 1715 15 1 42 56 23
D_III_37.1 4.4080 2.01 0.3039 1.87 0.93 0.1052 0.74 1711 32 1714 34 1718 13 0 44 65 21
D_III_38.1 2.2844 3.12 0.0979 1.37 0.44 0.1692 2.80 602 8 1207 38 2550 72 76 22 42 5
D_III_39.1 4.4684 1.29 0.3068 0.41 0.32 0.1056 1.22 1725 7 1725 22 1726 21 0 21 40 13
D_III_40.1 4.4705 1.93 0.3068 1.53 0.79 0.1057 1.17 1725 26 1726 33 1726 20 0 29 39 13
D_III_41.1 4.3891 1.83 0.3028 1.66 0.90 0.1051 0.78 1705 28 1710 31 1716 13 1 26 35 12
D_III_42.1 4.4641 1.53 0.3074 1.09 0.71 0.1053 1.07 1728 19 1724 26 1720 18 0 36 64 18
D_IV_43.1 4.4331 1.53 0.3055 1.27 0.83 0.1052 0.85 1719 22 1719 26 1718 15 0 41 48 17
D_IV_44.1 4.2710 1.10 0.2957 0.72 0.66 0.1048 0.83 1670 12 1688 19 1710 14 2 48 99 28
D_IV_45.1 4.2113 0.83 0.2902 0.48 0.58 0.1053 0.68 1642 8 1676 14 1719 12 4 27 426 40
D_IV_46.1 4.3203 0.92 0.2962 0.26 0.28 0.1058 0.88 1672 4 1697 16 1728 15 3 116 200 62
D_IV_47.1 4.2402 2.27 0.2981 1.77 0.78 0.1032 1.41 1682 30 1682 38 1682 24 0 18 138 17
D_IV_48.1 4.4662 1.82 0.3066 1.36 0.75 0.1057 1.20 1724 23 1725 31 1726 21 0 26 87 18
D_IV_49.1 4.4368 1.10 0.3036 0.56 0.51 0.1060 0.94 1709 10 1719 19 1731 16 1 20 24 9
D_IV_50.1 4.4536 1.64 0.3067 1.32 0.80 0.1053 0.98 1724 23 1722 28 1720 17 0 23 84 15
D_IV_51.1 1.6591 1.55 0.0874 0.87 0.56 0.1377 1.28 540 5 993 15 2198 28 75 53 93 10
D_IV_52.1 4.6685 1.51 0.3140 0.73 0.48 0.1078 1.32 1760 13 1762 27 1763 23 0 28 96 18
D_IV_53.1 3.7993 1.17 0.2707 0.25 0.21 0.1018 1.14 1544 4 1593 19 1657 19 7 20 176 20
D_IV_54.1 4.6491 1.35 0.3215 1.09 0.80 0.1049 0.80 1797 20 1758 24 1712 14 -5 26 38 13
V_I_1.1 9.4647 4.96 0.4201 4.95 1.00 0.1634 0.37 2261 112 2384 118 2491 9 9 397 320 133
V_I_2.1 3.3902 4.34 0.2466 0.37 0.09 0.0997 4.32 1421 5 1502 65 1618 70 12 152 340 74
V_I_3.1 4.5018 2.26 0.3074 2.16 0.95 0.1062 0.67 1728 37 1731 39 1735 12 0 139 185 67
V_II_4.1 4.4699 2.06 0.3070 1.78 0.86 0.1056 1.04 1726 31 1725 36 1725 18 0 31 40 15
V_II_5.1 4.6038 1.43 0.3122 1.19 0.84 0.1069 0.78 1752 21 1750 25 1748 14 0 67 108 39
V_II_6.1 4.5304 0.94 0.3078 0.48 0.51 0.1068 0.81 1730 8 1737 16 1745 14 1 298 423 140
V_III_7.1 5.2201 0.87 0.3480 0.68 0.78 0.1088 0.55 1925 13 1856 16 1779 10 -8 101 295 88
V_IV_8.1 4.4598 1.81 0.3062 1.60 0.88 0.1056 0.85 1722 28 1724 31 1725 15 0 48 61 21
V_IV_9.1 4.4085 2.88 0.3007 2.15 0.75 0.1063 1.92 1695 36 1714 49 1737 33 2 73 187 57

1. Sample and standard are corrected after Pb and Hg blanks

2. 207Pb/206Pb and 206Pb/238U are corrected after common Pb presence. Common Pb assuming 206Pb/238U 207Pb/235U concordant age
3. 235U = 1/137.88*Utotal
4. Standard GJ-1; 5. Th/U = 232Th/238U * 0.992743
6. All errors in the table are calculated 1 sigma (% for isotope ratios. absolute for ages)
 235

Tabela A-7: U–Pb LA–ICPMS zircon data of the meta-rhyolite from the Alto Rio Guanhães region. Sample J03
Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb
number 207 235
Pb*/ U ± 206 238
Pb*/ U ± r1 207 206
Pb*/ Pb* ± 206 238
Pb/ U ± 207
Pb/ U 235
± 207
Pb/ Pb206
± Disc. ppm ppm ppm
D_I_1.1 4.7745 1.52 0.3232 1.15 0.76 0.1071 0.99 1805 21 1780 27 1751 17 -3 37 41 17
D_I_2.1 4.7291 0.98 0.3214 0.75 0.77 0.1067 0.63 1797 14 1772 17 1744 11 -3 85 121 49
D_I_3.1 4.7556 1.66 0.3230 1.56 0.94 0.1068 0.57 1804 28 1777 30 1745 10 -3 220 230 97
D_I_4.1 4.6671 1.62 0.3166 1.41 0.87 0.1069 0.80 1773 25 1761 29 1748 14 -1 39 50 21
D_I_5.1 4.6154 1.43 0.3136 1.01 0.71 0.1067 1.01 1758 18 1752 25 1744 18 -1 25 34 14
D_I_6.1 4.8103 1.17 0.3262 0.90 0.77 0.1069 0.75 1820 16 1787 21 1748 13 -4 64 55 24
D_I_7.1 4.4693 1.21 0.3081 0.61 0.51 0.1052 1.04 1731 11 1725 21 1718 18 -1 54 58 23
D_I_8.1 4.7505 0.94 0.3231 0.59 0.63 0.1066 0.74 1805 11 1776 17 1743 13 -4 73 89 36
D_I_9.1 4.6625 2.38 0.3160 2.06 0.87 0.1070 1.18 1770 37 1761 42 1749 21 -1 223 284 92
D_I_9.1 4.6295 2.31 0.3117 1.94 0.84 0.1077 1.25 1749 34 1755 41 1761 22 1 89 131 26
D_I_10.1 4.8195 1.86 0.3251 1.48 0.79 0.1075 1.14 1815 27 1788 33 1758 20 -3 61 86 19
D_I_11.1 4.7753 1.72 0.3217 1.25 0.73 0.1077 1.17 1798 23 1781 31 1760 21 -2 140 155 36
D_I_12.1 4.6237 2.15 0.3121 1.72 0.80 0.1075 1.30 1751 30 1754 38 1757 23 1 56 79 16
D_I_13.1 4.6330 2.10 0.3136 1.79 0.85 0.1072 1.10 1758 31 1755 37 1752 19 0 90 128 28
D_I_14.1 4.8141 1.89 0.3225 1.61 0.86 0.1083 0.98 1802 29 1787 34 1770 17 -1 59 62 15
D_I_15.1 4.6840 1.92 0.3161 1.58 0.82 0.1075 1.09 1771 28 1764 34 1757 19 0 100 137 31
D_I_16.1 4.7708 2.53 0.3223 2.12 0.84 0.1074 1.39 1801 38 1780 45 1755 24 -2 47 59 13
D_II_17.1 4.5990 1.87 0.3137 1.50 0.80 0.1063 1.12 1759 26 1749 33 1738 19 -1 223 251 54
D_II_18.1 4.5924 1.64 0.3110 1.41 0.86 0.1071 0.84 1746 25 1748 29 1750 15 0 54 56 23
D_II_19.1 4.5714 1.65 0.3109 1.47 0.89 0.1067 0.76 1745 26 1744 29 1743 13 0 50 58 24
D_II_20.2 4.5408 2.15 0.3088 1.95 0.91 0.1066 0.91 1735 34 1738 37 1743 16 0 69 69 27
D_II_20.1 4.5283 2.08 0.3090 1.86 0.90 0.1063 0.92 1736 32 1736 36 1737 16 0 61 60 25
D_I_21.1 4.6192 1.96 0.3130 1.83 0.93 0.1070 0.71 1755 32 1753 34 1750 12 0 54 85 32
D_II_22.1 4.6123 1.62 0.3125 1.53 0.95 0.1071 0.52 1753 27 1752 28 1750 9 0 322 283 117
 236

Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb

number 207
Pb*/235U ± 206
Pb*/238U ± r1 207
Pb*/206Pb* ± 206
Pb/238U ± 207
Pb/235U ± 207
Pb/206Pb ± isc. pm pm pm
D_II_23.1 4.6344 2.72 0.3133 2.58 0.95 0.1073 0.85 1757 45 1755 48 1754 15 0 98 77 41
D_II_24.1 4.5473 1.56 0.3052 0.95 0.61 0.1081 1.24 1717 16 1740 27 1767 22 3 34 43 16
D_II_25.1 4.6939 3.76 0.3154 3.69 0.98 0.1079 0.77 1767 65 1766 66 1765 14 0 61 61 26
D_II_26.1 4.6458 1.38 0.3154 1.11 0.80 0.1068 0.82 1767 20 1758 24 1746 14 -1 90 87 36
D_II_27.1 4.6021 1.82 0.3122 1.65 0.91 0.1069 0.75 1751 29 1750 32 1748 13 0 59 65 26
D_II_28.1 4.6450 1.22 0.3153 0.87 0.71 0.1068 0.85 1767 15 1757 21 1746 15 -1 49 53 22
D_II_29.1 4.4903 2.48 0.3047 2.35 0.95 0.1069 0.80 1715 40 1729 43 1747 14 2 91 77 33
D_III_30.1 4.5708 1.34 0.3091 0.39 0.29 0.1072 1.28 1736 7 1744 23 1753 23 1 70 80 29
D_III_31.1 4.5972 2.31 0.3089 2.14 0.93 0.1079 0.87 1735 37 1749 40 1765 15 2 41 54 20
D_III_32.1 4.6082 1.75 0.3130 1.51 0.86 0.1068 0.89 1755 27 1751 31 1745 15 -1 45 60 23
D_III_33.1 4.6352 1.61 0.3117 1.34 0.83 0.1078 0.90 1749 23 1756 28 1763 16 1 31 42 16
D_III_34.1 4.5686 1.27 0.3101 1.02 0.80 0.1069 0.76 1741 18 1744 22 1746 13 0 52 69 26
D_III_35.1 4.6699 2.07 0.3163 1.70 0.83 0.1071 1.17 1772 30 1762 36 1750 20 -1 24 56 14
D_III_36.1 4.5636 1.29 0.3129 0.85 0.66 0.1058 0.98 1755 15 1743 23 1728 17 -2 46 61 23
D_III_37.1 4.5715 1.38 0.3092 1.00 0.72 0.1072 0.95 1737 17 1744 24 1753 17 1 39 40 17
D_III_38.1 4.5415 1.17 0.3080 0.71 0.61 0.1069 0.92 1731 12 1739 20 1748 16 1 37 48 19
D_III_39.1 4.5429 2.45 0.3075 2.32 0.95 0.1072 0.76 1728 40 1739 43 1752 13 1 30 37 15
D_III_40.1 4.5800 1.29 0.3104 0.97 0.75 0.1070 0.85 1743 17 1746 22 1749 15 0 48 61 24
D_IV_41.1 4.6108 2.02 0.3125 1.60 0.79 0.1070 1.24 1753 28 1751 35 1749 22 0 24 22 10
D_IV_42.1 4.6880 2.87 0.3147 2.56 0.89 0.1080 1.32 1764 45 1765 51 1766 23 0 18 20 8
D_IV_43.1 4.7607 3.72 0.3148 3.29 0.89 0.1097 1.73 1764 58 1778 66 1794 31 2 35 36 13
D_IV_44.1 3.9289 0.66 0.2804 0.49 0.74 0.1016 0.44 1593 8 1620 11 1654 7 4 61 63 23
D_IV_45.1 3.0621 3.86 0.2418 2.55 0.66 0.0919 2.90 1396 36 1423 55 1464 42 5 105 225 41
 237

Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb

number 207 235
Pb*/ U ± 206 238
Pb*/ U ± r1 207 206
Pb*/ Pb* ± 206 238
Pb/ U ± 207
Pb/ U 235
± 207
Pb/ Pb206
± Disc. ppm ppm ppm
D_IV_46.1 4.7142 1.60 0.3140 1.45 0.90 0.1089 0.68 1761 25 1770 28 1781 12 1 55 56 22
D_IV_47.1 4.6255 1.81 0.3130 1.48 0.82 0.1072 1.03 1756 26 1754 32 1752 18 0 36 32 13
D_IV_48.1 4.5989 1.88 0.3119 1.57 0.84 0.1069 1.03 1750 28 1749 33 1748 18 0 38 48 19
D_V_49.1 4.6171 1.55 0.3126 1.23 0.79 0.1071 0.94 1754 22 1752 27 1751 16 0 44 42 17
D_V_50.1 4.5614 1.44 0.3097 1.23 0.85 0.1068 0.75 1739 21 1742 25 1746 13 0 45 63 24
D_V_51.1 4.6722 1.83 0.3150 1.49 0.81 0.1076 1.07 1765 26 1762 32 1759 19 0 29 36 14
D_V_52.1 4.6413 1.26 0.3137 1.02 0.81 0.1073 0.74 1759 18 1757 22 1754 13 0 31 42 16
D_V_53.2 4.6389 2.53 0.3101 1.46 0.58 0.1085 2.06 1741 25 1756 44 1774 37 2 208 210 67
D_V_53.1 3.8874 1.27 0.2462 1.11 0.88 0.1145 0.61 1419 16 1611 20 1872 11 24 59 61 18
D_V_54.1 4.6831 2.94 0.3145 2.58 0.88 0.1080 1.41 1763 45 1764 52 1766 25 0 27 26 11
D_VI_55.1 4.5655 1.27 0.3099 0.73 0.57 0.1068 1.04 1740 13 1743 22 1746 18 0 39 36 14
D_VI_56.1 4.6330 2.00 0.3140 1.73 0.87 0.1070 1.00 1760 30 1755 35 1749 17 -1 42 51 19
D_VI_57.1 4.7032 1.06 0.3130 0.80 0.76 0.1090 0.68 1755 14 1768 19 1783 12 2 54 63 23
D_VI_58.1 4.5425 0.94 0.3079 0.68 0.72 0.1070 0.65 1730 12 1739 16 1749 11 1 110 84 34
D_VI_59.1 4.6354 2.93 0.3147 2.78 0.95 0.1068 0.93 1764 49 1756 51 1746 16 -1 38 44 17
D_VI_60.1 4.6506 2.48 0.3136 2.25 0.91 0.1075 1.03 1758 40 1758 44 1758 18 0 21 21 8
V_I_1.1 4.6027 1.82 0.3133 1.58 0.87 0.1065 0.90 1757 28 1750 32 1741 16 -1 53 54 23
V_I_2.1 4.6156 1.06 0.3115 0.56 0.53 0.1075 0.90 1748 10 1752 19 1757 16 1 57 68 25
V_I_3.1 4.4058 1.06 0.2987 0.59 0.55 0.1070 0.88 1685 10 1713 18 1749 15 4 86 97 37
V_I_4.1 4.5484 1.24 0.3087 0.91 0.74 0.1069 0.84 1734 16 1740 22 1747 15 1 71 79 30
V_I_5.1 4.6129 1.82 0.3121 1.70 0.93 0.1072 0.67 1751 30 1752 32 1752 12 0 76 65 26
V_I_6.1 4.6121 2.06 0.3119 1.90 0.92 0.1073 0.79 1750 33 1751 36 1753 14 0 60 60 24
V_I_7.1 4.5193 2.36 0.3086 2.16 0.92 0.1062 0.94 1734 38 1735 41 1735 16 0 27 39 14
V_I_8.1 4.9741 1.47 0.3208 0.85 0.58 0.1125 1.20 1793 15 1815 27 1840 22 3 22 32 12
 238

Spot Isotope ratios Age (Ma) % Th U Pb

number 207 235
Pb*/ U ± 206 238
Pb*/ U ± r1 207 206
Pb*/ Pb* ± 206 238
Pb/ U ± 207
Pb/ U 235
± 207
Pb/ Pb206
± Disc. ppm ppm ppm
V_I_9.1 4.7250 0.84 0.3141 0.47 0.56 0.1091 0.69 1761 8 1772 15 1784 12 1 117 97 36
V_II_10.1 4.6813 1.21 0.3164 0.82 0.68 0.1073 0.89 1772 15 1764 21 1754 16 -1 54 53 22
V_II_11.1 4.5366 1.19 0.3102 0.78 0.66 0.1061 0.89 1742 14 1738 21 1733 15 0 58 84 32
V_II_12.1 4.5200 2.28 0.3067 1.97 0.87 0.1069 1.14 1725 34 1735 40 1747 20 1 26 26 10
V_II_13.1 4.5751 1.44 0.3110 1.16 0.80 0.1067 0.86 1746 20 1745 25 1743 15 0 57 49 20
V_II_14.1 4.6321 1.10 0.3147 0.53 0.48 0.1068 0.96 1764 9 1755 19 1745 17 -1 25 32 13
V_II_15.1 4.5290 0.72 0.3105 0.20 0.27 0.1058 0.69 1743 3 1736 13 1728 12 -1 221 156 57
V_II_16.1 4.6231 3.55 0.3142 3.37 0.95 0.1067 1.13 1762 59 1753 62 1744 20 -1 20 17 8
V_II_17.1 4.5392 2.09 0.3087 1.73 0.83 0.1067 1.17 1734 30 1738 36 1743 20 1 24 27 12
V_II_18.1 4.6101 2.00 0.3122 1.81 0.90 0.1071 0.87 1752 32 1751 35 1751 15 0 63 59 25

1. Sample and standard are corrected after Pb and Hg blanks

2. 207Pb/206Pb and 206Pb/238U are corrected after common Pb presence. Common Pb assuming 206Pb/238U 207Pb/235U concordant age
3. 235U = 1/137.88*Utotal
4. Standard GJ-1
5. Th/U = 232Th/238U * 0.992743
6. All errors in the table are calculated 1 sigma (% for isotope ratios. absolute for ages)
 239

Tabela A-8: U-Pb SHRIMP zircon data for the meta-granite of the Açucena pluton. Sample LC40
(1) (1) %
(1) 232 206 207 (1) (1) (1)
Spot ppm ppm Th ppm Pb Pb Dis- 207 err
% Pb* ±% 207
Pb* ±% 206
Pb* ±%
number 206 U Th /238U 206
Pb* /238U /206Pb cor- corr
Pbc /206Pb* /235U /238U
Age Age dant

1.1 0.02 147 102 0.72 41.1 1.819 ±22 1.744 ±13 -4 0.10671 0.69 4.795 1.5 0.3259 1.4 .893
1.2 0.01 223 122 0.56 61.4 1.795 ±27 1.764 ±10 -2 0.10789 0.57 4.776 1.8 0.3211 1.7 .948
2.1 0.08 140 128 0.94 44.1 2.007 ±25 1.745 ±15 -15 0.10677 0.82 5.378 1.6 0.3653 1.4 .867
3.1 0.16 57 35 0.64 14.2 1.648 ±24 1.726 ±32 5 0.1057 1.8 4.24 2.4 0.2913 1.6 .680
4.1 -- 197 114 0.60 57.7 1.896 ±23 1.757 ±23 -8 0.1075 1.2 5.066 1.9 0.3419 1.4 .740
5.1 0.05 95 47 0.52 25.5 1.752 ±25 1.724 ±17 -2 0.10557 0.91 4.545 1.8 0.3122 1.6 .870
6.1 0.31 56 37 0.69 15.1 1.749 ±34 1.727 ±26 -1 0.1057 1.4 4.55 2.6 0.3117 2.2 .842
7.1 0.02 138 111 0.83 37.6 1.776 ±22 1.755 ±15 -1 0.10738 0.84 4.695 1.6 0.3171 1.4 .861
8.1 -- 66 45 0.71 17.8 1.771 ±38 1.729 ±18 -2 0.1058 0.99 4.61 2.6 0.3161 2.5 .927
9.1 0.09 163 105 0.67 44.0 1.754 ±25 1.735 ±14 -1 0.10617 0.77 4.577 1.8 0.3127 1.6 .903
9.2 0.02 189 154 0.84 51.0 1.763 ±32 1.736 ±11 -2 0.10626 0.62 4.608 2.2 0.3145 2.1 .957
10.1 -- 440 226 0.53 109 1.636 ±22 1.729.6 ± 8.1 5 0.10588 0.44 4.217 1.6 0.2888 1.5 .958

Errors are 1-sigma; Pbc and Pb* indicate the common and radiogenic portions. respectively.
Error in Standard calibration was 0.42% (not included in above errors but required when comparing data from different mounts). (1)
Common Pb corrected using measured 204Pb.
 240

Tabela A-9: REE zircon data for the ortho-amphibolite of the Alto Rio Guanhães region (sample J02) and for the meta-rhyolite (sample J03)
Spot
number La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Sample
_I_6.1 0.058 4.855 0.442 6.766 8.512 0.733 36.35 10.797 124.002 40.385 173.544 34.291 297.613 56.171 J02
D_I_7.1 0.057 4.728 0.43 6.201 8.198 0.77 35.536 10.048 119.275 39.783 171.389 33.156 280.075 54.983 J02
D_I_10.1 0.07 4.845 0.627 8.406 10.57 0.914 43.782 12.176 140.367 46.105 197.245 37.713 317.744 61.796 J02
D_II_16.1 0.112 5.379 0.651 9.298 11.182 0.969 47.066 13.346 153.246 49.764 214.927 40.361 344.684 66.186 J02
D_II_21.1 0.005 16.675 0.087 1.791 4.129 0.175 22.92 7.678 99.831 37.126 169.823 35.147 302.311 56.841 J02
D_II_23.1 3.454 11.251 1.283 6.752 3.042 0.399 11.804 3.672 46.45 16.495 74.48 15.167 137.254 27.836 J02
D_III_36.1 0.035 10.287 0.149 2.519 4.653 0.243 21.704 7.254 91.466 32.6 147.279 31.316 262.591 49.927 J02
D_III_43.1 0.074 3.339 0.101 1.481 2.226 0.223 11.276 3.597 45.55 15.815 72.452 15.227 136.162 27.773 J02
D_III_44.1 0.019 4.357 0.142 2.882 4.065 0.412 19.987 6.242 78.647 26.081 113.914 23.385 204.88 38.596 J02
D_IV_48.1 0.006 7.804 0.04 0.79 1.613 0.117 10.497 3.75 48.447 18.195 86.343 18.254 163.547 31.129 J02
D_I_4.1 0.013 7.418 0.077 1.448 2.834 0.287 17.101 5.017 63.626 22.047 100.696 20.188 175.232 34.248 J03
D_I_11.1 0.949 19.375 0.563 7.7 13.126 0.456 60.322 17.827 214.738 71.98 302.91 57.74 479.403 88.403 J03
D_I_13.1 3.573 24.959 1.336 7.741 5.128 0.452 18.228 5.857 74.395 27.344 122.509 25.762 223.482 43.255 J03
D_II_18.1 0.017 9.508 0.114 1.877 3.626 0.231 18.385 5.941 73.951 26.143 115.517 23.15 202.217 37.568 J03
D_II_19.1 0.092 20.363 0.487 8.448 13.594 0.593 60.017 19.568 216.466 76.465 337.068 62.349 526.318 95.775 J03
D_II_20.2 0.032 13.925 0.45 8.099 12.742 0.589 56.218 16.508 191.102 64.774 272.03 52.086 430.36 78.48 J03
D_III_32.1 0.542 10.559 0.308 2.055 2.876 0.273 13.955 4.402 59.817 20.375 87.426 19.028 177.724 28.443 J03
D_III_31.1 0.012 10.682 0.073 1.122 2.837 0.197 16.274 5.571 71.768 24.925 105.681 22.487 197.521 35.616 J03
D_III_35.1 0.011 7.946 0.245 3.68 6.197 0.466 38.009 10.441 125.203 41.508 179.802 35.751 350.381 64.647 J03
D_IV_41.1 0.02 3.231 0.233 3.841 6.484 1.267 23.712 7.384 95.92 28.831 107.113 22.227 233.787 38.8 J03
D_IV_48.1 0.159 10.102 0.26 3.133 6.281 0.562 23.452 9.605 129.93 32.763 144.607 31.932 273.493 34.101 J03
D_V_51.1 0.024 7.065 0.3 4.848 9.503 1.109 41.268 11.577 143.257 47.481 189.285 35.709 340.071 59.686 J03
 241
Tabela A-10: Lu-Hf isotopic data for the ortho-amphibolite of the Alto Rio Guanhães region (J02).
U/Pb Sample (Present day ratios) Sample Initial Ratios
Spot TDM
Age
number (Ga)
(Ma) 176Hf/177Hf ±2SE 176Lu/177Hf ±2SE 176
Hf/177Hf (t) Hf(t)
10.1 1718 0.281494 0.000057 0.001123 0.000010 0.281457 -8.25 2.44
13.1 1728 0.281485 0.000116 0.000981 0.000066 0.281453 -8.19 2.44
15.1 1723 0.281484 0.000089 0.000888 0.000063 0.281455 -8.23 2.44
16.1 1717 0.281554 0.000150 0.000909 0.000009 0.281524 -5.90 2.35
18.1 1723 0.281559 0.000169 0.001304 0.000056 0.281516 -6.04 2.36
25.1 1732 0.281524 0.000565 0.001007 0.000053 0.281491 -6.73 2.39
40.1 1726 0.281596 0.000316 0.000777 0.000011 0.281571 -4.05 2.28
42.1 1725 0.281500 0.000295 0.001071 0.000149 0.281465 -7.80 2.43
43.1 1718 0.281510 0.000165 0.001129 0.000073 0.281473 -7.69 2.42
48.1 1725 0.281484 0.000215 0.000767 0.000070 0.281459 -8.03 2.43
V 4.1 1725 0.281522 0.000131 0.001236 0.000053 0.281482 -7.23 2.41

Tabela A-11: Lu-Hf isotopic data for the meta-rhyolite of the Alto Rio Guanhães region. ( J03)
U/Pb Sample (Present day ratios) Sample Initial Ratios TDM
Spot Age
(Ga)
number (Ma) 176Hf/177Hf ±2SE 176Lu/177Hf ±2SE 176
Hf/177Hf (t) Hf(t)
15.1 1754 0.281222 0.000074 0.000535 0.000007 0.281204 -16.42 2.77
18.1 1749 0.281235 0.000061 0.000929 0.000025 0.281204 -16.52 2.78
19.1 1744 0.281210 0.000072 0.000804 0.000023 0.281184 -17.37 2.80
21.1 1751 0.281242 0.000047 0.000699 0.000050 0.281218 -15.98 2.75
27.1 1748 0.281197 0.000055 0.000501 0.000005 0.281180 -17.41 2.80
38.1 1736 0.281204 0.000091 0.000635 0.000030 0.281183 -17.58 2.80
34.1 1744 0.281211 0.000082 0.000496 0.000007 0.281195 -16.97 2.78
41.1 1751 0.281263 0.000109 0.001236 0.000058 0.281222 -15.84 2.76
48.1 1749 0.281277 0.000102 0.000696 0.000020 0.281254 -14.77 2.70
V 5.1 1752 0.281270 0.000208 0.001287 0.000039 0.281227 -15.66 2.76
V 6.1 1753 0.281354 0.000077 0.001019 0.000024 0.281320 -12.32 2.62
V 7.1 1735 0.281324 0.000068 0.000757 0.000035 0.281299 -13.47 2.64
V 11.1 1739 0.281279 0.000076 0.000474 0.000006 0.281263 -14.66 2.69
V 13.1 1745 0.281349 0.000088 0.000947 0.000021 0.281318 -12.59 2.62
V 14.1 1760 0.281258 0.000119 0.000918 0.000034 0.281227 -15.45 2.74
 242
Tabela A-12: SIMS d18O data for the analyzed zircon grains from the ortho-amphibolite sample
(J02) and the meta-rhyolite (J03)
Spot d18O Spot d18O Spot d18O
2SD 2SD 2SD
number VSMOW number VSMOW number VSMOW

Ortho-amphibolite (J02) Meta-rhyolite (J03) Meta-rhyolite (J03)

D_I_1.1 6.64 0.30 D_I_1.1 7.06 0.30 D_V_49.1 7.21 0.30
D_I_2.1 6.83 0.30 D_I_4.1 7.41 0.30 D_V_50.1 7.43 0.30
D_I_3.1 7.25 0.30 D_I_7.1 6.96 0.30 D_V_51.1 7.17 0.30
D_I_4.1 6.79 0.30 D_I_11.1 7.55 0.30 D_V_53.1 7.14 0.30
D_I_5.1 7.21 0.30 D_I_12.1 7.47 0.30 D_VI_55.1 7.25 0.30
D_I_6.1 7.54 0.30 D_I_13.1 7.43 0.30 D_VI_56.1 7.79 0.30
D_I_7.1 5.68 0.30 D_I_14.1 6.91 0.30 D_VI_57.1 7.36 0.30
D_I_8.1 7.17 0.30 D_I_15.1 7.31 0.30 D_VI_58.1 7.30 0.30
D_I_9.1 6.55 0.30 D_I_15.1 7.28 0.30 D_VI_59.1 7.76 0.30
D_I_10.1 7.17 0.30 D_I_16.1 7.12 0.30 D_VI_60.1 7.53 0.30
D_I_11.1 7.03 0.30 D_II_18.1 7.66 0.30 V_I_2.1 7.98 0.30
D_I_12.1 7.00 0.30 D_II_19.1 6.92 0.30 V_I_4.1 7.76 0.30
D_I_13.1 7.02 0.30 D_II_20.2 7.13 0.30 V_I_7.1 7.89 0.30
D_I_14.1 6.99 0.30 D_II_23.1 7.29 0.30 V_I_8.1 7.91 0.30
D_I_15.1 7.01 0.30 D_II_24.1 7.59 0.30 V_II_10.1 7.70 0.30
D_II_16.1 7.42 0.30 D_II_27.1 7.82 0.30 V_II_12.1 7.68 0.30
D_II_17.1 7.49 0.30 D_II_28.1 7.85 0.30 V_II_13.1 7.60 0.30
D_II_18.1 5.56 0.30 D_II_29.1 7.81 0.30 V_II_ 14.1 7.65 0.30
D_II_19.1 6.50 0.30 D_III_30.1 7.53 0.30 V_II_15.1 7.71 0.30
D_II_21.1 7.17 0.30 D_III_31.1 6.77 0.30 V_II_16.1 7.67 0.30
D_II_24.1 6.59 0.30 D_III_32.1 7.53 0.30
D_II_27.1 6.55 0.30 D_III_34.1 7.63 0.30
D_III_31.1 7.56 0.30 D_III_35.1 7.52 0.30
D_III_34.1 7.42 0.30 D_III_36.1 7.01 0.30
D_III_41.1 7.37 0.30 D_III_37.1 7.68 0.30
D_IV_43.1 7.87 0.30 D_III_38.1 7.55 0.30
D_IV_44.1 6.83 0.30 D_IV_41.1 7.46 0.30
D_IV_46.1 7.64 0.30 D_IV_42.1 7.28 0.30
D_IV_54.1 7.19 0.30 D_IV_43.1 7.63 0.30
V_I_3.1 7.37 0.30 D_IV_47.1 7.45 0.30
V_I_5.1 7.46 0.30 D_IV_48.1 7.74 0.30
 243

Tabela A-13: Compilation of U-Pb and Pb-Pb isotopic ages in zircons and baddeleyite for the Statherian magmatism in the São Francisco block.
Southern Espinhaço
Unit Rock type Age Mineral Method Reference
Conceição do Mato dentro Suíte Meta-rhyolite 1711 ± 4 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Machado et al.. 1989
Conceição do Mato dentro Suíte Meta-rhyolite 1715 ± 2 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Machado et al.. 1989
Conceição do Mato dentro Suíte Meta-rhyolite 1770 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Brito Neves et al.. 1979
Planalto de Minas rhyolite Meta-rhyolite 1752 ± 2 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Machado et al.. 1989
Espinhaço Supergroup/ São João da Chapada Fm. Meta-volcaniclastic rock 1728 ± 97 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Rodrigues-Silva. 2016
Espinhaço Supergroup/ São João da Chapada Fm. K-Fe rich metavolcanic rock 1710 ± 12 Zircon Pb-Pb evaporation Dossin et al.. 1993b; Dussin. T.M.. 1994
Espinhaço Supergroup/ São João da Chapada Fm. K-Fe rich metavolcanic rock 1703 ± 12 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Chemale et al.. 2012
Espinhaço Supergroup/ São João da Chapada Fm. K-Fe rich intrusive rock 1736 ± 36 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Bezerra-Neto. 2016
Espinhaço Supergroup/ Sopa Brumadinho Fm. K-Fe rich intrusive rock 1747 ± 27 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Rodrigues-Silva. 2016
Espinhaço Supergroup/ Sopa Brumadinho Fm. K-Fe rich intrusive rock 1700 ± 21 Zircon U–Pb SHRIMP Rodrigues-Silva. 2016
Espinhaço Supergroup/ Sopa Brumadinho Fm. K-Fe rich intrusive rock 1706 ± 3 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Rodrigues-Silva. 2016

Guanhães Block

Unit Rock type Age Mineral Method Reference

Borrachudos Suite - Itauninha pluton Meta-granite 1770 ± 30 Zircon U–Pb ID-TIMS Dossin et al.. 2000
Borrachudos Suite - São Félix pluton Meta-granite 1729 ± 14 Zircon Pb-Pb evaporation Dossin et al.. 1993b; Dussin. I.A.. 1994
Borrachudos Suite - Açucena pluton Meta-granite 1740 ± 8 Zircon U–Pb SHRIMP This study
Borrachudos Suite - Urubu pluton Meta-granite 1777 ± 30 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Fernandes. 2001
Guanhães Group Amphibolite 1697 ± 10 Zircon Pb-Pb evaporation Dussin et al.. 2000
Alto Rio Guanhães ortho-amphibolite Meta-basalt 1725 ± 4 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS This study
Alto Rio Guanhães rhyolite Meta-rhyolite 1748 ± 3 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS This study
 244
Central Espinhaço
Unit Rock type Age Mineral Method Reference
Catolé Suite Meta-granite 1792 ± 7 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Costa. 2013

Espinhaço Supergroup/ Espigão Fm. Meta-volcanic rock 1758 ± 4 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Costa et al.. 2017

Espinhaço Supergroup Meta-mafic rock 1730 ± 8 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Moreira. 2017

Northern Espinhaço

Unit Rock type Age Mineral Method Reference

São Simão Synthem Meta-rhyolite 1735 ± 6 Zircon U–Pb SHRIMP Danderfer et al.. 2009
Algodão Synthem Meta-volcaniclastic rock 1775 ± 7 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Danderfer et al.. 2015
Sapiranga Synthem Meta-volcanic rock 1740 ± 10 Zircon U–Pb LA-ICPMS Danderfer et al.. 2015
Lagoa Real Pluton Granitoid 1724 ± 5 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Turpin et al.. 1988
Lagoa Real Pluton Granitoid 1744 ± 2 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Pimentel et al.. 1994

Chapada Diamantina
Unit Rock type Age Mineral Method Reference
Rio dos Remédios Group Meta-rhyolite 1748 ± 4 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Babinsk et al.. 1994
Rio dos Remédios Group Meta-rhyolite 1752 ± 4 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Schobbenhaus et al.. 1994

Southern São Francisco craton

Ibirité Gabbro Gabbro 1714 ± 5 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Silva et al. 1995
Pará de Minas Dyke Swarm Dolerite 1798 ± 4 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Cederberg et al. 2016
Pará de Minas Dyke Swarm Dolerite 1791 ± 7 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Cederberg et al. 2016
Pará de Minas Dyke Swarm Dolerite 1793 ± 18 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Cederberg et al. 2016
Pará de Minas Dyke Swarm Dolerite 1702 ± 13 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Cederberg et al. 2016
Pará de Minas Dyke Swarm Dolerite 1717 ± 11 Baddeleyite U-Pb ID-TIMS Cederberg et al. 2016
 245
Western São Francisco craton (Araí rift)
Paranã Suite - Sucuri pluton Granite 1769 ± 2 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Pimentel et al. 1991
Paranã Suite - Soledade pluton Granite 1767 ± 10 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Pimentel et al. 1991
Araí Group Metarhyolite 1771 ± 2 Zircon U-Pb ID-TIMS Pimentel et al. 1991
 246

9 Apêndice B - Ultramafic magmatism and regional

metamorphism in the Guanhães block. SE Brazil: Further evidence
for a Late Cryogenian rift system in the São Francisco – Congo
paleocontinent
 247

Tabela B-1: Whole rock litochemistry of the metaultramafites, orthopyroxene hornblendite and iron-rich rock
of central Guanhães block.

Sample J67 J71 J79A J81 J109A J72B J82

MgO (%) 30.64 27.50 24.17 27.95 41.35 17.77 7.38
SiO2 (%) 44.73 49.44 50.53 46.06 38.19 46.90 53.28
TiO2 (%) 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.47 0.32
Al2O3 (%) 3.75 6.02 7.23 9.01 0.97 11.83 10.16
Fe2O3t (%) 9.67 8.62 8.43 9.68 6.75 12.37 19.46
MnO (%) 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.20 0.16
CaO (%) 5.66 5.46 7.02 5.12 0.31 7.82 7.15
Na2O (%) 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.83 0.54
K2O (%) 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.23
P2O5 (%) 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04
LOI (%) 4.12 1.70 1.24 0.75 11.55 1.26 1.02
Total (%) 99.67 99.89 99.85 99.75 99.90 99.92 99.79
Ni (ppm) 1772.20 1730.09 1048.75 1364.29 2893.30 738.7 120.5
Cr (ppm) 2108.30 2740.28 2695.14 3823.99 1354.72 0
2010 3
225.2
Sc (ppm) 16.96 19.57 38.75 29.33 6.40 1
29.70 3
10.43
Co (ppm) 115.32 109.33 89.42 112.08 114.78 106.5 92.13
V (ppm) 93.78 83.69 139.90 134.29 23.28 0
176.0 65.55
Ba (ppm) 3.79 19.05 26.42 4.41 1.67 8
17.97 24.37
Sr (ppm) 59.37 53.34 27.64 5.25 1.03 30.76 23.45
Rb (ppm) 1.47 2.87 4.37 2.41 0.46 2.52 4.29
Nb (ppm) 0.21 0.48 0.38 0.24 0.21 1.57 7.68
Y (ppm) 4.45 5.24 16.49 7.06 1.11 80.70 20.49
Zr (ppm) 7.12 8.80 9.74 7.30 3.65 37.81 47.18
La (ppm) 1.00 1.46 5.37 5.33 0.24 62.33 67.73
Ce (ppm) 1.02 3.24 5.53 0.78 0.43 10.31 59.56
Pr (ppm) 0.28 0.41 1.61 1.10 0.07 15.10 15.18
Nd (ppm) 1.29 1.75 6.76 3.33 0.27 62.82 54.68
Sm (ppm) 0.37 0.45 2.00 0.53 0.07 14.13 9.04
Eu (ppm) 0.20 0.24 0.56 0.13 0.02 4.38 1.78
Gd (ppm) 0.53 0.59 2.20 0.60 0.10 15.74 5.94
Tb (ppm) 0.10 0.10 0.45 0.12 0.02 2.30 0.74
Dy (ppm) 0.75 0.81 3.39 0.98 0.11 14.95 4.22
Ho (ppm) 0.16 0.18 0.73 0.23 0.03 2.84 0.76
Er (ppm) 0.47 0.56 2.42 0.72 0.09 7.68 2.04
Tm (ppm) 0.07 0.09 0.41 0.12 0.01 1.03 0.30
Yb (ppm) 0.51 0.62 3.29 0.86 0.11 6.57 1.98
Lu (ppm) 0.08 0.10 0.49 0.14 0.02 0.94 0.27
Hf (ppm) 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.23 0.09 1.02 1.31
Ta (ppm) 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.32 1.13
Pb (ppm) 1.36 1.57 13.64 4.40 0.25 2.18 10.48
Th (ppm) 0.04 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.84 8.13
U (ppm) 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.21 1.54
 248

Tabela B-2: Mineral Chemistry: Olivine

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J67 J67B-c1-1 crisolite 39.38 0.01 0.01 15.47 0.23 45.37 0.01 0.36 100.84
J67 J67B-c1-2 crisolite 39.18 0.01 0.00 15.36 0.22 45.02 0.01 0.40 100.20
J67 J67B-c1-3 crisolite 38.55 0.02 0.00 15.61 0.22 45.38 0.01 0.39 100.18
J67 J67B-c2-1 crisolite 39.81 0.00 0.00 15.68 0.22 45.44 0.01 0.42 101.58
J67 J67B-c2-2 crisolite 37.65 0.01 0.00 15.49 0.24 45.61 0.02 0.43 99.45
J67 J67B-c2-4 crisolite 37.88 0.00 0.00 15.48 0.20 45.37 0.00 0.40 99.33
J67 J67B-c2-5 crisolite 39.01 0.00 0.00 15.40 0.23 45.76 0.01 0.38 100.79
J67 J67B-c3-1 crisolite 37.99 0.00 0.00 15.37 0.22 45.42 0.00 0.43 99.44
J67 J67B-c3-2 crisolite 38.07 0.02 0.01 15.28 0.24 45.41 0.01 0.43 99.47
J67 J67B-c3-3 crisolite 38.45 0.00 0.02 15.35 0.19 45.81 0.00 0.46 100.29
J67 J67B-c3-4 crisolite 37.79 0.01 0.00 15.29 0.21 45.86 0.01 0.46 99.62
J67 J67B-c3-6 crisolite 39.31 0.01 0.01 15.21 0.20 45.35 0.00 0.44 100.54
J67 J67B-c4-1 crisolite 37.39 0.00 0.00 15.26 0.20 45.83 0.01 0.45 99.14
J67 J67B-c4-2 crisolite 39.34 0.02 0.00 15.29 0.24 45.53 0.01 0.43 100.85
J67 J67B-c4-4 crisolite 39.03 0.02 0.01 15.28 0.25 45.70 0.01 0.43 100.72
J67 J67B-c4-5 crisolite 37.77 0.00 0.01 15.54 0.20 45.58 0.01 0.44 99.55
J67 J67B-c5-1 crisolite 39.11 0.01 0.00 15.31 0.26 45.25 0.01 0.45 100.39
J67 J67B-c5-2 crisolite 38.52 0.00 0.00 15.26 0.22 45.39 0.00 0.44 99.83
J67 J67B-c5-4 crisolite 38.07 0.01 0.00 15.46 0.19 45.76 0.00 0.41 99.90
J67 J67B-c5-5 crisolite 37.37 0.01 0.00 15.40 0.18 45.65 0.00 0.41 99.01
J67 J67B-c6-1 crisolite 39.12 0.01 0.00 15.53 0.22 44.87 0.01 0.39 100.15
J67 J67B-c6-2 crisolite 37.95 0.00 0.00 15.20 0.17 45.56 0.01 0.48 99.37
J67 J67B-c6-3 crisolite 38.17 0.03 0.01 15.61 0.20 45.72 0.01 0.37 100.12
J71 J71_1_c1-1 crisolite 38.60 0.00 0.02 14.17 0.24 46.23 0.01 0.57 99.84
J71 J71_1_c1-2 crisolite 38.36 0.00 0.00 14.07 0.28 46.21 0.01 0.61 99.55
J71 J71_1_c1-3 crisolite 38.67 0.02 0.02 14.02 0.30 46.49 0.01 0.62 100.15
J71 J71_1_c1-4 crisolite 37.63 0.01 0.00 14.18 0.27 46.39 0.01 0.61 99.11
 249

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J71 J71_1_c1-5 crisolite 39.69 0.01 0.01 13.84 0.29 45.91 0.01 0.59 100.36
J71 J71_1_c5-1 crisolite 39.49 0.00 0.00 13.73 0.25 45.85 0.01 0.61 99.93
J71 J71_1_c5-2 crisolite 37.70 0.00 0.00 13.67 0.27 46.47 0.01 0.65 98.77
J71 J71_1_c5-3 crisolite 38.58 0.06 0.02 13.53 0.28 46.17 0.03 0.63 99.30
J71 J71_1_c5-4 crisolite 38.28 0.01 0.00 13.66 0.29 46.57 0.01 0.65 99.48
J71 J71_1_c5-5 crisolite 38.59 0.01 0.02 13.65 0.29 46.49 0.01 0.65 99.71
J71 J71_1_c5-6 crisolite 37.41 0.01 0.00 13.78 0.27 46.55 0.02 0.67 98.70
J71 J71_c6_01-Ol-3 crisolite 39.51 0.00 0.00 14.61 0.25 45.36 0.00 0.64 100.40
J71 J71_c6_01-Ol-2 crisolite 39.98 0.00 0.00 14.02 0.26 45.53 0.03 0.63 100.47
J71 J71_c6_01-Ol-1 crisolite 39.45 0.06 0.03 13.91 0.22 45.70 0.03 0.63 100.12
J79 J79-1_olv_c1-1 crisolite 39.85 0.00 0.01 15.44 0.29 44.89 0.01 0.34 100.84
J79 J79-1_olv_c1-2 crisolite 39.47 0.00 0.01 15.38 0.30 46.32 0.01 0.35 101.85
J79 J79-1_olv_c1-3 crisolite 39.30 0.03 0.02 15.22 0.30 46.64 0.00 0.39 101.89
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-1 crisolite 39.89 0.00 0.01 15.43 0.30 45.22 0.00 0.37 101.22
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-2 crisolite 39.38 0.00 0.01 15.53 0.31 45.84 0.00 0.37 101.45
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-3 crisolite 39.18 0.00 0.01 15.36 0.28 45.37 0.00 0.35 100.55
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-4 crisolite 39.69 0.00 0.01 15.40 0.29 44.88 0.01 0.35 100.63
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-5 crisolite 39.91 0.00 0.00 15.51 0.32 45.35 0.01 0.35 101.46
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-6 crisolite 39.48 0.00 0.00 15.40 0.30 45.98 0.00 0.35 101.51
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-7 crisolite 38.77 0.01 0.00 15.09 0.31 46.35 0.01 0.30 100.84
J79 J79-1_olv_c2-8 crisolite 39.50 0.00 0.00 15.58 0.30 46.36 0.01 0.31 102.08
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-1 crisolite 39.83 0.01 0.02 15.73 0.28 45.02 0.00 0.37 101.25
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-2 crisolite 39.70 0.00 0.01 15.57 0.32 45.25 0.01 0.36 101.22
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-3 crisolite 39.97 0.00 0.01 15.87 0.28 45.41 0.02 0.39 101.95
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-4 crisolite 39.92 0.00 0.01 15.00 0.27 45.43 0.01 0.35 101.00
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-5 crisolite 39.78 0.00 0.01 15.33 0.30 45.58 0.02 0.31 101.35
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-6 crisolite 39.51 0.00 0.01 15.21 0.31 45.68 0.00 0.35 101.10
 250

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-7 crisolite 39.65 0.00 0.00 15.31 0.28 45.65 0.01 0.37 101.29
J79 J79-1_olv_c4-8 crisolite 39.99 0.01 0.01 15.27 0.26 45.75 0.00 0.34 101.64
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-1 crisolite 39.40 0.01 0.01 15.67 0.28 46.29 0.01 0.35 102.02
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-2 crisolite 39.84 0.00 0.02 15.51 0.29 45.75 0.01 0.34 101.77
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-3 crisolite 40.22 0.00 0.01 15.50 0.28 45.40 0.00 0.35 101.77
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-4 crisolite 39.53 0.00 0.03 15.46 0.29 45.33 0.01 0.35 100.99
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-5 crisolite 39.79 0.00 0.02 15.29 0.28 45.73 0.02 0.32 101.44
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-6 crisolite 39.77 0.00 0.03 15.28 0.26 45.56 0.01 0.31 101.22
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-7 crisolite 39.58 0.00 0.01 15.55 0.26 45.88 0.00 0.37 101.67
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-8 crisolite 39.95 0.00 0.01 15.67 0.28 45.07 0.00 0.35 101.35
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-9 crisolite 39.39 0.00 0.01 15.30 0.31 46.30 0.00 0.33 101.64
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-10 crisolite 39.63 0.00 0.01 15.32 0.27 46.00 0.01 0.33 101.56
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-11 crisolite 40.02 0.01 0.01 15.15 0.30 45.25 0.01 0.32 101.08
J79 J79-2_olv_c1-12 crisolite 39.77 0.00 0.00 15.03 0.26 45.84 0.02 0.33 101.25
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-1 crisolite 39.30 0.00 0.03 15.80 0.30 44.99 0.00 0.38 100.81
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-2 crisolite 39.81 0.00 0.02 15.81 0.28 45.14 0.01 0.35 101.43
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-3 crisolite 40.07 0.00 0.01 15.80 0.26 45.01 0.00 0.34 101.50
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-4 crisolite 39.86 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.27 45.01 0.00 0.33 101.08
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-5 crisolite 40.04 0.00 0.01 15.35 0.27 45.24 0.00 0.35 101.28
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-6 crisolite 39.72 0.00 0.00 15.61 0.26 45.64 0.01 0.36 101.61
J79 J79-2_olv_c2-7 crisolite 39.59 0.01 0.00 15.58 0.28 45.45 0.01 0.31 101.23
J79 J79_c2_02_Ol-1 crisolite 39.54 0.00 0.00 15.58 0.22 44.30 0.00 0.31 100.08
J79 J79_c2_02_Ol-2 crisolite 39.45 0.00 0.00 15.40 0.23 44.64 0.02 0.34 100.09
J79 J79_c3_01_Ol-5 crisolite 39.88 0.08 0.00 14.48 0.28 44.71 0.05 0.30 99.90
J79 J79_c2_02_Ol-3 crisolite 39.56 0.01 0.03 15.41 0.26 44.73 0.03 0.28 100.33
J79 J79_c3_01_Ol-2 crisolite 40.00 0.00 0.01 14.42 0.25 44.76 0.00 0.37 99.92
J79 J79_c2_02_Ol-4 crisolite 39.49 0.00 0.01 15.23 0.27 44.82 0.05 0.34 100.22
 251

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J79 J79_c3_01_Spl-1 crisolite 39.59 0.04 0.00 14.89 0.22 44.89 0.00 0.35 100.04
J79 J79_c2_02_Ol-5 crisolite 39.96 0.01 0.01 14.89 0.29 44.93 0.02 0.30 100.46
J79 J79_c3_01_Ol-3 crisolite 39.80 0.00 0.01 14.09 0.20 44.96 0.01 0.30 99.42
J79 J79_c3_01_Ol-4 crisolite 39.83 0.00 0.02 14.36 0.23 44.97 0.05 0.29 99.83
J79 J79_c3_01_Ol-1 crisolite 39.64 0.01 0.03 14.31 0.29 45.12 0.02 0.32 99.83
J81 J81-2-C3-1 crisolite 37.81 0.01 0.02 13.06 0.19 47.23 0.01 0.39 98.72
J81 J81-2-C3-2 crisolite 38.87 0.01 0.02 13.04 0.20 47.27 0.01 0.37 99.78
J81 J81-2-C3-3 crisolite 37.87 0.01 0.00 13.14 0.20 47.25 0.00 0.40 98.88
J81 J81-2-C3-4 crisolite 37.90 0.02 0.00 12.86 0.22 47.36 0.00 0.34 98.71
J81 J81-2-C3-5 crisolite 39.76 0.00 0.02 12.95 0.19 46.58 0.00 0.38 99.89
J81 J81-2-C3-6 crisolite 38.95 0.00 0.00 13.07 0.21 47.25 0.02 0.37 99.86
J81 J81-2_c3-9 crisolite 40.14 0.01 0.00 12.79 0.22 47.31 0.01 0.44 100.93
J81 J81-2-C1-1 crisolite 39.52 0.00 0.00 13.06 0.22 47.10 0.01 0.37 100.29
J81 J81-2-C1-3 crisolite 39.63 0.01 0.02 13.10 0.24 47.36 0.01 0.36 100.72
J81 J81-2-C1-4 crisolite 38.73 0.00 0.00 13.05 0.22 46.57 0.01 0.37 98.96
J81 J81-2-C1-5 crisolite 40.11 0.02 0.00 13.12 0.23 46.15 0.02 0.36 100.01
J81 J81-2-C2-1 crisolite 39.58 0.00 0.01 13.09 0.23 46.37 0.01 0.37 99.66
J81 J81-2-C2-2 crisolite 39.75 0.01 0.00 13.01 0.20 46.71 0.01 0.38 100.07
J81 J81-2-C2-3 crisolite 38.05 0.00 0.00 12.88 0.24 47.29 0.02 0.39 98.87
J81 J81-2-C2-4 crisolite 39.94 0.01 0.01 12.87 0.21 46.27 0.01 0.40 99.72
J81 J81-2-C2-5 crisolite 39.75 0.00 0.00 12.90 0.23 45.84 0.01 0.40 99.13
J81 J81-2-C2-6 crisolite 38.71 0.00 0.00 12.89 0.19 47.22 0.01 0.38 99.40
J81 J81-2-C2-7 crisolite 37.79 0.01 0.00 12.98 0.17 47.22 0.01 0.37 98.55
J81 J81-1_02-Ol-2 crisolite 40.61 0.02 0.00 12.71 0.19 46.97 0.00 0.41 101.00
J81 J81-1_02-Ol-3 crisolite 40.64 0.02 0.01 12.65 0.22 47.06 0.00 0.36 101.09
J81 J81-1_03-Ol-2 crisolite 40.37 0.00 0.01 13.25 0.21 47.09 0.01 0.41 101.41
J81 J81-1_03-Ol-1 crisolite 40.39 0.00 0.00 12.67 0.15 47.15 0.02 0.36 100.81
J81 J81-1_04-Ol-1 crisolite 40.61 0.00 0.00 13.07 0.19 47.32 0.02 0.45 101.69
 252

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J107 J107_05_Ol-6 crisolite 39.82 0.01 0.00 14.32 0.13 44.82 0.01 0.40 99.57
J107 J107_05_Ol-7 crisolite 39.81 0.00 0.03 14.01 0.12 45.00 0.03 0.45 99.46
J107 J107_05_Ol-1 crisolite 39.68 0.00 0.00 14.26 0.09 45.03 0.03 0.42 99.59
J107 J107_05_Ol-5 crisolite 39.64 0.00 0.00 14.31 0.16 45.08 0.02 0.41 99.64
J107 J107_05_Ol-8 crisolite 39.72 0.00 0.02 14.36 0.13 45.20 0.02 0.41 99.88
J107 J107_05_Ol-2 crisolite 39.51 0.02 0.02 14.22 0.15 45.24 0.01 0.38 99.65
J107 J107_05_Ol-3 crisolite 39.69 0.04 0.01 14.27 0.13 45.37 0.03 0.40 99.98
J107 J107_05_Ol-4 crisolite 39.46 0.01 0.01 13.97 0.09 45.89 0.00 0.46 99.91
J109 J109_olv_c5-1 forsterite 42.06 0.00 0.01 3.41 0.16 54.24 0.01 0.48 100.37
J109 J109_olv_c5-2 forsterite 41.75 0.00 0.00 3.38 0.12 55.19 0.00 0.46 100.91
J109 J109_olv_c5-3 forsterite 41.86 0.00 0.02 3.38 0.12 54.03 0.00 0.45 99.87
J109 J109_olv_c5-4 forsterite 41.93 0.00 0.01 3.42 0.14 54.39 0.01 0.46 100.38
J109 J109_olv_c5-5 forsterite 41.43 0.00 0.01 3.40 0.16 55.74 0.01 0.47 101.21
J109 J109_olv_c5-6 forsterite 41.04 0.00 0.00 3.39 0.15 56.32 0.01 0.44 101.35
J109 J109_olv_c5-7 forsterite 41.52 0.00 0.00 3.38 0.10 55.72 0.00 0.50 101.22
J109 J109_olv_c4-1 forsterite 41.87 0.01 0.00 3.21 0.15 54.25 0.01 0.48 100.01
J109 J109_olv_c4-2 forsterite 41.95 0.00 0.02 3.32 0.11 54.50 0.01 0.46 100.38
J109 J109_olv_c4-3 forsterite 42.06 0.00 0.01 3.41 0.14 55.29 0.01 0.49 101.41
J109 J109_olv_c4-4 forsterite 41.88 0.00 0.01 3.27 0.11 55.28 0.00 0.46 101.01
J109 J109_olv_c3-1 forsterite 41.98 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.12 54.42 0.01 0.47 100.34
J109 J109_olv_c3-2 forsterite 42.09 0.00 0.01 3.28 0.11 55.27 0.00 0.47 101.26
J109 J109_olv_c3-3 forsterite 41.72 0.00 0.02 3.26 0.13 55.11 0.01 0.47 100.72
J109 J109_olv_c3-4 forsterite 41.89 0.01 0.00 3.32 0.10 53.85 0.00 0.49 99.67
J109 J109_olv_c3-5 forsterite 41.87 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.16 55.18 0.00 0.47 100.96
 253

Sample Comment Olivine SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Total
J109 J109_olv_c3-6 forsterite 41.73 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.13 54.80 0.00 0.45 100.41
J109 J109_olv_c2-1 forsterite 41.43 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.09 55.74 0.01 0.46 101.04
J109 J109_olv_c2-2 forsterite 41.80 0.00 0.01 3.30 0.12 55.08 0.00 0.49 100.80
J109 J109_olv_c2-3 forsterite 41.85 0.00 0.00 3.29 0.13 55.38 0.00 0.47 101.12
J109 J109_olv_c2-4 forsterite 41.19 0.02 0.01 3.31 0.15 55.57 0.00 0.50 100.77
J109 J109_olv_c2-5 forsterite 41.59 0.00 0.00 3.26 0.12 55.22 0.00 0.50 100.70
J109 J109_olv_c1-5 forsterite 41.90 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.15 54.86 0.00 0.45 100.68
 254

Tabela B-3: Mineral chemistry: Orthopyroxene

Sample Comment OPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J67 J67B_op-C5-2 Enstatite 58.87 0.02 0.09 10.27 0.33 27.98 0.63 0.02 98.21
J71 J71_1_op-C1-1 Enstatite 56.03 0.05 1.55 9.06 0.31 32.76 0.23 0.07 100.07
J71 J71_1_op-C1-2 Enstatite 56.01 0.06 2.49 9.08 0.26 32.22 0.28 0.07 100.47
J71 J71_1_op-C3-3 Enstatite 55.92 0.05 2.41 9.22 0.30 32.27 0.27 0.14 100.58
J71 J71_1_op-C3-4 Enstatite 55.91 0.07 2.78 9.01 0.28 32.03 0.28 0.09 100.46
J71 J71_1_op-C4-1 Enstatite 56.28 0.07 2.48 9.12 0.28 32.27 0.27 0.06 100.82
J71 J71_1_op-C4-2 Enstatite 57.12 0.05 0.83 8.86 0.26 33.07 0.27 0.05 100.53
J71 J71_1_op-C4-3 Enstatite 56.24 0.05 1.80 9.15 0.31 32.70 0.24 0.10 100.59
J71 J71_1_op-C4-4 Enstatite 56.33 0.08 2.08 9.20 0.29 32.47 0.27 0.06 100.77
J71 J71_1_op-C5-1 Enstatite 55.71 0.06 2.74 9.03 0.28 32.26 0.25 0.02 100.35
J71 J71_1_op-C5-2 Enstatite 55.62 0.06 2.36 9.22 0.29 32.23 0.26 0.07 100.11
J71 J71_1_op-C5-3 Enstatite 56.18 0.06 2.60 9.10 0.28 32.31 0.25 0.04 100.82
J71 J71_1_op-C5-4 Enstatite 55.13 0.05 2.50 8.96 0.29 32.75 0.24 0.04 99.99
J71 J71_1_op-C5-5 Enstatite 57.01 0.05 1.13 8.93 0.28 33.16 0.27 0.06 100.90
J71 J71_c3_01-Opx-1 Enstatite 56.00 0.07 2.75 8.91 0.24 31.65 0.28 0.09 0.04 100.09
J71 J71_c7_01-Opx-2 Enstatite 56.01 0.13 2.43 10.23 0.28 32.08 0.31 0.12 0.08 101.69
J71 J71_c3_03-Opx-1 Enstatite 55.75 0.01 2.39 8.93 0.21 32.35 0.28 0.17 0.05 100.27
J71 J71_c2_01-Opx-1 Enstatite 56.07 0.05 1.70 8.78 0.22 32.47 0.26 0.12 0.08 99.79
J71 J71_c4_01-Opx-5 Enstatite 55.85 0.04 1.12 8.60 0.26 32.48 0.30 0.12 0.04 98.86
J71 J71_c2_01-Opx-3 Enstatite 56.25 0.02 2.17 8.85 0.25 32.54 0.27 0.11 0.04 100.56
J71 J71_c4_01-Opx-2 Enstatite 54.81 0.04 2.53 8.47 0.24 32.64 0.30 0.17 0.02 99.31
J71 J71_c2_01-Opx-2 Enstatite 56.45 0.02 1.41 8.93 0.28 32.66 0.30 0.10 0.03 100.24
J71 J71_c4_01-Opx-4 Enstatite 56.38 0.05 2.30 9.06 0.20 32.73 0.22 0.17 0.09 101.24
J71 J71_c4_01-Opx-3 Enstatite 55.58 0.03 2.27 9.03 0.22 32.76 0.25 0.12 0.00 100.28
J71 J71_c7_01-Opx-4 Enstatite 54.31 0.10 2.55 9.68 0.24 32.78 0.31 0.14 0.04 100.17
J71 J71_c2_01-Opx-4 Enstatite 56.75 0.02 1.63 8.23 0.32 32.82 0.17 0.07 0.10 100.16
J71 J71_c3_03-Opx-2 Enstatite 55.10 0.03 2.50 8.94 0.27 32.85 0.27 0.15 0.06 100.24
 255

Sample Comment OPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J71 J71_c2_01-5 Enstatite 56.60 0.08 2.23 8.06 0.21 32.89 0.31 0.08 0.01 100.49
J71 J71_c3_01-3 Enstatite 55.57 0.04 2.32 9.20 0.26 32.97 0.27 0.14 0.06 100.85
J71 J71_c2_01-6 Enstatite 56.33 0.07 2.57 8.18 0.25 32.97 0.27 0.16 0.04 100.87
J71 J71_c3_01-4 Enstatite 55.59 0.12 2.46 9.02 0.20 33.00 0.32 0.14 0.03 100.94
J71 J71_c4_01-1 Enstatite 56.48 0.10 2.33 8.74 0.26 33.28 0.30 0.12 0.04 101.70
J79 J79A - C3 - 2 Enstatite 56.20 0.00 2.78 10.20 0.25 31.72 0.23 0.11 101.50
J79 J79A - C3 -3 Enstatite 56.70 0.04 2.26 10.33 0.34 32.07 0.24 0.11 102.09
J79 J79A - C3 - 4 Enstatite 56.71 0.03 2.18 10.10 0.39 32.06 0.23 0.10 101.84
J79 J79A - C3 - 5 Enstatite 56.37 0.03 2.53 9.91 0.36 32.04 0.17 0.10 101.52
J79 J79A - C3 - 6 Enstatite 56.04 0.01 2.60 9.98 0.26 31.64 0.18 0.08 100.86
J79 J79A - C3 - 11 Enstatite 56.38 0.05 2.67 10.17 0.36 31.76 0.18 0.09 101.66
J79 J79A - C3 - 12 Enstatite 56.36 0.04 2.49 10.00 0.30 31.72 0.18 0.08 101.22
J79 J79A - C2 - 1 Enstatite 56.32 0.00 2.53 10.52 0.36 31.25 0.15 0.07 101.20
J79 J79A - C2 - 2 Enstatite 55.85 0.02 2.43 10.32 0.33 31.33 0.20 0.11 100.59
J79 J79A - C2 - 7 Enstatite 56.09 0.04 2.74 9.78 0.42 31.55 0.25 0.04 100.91
J79 J79A - C2 - 8 Enstatite 56.39 0.05 2.71 10.42 0.29 31.64 0.23 0.06 101.80
J79 J79A - C2 - 11 Enstatite 56.24 0.04 2.22 10.32 0.25 31.81 0.17 0.07 101.12
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 2 Enstatite 56.27 0.08 2.71 9.82 0.38 31.25 0.14 0.08 100.73
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 3 Enstatite 55.67 0.06 2.74 9.62 0.24 31.17 0.18 0.09 99.79
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 5 Enstatite 55.62 0.03 2.83 10.15 0.28 31.33 0.24 0.11 100.63
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 6 Enstatite 55.06 0.02 2.88 9.93 0.29 31.30 0.26 0.02 99.78
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 9 Enstatite 56.36 0.08 2.83 10.80 0.28 31.61 0.17 0.01 102.13
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 10 Enstatite 56.07 0.05 2.60 10.29 0.31 31.38 0.20 0.16 101.09
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 11 Enstatite 56.03 0.02 2.70 10.51 0.45 31.45 0.19 0.00 101.36
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 16 Enstatite 55.24 0.05 2.88 10.46 0.32 31.06 0.22 0.06 100.33
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 17 Enstatite 55.94 0.03 2.58 10.38 0.25 31.31 0.20 0.02 100.74
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 18 Enstatite 56.42 0.00 2.50 10.34 0.37 31.86 0.15 0.02 101.71
 256

Sample Comment OPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J79 J79_c2_01-Opx-2 Enstatite 55.13 0.00 2.76 9.85 0.25 31.04 0.25 0.05 0.07 99.46
J79 J79_c4_02_Opx-3 Enstatite 55.05 0.02 2.62 10.94 0.26 31.18 0.20 0.14 0.03 100.46
J79 J79_c2_01-Opx-1 Enstatite 55.17 0.02 2.76 9.40 0.23 31.18 0.35 0.06 0.08 99.37
J79 J79_c4_02_Opx-1 Enstatite 54.55 0.06 2.92 10.53 0.28 31.21 0.20 0.07 0.09 99.91
J79 J79_c7_01_Opx-4 Enstatite 55.12 0.02 2.66 10.16 0.28 31.31 0.23 0.10 0.04 99.93
J79 J79_c4_02_Opx-2 Enstatite 55.02 0.04 2.63 10.69 0.29 31.39 0.14 0.09 0.10 100.43
J79 J79_c2_01-Opx-3 Enstatite 54.85 0.10 2.67 9.60 0.30 31.47 0.25 0.03 0.04 99.35
J79 J79_c1_01-Opx-4 Enstatite 55.27 0.00 2.64 10.26 0.30 31.48 0.25 0.08 0.15 100.45
J79 J79_c7_01_Opx-1 Enstatite 55.11 0.01 2.72 10.30 0.25 31.49 0.19 0.10 0.18 100.38
J79 J79_c6_01_Opx-2 Enstatite 55.02 0.06 2.50 10.18 0.28 31.57 0.24 0.08 0.15 100.12
J79 J79_c1_01-Opx-2 Enstatite 55.34 0.07 2.73 10.23 0.24 31.61 0.19 0.11 0.11 100.81
J79 J79_c7_01_Opx-2 Enstatite 55.28 0.00 2.61 10.07 0.26 31.70 0.22 0.04 0.09 100.28
J79 J79_c6_01_Opx-1 Enstatite 54.92 0.00 2.54 10.15 0.23 31.73 0.16 0.06 0.09 99.90
J79 J79_c6_01_Opx-3 Enstatite 54.95 0.00 2.65 10.41 0.26 31.80 0.26 0.11 0.09 100.56
J79 J79_c7_01_Opx-3 Enstatite 55.66 0.00 2.23 10.19 0.27 31.92 0.26 0.07 0.08 100.73
J79 J79_c1_01-Opx-1 Enstatite 55.64 0.00 2.35 10.16 0.25 32.23 0.13 0.08 0.09 100.95
J81 J81_2_op-C3-1 Enstatite 55.89 0.04 2.56 9.15 0.24 32.30 0.18 0.10 100.48
J81 J81_2_op-C3-2 Enstatite 55.21 0.03 2.55 8.96 0.26 32.60 0.16 0.11 99.88
J81 J81_2_op-C3-3 Enstatite 55.44 0.04 2.69 9.00 0.22 32.41 0.17 0.08 100.06
J81 J81_2_op-C3-4 Enstatite 55.92 0.04 2.61 9.12 0.23 32.37 0.16 0.08 100.53
J81 J81_2_op-C2-1 Enstatite 55.94 0.03 2.57 9.25 0.26 32.31 0.13 0.11 100.60
J81 J81_2_op-C2-2 Enstatite 55.75 0.04 2.63 9.08 0.24 32.27 0.13 0.08 100.21
J81 J81_2_op-C2-3 Enstatite 55.40 0.04 2.42 9.19 0.22 32.47 0.19 0.06 100.00
J81 J81_2_op-C2-4 Enstatite 56.13 0.02 2.49 9.13 0.22 32.51 0.17 0.07 100.75
J81 J81_2_op-C2-5 Enstatite 56.00 0.05 2.59 9.05 0.22 32.59 0.24 0.10 100.84
J81 J81_2_op-C1-1 Enstatite 55.70 0.03 2.56 9.35 0.26 32.50 0.21 0.09 100.71
J81 J81_2_op-C1-2 Enstatite 55.80 0.04 2.52 8.99 0.22 32.74 0.24 0.06 100.62
 257

Sample Comment OPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J81 J81_2_op-C1-3 Enstatite 55.79 0.04 2.72 8.91 0.23 32.59 0.23 0.08 100.59
J81 J81_2_op-C1-4 Enstatite 55.62 0.02 2.65 9.31 0.22 32.22 0.21 0.06 100.31
J81 J81-2 C1 - 1 Enstatite 56.33 0.03 2.92 9.48 0.26 32.37 0.20 0.00 101.59
J81 J81-2 C1 - 2 Enstatite 55.64 0.03 2.90 8.90 0.30 32.45 0.25 0.10 100.56
J81 J81-2 C1 - 12 Enstatite 57.95 0.05 2.42 8.83 0.21 33.87 0.11 0.07 103.50
J81 J81-2 C1 - 13 Enstatite 56.78 0.04 2.65 8.67 0.12 32.65 0.19 0.09 101.18
J81 J81-2 C1 - 17 Enstatite 56.28 0.06 2.76 8.83 0.31 31.89 0.23 0.04 100.41
J81 J81-2 C1 - 18 Enstatite 56.35 0.02 2.74 8.92 0.25 32.41 0.20 0.16 101.06
J81 J81-2 C1 - 21 Enstatite 55.96 0.03 2.76 9.38 0.27 31.87 0.18 0.00 100.47
J81 J81-2 C1 - 26 Enstatite 55.71 0.02 2.65 8.34 0.22 31.78 0.20 0.08 99.01
J81 J81-2 C1 - 27 Enstatite 56.34 0.02 2.70 9.27 0.30 32.03 0.17 0.15 100.98
J81 J81-2 C1 - 33 Enstatite 55.65 0.03 2.89 8.87 0.09 32.31 0.23 0.02 100.09
J81 J81-2 C1 - 34 Enstatite 56.29 0.03 2.83 8.81 0.17 32.01 0.18 0.13 100.49
J81 J81-1_c1_01-1 Enstatite 55.38 0.06 2.82 8.94 0.18 32.26 0.22 0.04 0.05 99.99
J81 J81-1_c2_01-1 Enstatite 55.23 0.00 2.80 9.24 0.21 32.32 0.15 0.07 0.06 100.13
J81 J81-1_c1_01-2 Enstatite 55.65 0.02 2.13 9.15 0.19 32.66 0.10 0.08 0.07 100.13
J81 J81-1_c3_01-3 Enstatite 55.98 0.05 2.62 8.84 0.23 32.68 0.15 0.07 0.11 100.80
J81 J81-1_c3_01-4 Enstatite 56.11 0.00 2.70 8.81 0.18 32.72 0.18 0.08 0.12 100.93
J81 J81-1_c4_01-2 Enstatite 55.58 0.04 2.73 9.08 0.24 32.77 0.22 0.10 0.12 100.87
J81 J81-1_c2_01-2 Enstatite 55.86 0.03 2.78 8.95 0.23 32.81 0.12 0.07 0.09 100.99
J81 J81-1_c4_01-1 Enstatite 55.94 0.03 2.66 8.89 0.20 32.83 0.21 0.11 0.11 101.00
J81 J81-1_c3_01-2 Enstatite 56.57 0.00 2.49 8.80 0.20 32.93 0.21 0.09 0.03 101.37
J81 J81-1_c3_01-1 Enstatite 56.00 0.07 2.77 9.00 0.22 33.05 0.16 0.09 0.04 101.49
J107 J107_c7_01-1 Enstatite 54.57 0.04 2.63 9.13 0.14 31.59 0.28 0.11 0.05 98.57
J107 J107_c6_01-6 Enstatite 55.84 0.02 2.56 9.13 0.13 31.63 0.27 0.07 0.13 99.81
J107 J107_c6_01-5 Enstatite 54.92 0.03 2.62 9.27 0.10 31.76 0.23 0.08 0.05 99.09
J107 J107_c4_01-5 Enstatite 54.72 0.07 2.26 9.03 0.10 31.86 0.27 0.13 0.19 98.67
 258

Sample Comment OPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J107 J107_c2_01-4 Enstatite 54.82 0.08 2.37 9.01 0.15 31.90 0.32 0.09 0.08 98.82
J107 J107_c3_01-4 Enstatite 55.92 0.07 2.24 9.13 0.14 31.91 0.30 0.09 0.14 99.96
J107 J107_c7_01-2 Enstatite 55.31 0.08 2.49 8.95 0.12 31.92 0.35 0.10 0.06 99.39
J107 J107_c3_01-6 Enstatite 55.64 0.13 2.13 9.11 0.13 32.02 0.28 0.07 0.12 99.69
J107 J107_c6_01-7 Enstatite 55.14 0.02 2.63 9.08 0.17 32.04 0.20 0.06 0.10 99.45
J107 J107_c7_01-6 Enstatite 55.56 0.07 2.53 8.79 0.12 32.08 0.32 0.13 0.11 99.75
J107 J107_c1_01-5 Enstatite 55.11 0.10 2.00 8.77 0.15 32.09 0.34 0.07 0.16 98.83
J107 J107_c3_01-3 Enstatite 55.23 0.02 2.71 8.97 0.13 32.14 0.33 0.09 0.13 99.80
J107 J107_c7_01-4 Enstatite 55.70 0.09 1.97 9.25 0.16 32.18 0.32 0.06 0.10 99.90
J107 J107_c4_01-2 Enstatite 55.32 0.02 1.90 9.07 0.12 32.26 0.34 0.13 0.10 99.37
J107 J107_c4_01-3 Enstatite 55.36 0.01 2.06 9.17 0.13 32.31 0.28 0.07 0.14 99.59
J107 J107_c7_01-5 Enstatite 55.57 0.02 2.36 9.26 0.13 32.34 0.31 0.07 0.03 100.12
J107 J107_c4_01-4 Enstatite 55.17 0.06 1.81 9.02 0.16 32.35 0.32 0.12 0.09 99.18
J107 J107_c3_01-5 Enstatite 55.45 0.06 2.04 9.15 0.09 32.35 0.36 0.12 0.14 99.88
J107 J107_c7_01-3 Enstatite 55.87 0.08 2.11 8.95 0.14 32.38 0.32 0.05 0.10 100.06
J107 J107_c6_01-3 Enstatite 55.44 0.04 1.70 9.12 0.18 32.40 0.32 0.12 0.04 99.36
J107 J107_c1_01-1 Enstatite 55.58 0.05 1.87 8.68 0.12 32.42 0.32 0.12 0.09 99.35
J107 J107_c1_01-2 Enstatite 55.55 0.10 2.21 8.80 0.22 32.42 0.33 0.07 0.19 99.95
J107 J107_c6_01-4 Enstatite 55.68 0.04 1.70 9.29 0.17 32.42 0.35 0.13 0.02 99.81
J107 J107_c1_01-3 Enstatite 55.31 0.06 1.64 8.62 0.13 32.43 0.30 0.14 0.10 98.72
J107 J107_c6_01-1 Enstatite 55.68 0.05 1.99 9.05 0.13 32.59 0.25 0.12 0.00 99.93
J107 J107_c1_01-4 Enstatite 55.38 0.06 1.73 8.81 0.16 32.60 0.33 0.12 0.13 99.37
 259

Tabela B-4: Mineral chemistry: Amphibole

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J67 J67B_amph_-C4-1 Mg-hbl 52.18 0.33 6.09 4.20 0.08 20.25 12.48 0.67 96.89
J67 J67B_amph_-C4-2 tremolite 55.04 0.21 3.77 3.80 0.08 21.48 12.42 0.45 97.49
J67 J67B_amph_-C4-3 tremolite 55.30 0.21 3.73 3.86 0.10 21.47 12.48 0.48 97.87
J67 J67B_amph_-C5-1 Mg-hbl 52.24 0.34 6.06 4.28 0.12 20.08 12.50 0.78 97.03
J67 J67B_amph_c6-1 tremolite 57.80 0.05 0.56 2.83 0.05 23.17 12.73 0.05 0.12 97.37
J67 J67B_amph_c6-2 tremolite 55.22 0.17 2.16 3.73 0.08 22.42 12.39 0.25 0.12 96.58
J67 J67B_amph_c6-3 Mg-hbl 51.78 0.35 6.52 4.35 0.06 20.20 12.34 0.75 0.14 96.65
J67 J67B_amph_c6-4 Mg-hbl 51.54 0.43 6.47 4.49 0.13 20.09 12.32 0.89 0.14 96.65
J67 J67B_amph_c6-5 Mg-hbl 51.09 0.45 6.79 4.48 0.11 20.15 12.39 0.86 0.13 96.60
J67 J67B_amph_c6-6 Mg-hbl 51.61 0.38 6.40 4.38 0.10 20.34 12.43 0.80 0.14 96.71
J67 J67b - C1 - 1 tremolitic hbl 52.29 0.25 4.57 3.73 0.16 22.01 12.58 0.56 96.57
J67 J67b - C1 - 2 tremolitic hbl 53.03 0.32 5.28 4.11 0.13 21.39 12.38 0.56 97.61
J67 J67b - C1 - 3 tremolite 54.80 0.12 2.15 3.46 0.13 23.33 12.73 0.22 97.17
J67 J67b - C2 - 5 tremolitic hbl 53.61 0.27 5.02 3.99 0.09 21.66 12.50 0.55 98.02
J67 J67b - C2 - 6 Mg-hbl 52.83 0.30 5.51 4.01 0.14 21.66 12.51 0.60 98.14
J67 J67b - C2 - 9 Mg-hbl 52.03 0.32 5.79 4.05 0.08 21.53 12.55 0.57 97.57
J67 J67b - C2 - 10 Mg-hbl 50.92 0.30 5.97 4.04 0.05 21.21 12.49 0.57 96.05
J67 J67b - C3 - 1 Mg-hbl 50.52 0.42 6.82 4.20 0.11 20.54 12.21 0.72 96.26
J67 J67b - C3 - 2 Mg-hbl 51.08 0.42 6.81 4.24 0.16 20.34 12.06 0.68 96.55
J67 J67b - C3 - 3 Mg-hbl 51.01 0.40 6.73 4.36 0.00 20.51 12.07 0.78 96.56
J67 J67b - C3 - 6 tremolitic hbl 54.16 0.23 3.74 3.62 0.04 22.28 12.42 0.41 97.22
J67 J67b - C3 - 7 Mg-hbl 50.51 0.33 6.70 4.53 0.09 20.75 12.15 0.72 96.57
J67 J67b - C3 - 8 Mg-hbl 52.12 0.32 5.49 4.00 0.17 21.17 12.29 0.64 96.74
J67 J67b - C3 - 13 tremolitic hbl 53.85 0.31 3.72 3.76 0.14 22.18 12.44 0.33 97.15
J67 J67b - C3 - 14 Mg-hbl 50.64 0.40 7.19 4.15 0.07 20.22 12.22 0.68 96.32
J67 J67b - C5 - 2 Mg-hbl 50.92 0.44 7.24 4.10 0.04 20.92 12.42 0.95 97.73
J67 J67b - C5 - 3 Mg-hbl 51.33 0.31 6.55 3.96 0.00 20.69 12.42 0.75 96.64
 260

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J67 J67b - C5 - 6 Mg-hbl 52.91 0.33 6.17 3.87 0.00 21.18 12.22 0.65 98.01
J67 J67b - C4 - 3 tremolite 55.88 0.16 2.98 3.28 0.13 22.46 12.06 0.42 97.77
J67 J67b - C4 - 4 Mg-hbl 50.49 0.29 5.57 3.59 0.16 21.72 12.60 0.65 95.50
J67 J67b - C4 - 5 tremolitic hbl 52.34 0.22 4.88 3.47 0.09 21.81 12.63 0.60 96.60
J67 J67b - C4 - 8 tremolitic hbl 53.34 0.27 5.02 3.83 0.12 21.89 12.53 0.58 98.07
J67 J67b - C4 - 9 Mg-hbl 52.51 0.35 6.08 3.94 0.09 21.41 12.52 0.55 98.12
J67 J67b - C4 - 10 tremolitic hbl 53.38 0.31 5.86 3.87 0.15 21.48 12.40 0.61 98.59
J67 J67b - C4 - 15 Mg-hbl 52.63 0.36 6.29 3.94 0.07 21.14 12.29 0.76 98.04
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-1 Mg-hbl 51.91 0.23 7.11 3.90 0.08 19.79 12.78 0.49 0.14 96.46
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-2 tremolitic hbl 53.37 0.18 5.62 3.61 0.12 20.45 12.87 0.33 0.15 96.74
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-3 tremolitic hbl 53.37 0.17 5.69 3.55 0.09 20.54 12.89 0.37 0.14 96.84
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-4 tremolitic hbl 53.39 0.15 5.42 3.54 0.07 20.88 12.88 0.31 0.16 96.83
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-5 tremolitic hbl 52.45 0.17 5.78 3.64 0.11 20.65 12.83 0.39 0.16 96.21
J71 J71-1_amph_c1-6 tremolitic hbl 51.66 0.17 5.80 3.60 0.09 20.38 12.90 0.31 0.14 95.08
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-1 Mg-hbl 50.24 0.51 8.48 4.15 0.07 19.08 12.84 0.63 0.20 96.29
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-2 tremolitic hbl 52.92 0.23 5.74 3.69 0.09 20.61 12.79 0.35 0.18 96.64
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-3 Mg-hbl 50.65 0.47 8.10 4.01 0.10 19.60 12.86 0.55 0.21 96.63
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-4 Mg-hbl 52.31 0.30 6.57 3.74 0.04 20.33 12.90 0.43 0.22 96.90
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-5 Mg-hbl 51.19 0.47 7.91 4.06 0.08 19.47 12.81 0.54 0.18 96.81
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-6 Mg-hbl 49.74 0.52 8.92 4.15 0.10 19.22 12.95 0.59 0.20 96.50
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-7 Mg-hbl 50.11 0.51 8.71 4.17 0.08 19.21 12.87 0.58 0.18 96.52
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-8 Mg-hbl 51.32 0.42 7.87 4.13 0.12 19.62 12.70 0.54 0.20 96.98
J71 J71-1_amph_c3-9 tremolitic hbl 52.68 0.32 6.50 3.74 0.06 20.27 12.78 0.43 0.20 97.04
J71 J71_1_op-C3-1 Mg-hbl 51.15 0.43 8.10 4.00 0.10 19.32 12.96 0.53 96.87
J71 J71_1_op-C3-2 Mg-hbl 51.47 0.42 7.91 4.31 0.09 19.14 12.98 0.47 97.12
J71 J71-1_amph_c4-1 Mg-hbl 50.64 0.44 7.97 4.14 0.12 19.51 12.66 0.59 0.23 96.36
J71 J71-1_amph_c4-2 Mg-hbl 52.13 0.36 6.80 3.89 0.08 20.07 12.78 0.49 0.20 96.85
J71 J71-1_amph_c4-3 Mg-hbl 50.75 0.61 8.23 4.00 0.08 19.40 12.85 0.63 0.16 96.81
 261

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J71 J71-1_amph_c4-4 tremolitic hbl 52.28 0.37 6.28 3.58 0.10 20.27 12.98 0.42 0.23 96.56
J71 J71-1_amph_c5-1 Mg-hbl 48.81 0.61 9.77 4.51 0.09 18.71 12.89 0.64 0.22 96.41
J71 J71-1_amph_c5-2 Mg-hbl 49.71 0.59 9.34 4.34 0.09 18.95 12.84 0.62 0.26 96.88
J71 J71-1_amph_c5-3 Mg-hbl 50.39 0.49 8.73 4.31 0.09 19.18 12.73 0.61 0.24 96.88
J71 J71_campo3_02-4 anthophyllite 56.08 0.03 1.21 14.09 0.45 26.98 1.23 0.04 0.13 100.33
J71 J71_campo3_02-3 anthophyllite 56.91 0.03 1.65 13.44 0.33 26.38 1.74 0.09 0.22 100.93
J71 J71_campo5_01-2 Mg-hbl 50.36 0.30 7.67 4.03 0.05 20.03 13.97 0.50 0.21 97.60
J71 J71_campo5_01-1 Mg-hbl 49.62 0.51 7.69 3.95 0.10 20.10 14.00 0.50 0.19 97.15
J71 J71_campo7_01-3 tremolitic hbl 54.99 0.12 3.98 3.85 0.11 21.60 14.05 0.19 0.20 99.35
J71 J71_campo2_01-3 tremolite 54.51 0.22 3.85 3.01 0.15 21.74 14.06 0.20 0.15 98.09
J71 J71_campo3_03-1 Mg-hbl 52.91 0.36 7.29 3.91 0.13 20.55 14.17 0.41 0.15 100.26
J71 J71_campo3_02-2 Mg-hbl 50.90 0.44 7.75 4.13 0.11 19.94 14.24 0.55 0.12 98.52
J71 J71_campo3_02-1 Mg-hbl 50.50 0.25 7.58 3.93 0.08 20.27 14.33 0.54 0.16 98.03
J71 J71_campo3_03-4 Mg-hbl 49.82 0.52 9.40 4.11 0.07 19.46 14.34 0.60 0.16 98.90
J71 J71_campo3_03-3 Mg-hbl 49.57 0.61 9.14 3.91 0.06 19.50 14.41 0.53 0.14 98.20
J71 J71_campo2_01-5 tremolitic hbl 52.57 0.13 5.20 3.67 0.08 20.95 14.57 0.43 0.22 98.13
J71 J71_campo2_01-2 tremolitic hbl 53.67 0.25 4.72 3.35 0.10 21.33 14.57 0.24 0.12 98.56
J71 J71_campo2_01-4 tremolitic hbl 53.13 0.16 5.36 3.72 0.07 20.85 14.58 0.38 0.16 98.72
J71 J71_campo2_01-1 tremolitic hbl 53.64 0.25 4.06 3.40 0.07 21.47 14.59 0.28 0.18 98.08
J71 J71_campo3_03-2 Mg-hbl 50.84 0.48 9.04 4.30 0.07 19.66 14.72 0.56 0.17 100.17
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-1 Mg-hbl 50.17 0.27 9.01 5.41 0.12 19.09 12.51 0.53 0.10 97.61
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-2 Mg-hbl 50.20 0.30 8.74 5.38 0.14 19.16 12.47 0.50 0.08 97.39
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-3 Mg-hbl 50.50 0.30 8.75 5.45 0.13 19.26 12.50 0.52 0.12 98.01
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-4 Mg-hbl 50.58 0.28 8.57 5.38 0.11 19.64 12.39 0.48 0.09 97.94
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-5 Mg-hbl 50.31 0.31 8.69 5.30 0.13 19.23 12.23 0.51 0.10 97.19
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-6 Mg-hbl 50.33 0.29 9.01 5.40 0.09 19.31 12.41 0.56 0.10 97.92
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-7 Mg-hbl 49.12 0.31 9.21 5.36 0.10 19.35 12.32 0.58 0.12 96.89
 262

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-8 Mg-hbl 48.99 0.32 9.00 5.34 0.11 19.42 12.22 0.55 0.12 96.48
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-9 Mg-hbl 51.05 0.32 7.99 5.21 0.15 19.83 12.34 0.46 0.10 97.79
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-10 Mg-hbl 50.16 0.30 9.06 5.42 0.10 19.27 12.42 0.57 0.09 97.80
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-11 Mg-hbl 49.85 0.31 9.24 5.46 0.10 19.20 12.35 0.59 0.08 97.62
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-12 Mg-hbl 49.81 0.32 9.22 5.48 0.12 19.38 12.38 0.60 0.09 97.84
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-13 Mg-hbl 49.93 0.31 9.14 5.41 0.12 19.26 12.26 0.55 0.11 97.52
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-14 Mg-hbl 50.04 0.31 8.98 5.44 0.13 19.40 12.37 0.57 0.08 97.74
J79 J79-1_amp_c4-15 Mg-hbl 50.10 0.30 9.02 5.45 0.13 19.51 12.27 0.51 0.11 97.82
J79 J79-2_amp_c2-1 Mg-hbl 50.01 0.28 8.92 5.52 0.11 18.77 12.43 0.55 0.10 97.09
J79 J79-2_amp_c2-2 Mg-hbl 50.30 0.30 9.00 5.46 0.12 19.01 12.43 0.55 0.08 97.69
J79 J79-2_amp_c2-3 Mg-hbl 50.06 0.33 9.16 5.51 0.11 19.03 12.36 0.54 0.10 97.65
J79 J79-2_amp_c2-4 Mg-hbl 50.12 0.31 8.83 5.46 0.15 19.28 12.38 0.55 0.06 97.58
J79 J79-2_amp_c2-5 Mg-hbl 50.01 0.32 8.69 5.40 0.14 19.47 12.37 0.59 0.09 97.45
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-1 Mg-hbl 49.47 0.31 9.12 5.52 0.10 19.34 12.36 0.56 0.10 97.32
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-2 Mg-hbl 50.33 0.29 8.66 5.42 0.11 19.39 12.37 0.54 0.11 97.65
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-3 Mg-hbl 50.64 0.27 7.84 5.09 0.11 20.08 12.37 0.42 0.10 97.22
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-4 Mg-hbl 49.64 0.30 8.69 5.70 0.11 18.74 12.49 0.58 0.10 96.81
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-5 Mg-anthophyllite 55.11 0.06 2.60 10.38 0.33 31.74 0.23 0.00 0.06 100.58
J79 J79-2_amp_c1-6 Mg-anthophyllite 54.90 0.04 2.79 10.53 0.29 31.54 0.18 0.00 0.04 100.38
J79 J79_campo4_02-2 Mg-hbl 50.05 0.31 8.90 5.00 0.05 19.10 13.70 0.52 0.08 98.19
J79 J79_campo6_01-3 Mg-hbl 50.61 0.26 8.25 5.03 0.06 19.36 13.56 0.43 0.09 98.10
J79 J79_campo6_01-4 Mg-hbl 50.52 0.21 8.34 5.03 0.11 19.38 13.46 0.49 0.11 98.14
J79 J79_campo7_01-3 Mg-hbl 49.96 0.24 8.82 5.11 0.13 19.02 13.31 0.46 0.13 97.75
J79 J79_campo4_02-3 Mg-hbl 50.68 0.18 8.50 5.14 0.07 19.17 13.55 0.47 0.10 98.44
J79 J79_campo7_01-4 Mg-hbl 50.34 0.28 8.76 5.14 0.10 19.24 13.84 0.53 0.11 98.84
J79 J79_campo3_01-5 Mg-hbl 50.06 0.29 8.90 5.15 0.16 19.35 13.69 0.51 0.11 98.75
J79 J79_campo6_01-2 Mg-hbl 49.96 0.38 8.69 5.17 0.14 19.24 13.74 0.55 0.10 98.45
 263

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J79 J79_campo3_01-4 Mg-hbl 49.57 0.32 8.95 5.18 0.10 18.97 13.66 0.54 0.12 97.89
J79 J79_campo3_01-6 Mg-hbl 49.84 0.32 9.03 5.20 0.09 19.05 13.62 0.54 0.10 98.41
J79 J79_campo3_01-2 Mg-hbl 49.44 0.28 9.18 5.21 0.07 18.98 13.68 0.53 0.14 98.12
J79 J79_campo1_01-3 Mg-hbl 49.81 0.36 9.08 5.26 0.09 19.14 13.61 0.55 0.13 98.54
J79 J79_campo3_01-1 Mg-hbl 49.88 0.30 9.04 5.26 0.07 19.02 13.82 0.49 0.08 98.42
J79 J79_campo7_01-1 Mg-hbl 50.23 0.25 8.74 5.26 0.09 19.06 13.63 0.49 0.11 98.33
J79 J79_campo3_01-4 Mg-hbl 49.94 0.24 8.86 5.28 0.05 19.08 13.70 0.51 0.07 98.34
J79 J79_campo1_01-1 Mg-hbl 48.97 0.28 9.50 5.28 0.11 19.34 13.59 0.57 0.11 98.20
J79 J79_campo3_01-3 Mg-hbl 49.65 0.34 8.84 5.30 0.11 19.00 13.85 0.57 0.09 98.37
J79 J79_campo1_01-4 Mg-hbl 48.07 0.28 9.18 5.31 0.07 19.47 13.84 0.57 0.12 97.31
J79 J79_campo1_01-2 Mg-hbl 48.56 0.32 9.39 5.34 0.10 18.60 13.59 0.55 0.09 97.11
J79 J79_campo1_01-3 Mg-hbl 49.58 0.19 9.14 5.35 0.13 18.98 13.68 0.54 0.09 98.32
J79 J79_campo6_01-1 Mg-hbl 50.00 0.22 8.79 5.36 0.13 19.18 13.45 0.46 0.08 98.21
J79 J79_campo7_01-2 Mg-hbl 49.91 0.29 9.03 5.40 0.13 19.19 13.58 0.53 0.09 98.61
J79 J79_campo4_02-1 Mg-hbl 49.63 0.31 9.06 5.40 0.13 19.09 13.46 0.51 0.06 98.20
J79 J79_campo1_01-5 Mg-hbl 48.64 0.20 8.90 5.40 0.05 18.92 13.83 0.49 0.13 97.06
J81 J81-2_amph_c3-2 Mg-hbl 50.23 0.28 8.26 4.93 0.10 19.57 12.37 0.48 0.09 96.45
J81 J81-2_amph_c3-3 Mg-hbl 50.74 0.31 8.11 4.83 0.08 19.52 12.35 0.48 0.10 96.68
J81 J81-2_amph_c2-1 Mg-hbl 49.98 0.27 8.35 4.94 0.09 19.37 12.39 0.53 0.08 96.15
J81 J81-2_amph_c2-2 Mg-hbl 50.30 0.30 8.21 4.93 0.10 19.57 12.44 0.46 0.12 96.57
J81 J81-2_amph_c2-3 Mg-hbl 50.43 0.28 8.23 4.95 0.09 19.57 12.36 0.51 0.13 96.70
J81 J81-2_amph_c2-4 Mg-hbl 50.39 0.28 8.33 4.98 0.12 19.52 12.39 0.51 0.11 96.79
J81 J81-2_amph_c2-5 Mg-hbl 50.93 0.25 7.89 4.92 0.08 19.59 12.37 0.46 0.12 96.76
J81 J81-2 C1 - 3 Mg-hbl 51.63 0.22 8.56 5.02 0.10 19.40 12.58 0.42 98.32
J81 J81-2 C1 - 4 Mg-hbl 51.51 0.30 8.62 4.88 0.08 19.37 12.51 0.50 98.09
J81 J81-2 C1 - 5 Mg-hbl 51.74 0.23 8.48 4.98 0.12 19.70 12.60 0.38 98.59
J81 J81-2 C1 - 6 Mg-hbl 51.34 0.27 8.67 4.82 0.19 19.69 12.45 0.44 98.14
 264

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J81 J81-2 C1 - 9 Mg-hbl 51.70 0.29 7.81 4.78 0.14 19.71 12.54 0.43 97.73
J81 J81-2 C1 - 11 Mg-hbl 51.35 0.31 8.65 5.07 0.12 19.33 12.64 0.44 98.27
J81 J81-2 C1 - 31 Mg-hbl 51.41 0.25 8.38 4.87 0.08 19.13 12.50 0.46 97.39
J81 J81-2 C1 - 32 Mg-hbl 51.29 0.28 8.66 5.12 0.12 19.15 12.73 0.42 98.06
J107 J107_campo5_02-3 tschermakitic hbl 46.28 0.70 13.90 4.50 0.04 17.95 13.35 1.29 0.16 98.80
J107 J107_campo8_01-2 Mg-hbl 46.69 0.75 11.55 4.23 0.08 17.96 13.36 1.34 0.16 97.23
J107 J107_campo5_03-3 tschermakitic hbl 45.40 0.79 13.60 4.85 0.02 16.66 13.44 1.22 0.19 97.04
J107 J107_campo4_01-2 Mg-hbl 48.99 0.60 9.85 3.95 0.01 19.17 13.48 1.00 0.11 97.88
J107 J107_campo5_03-1 tremolitic hbl 52.27 0.26 4.98 3.60 0.10 21.35 13.50 0.28 0.12 96.62
J107 J107_campo2_01-3 tschermakitic hbl 44.49 1.15 13.43 4.58 0.05 17.28 13.54 1.38 0.17 97.08
J107 J107_campo8_01-3 Mg-hbl 49.47 0.46 8.34 3.70 0.05 19.94 13.64 0.99 0.15 97.39
J107 J107_campo5_02-4 tschermakitic hbl 46.04 0.88 13.11 4.36 0.06 17.61 13.65 1.13 0.09 97.61
J107 J107_campo5_03-2 tschermakitic hbl 45.50 0.90 13.40 4.43 0.04 17.69 13.73 1.27 0.16 97.93
J107 J107_campo5_02-5 tschermakitic hbl 46.51 0.97 13.60 4.52 0.06 17.16 13.75 1.24 0.12 98.74
J107 J107_campo2_01-2 tschermakitic hbl 44.60 1.12 13.27 4.60 0.04 17.47 13.77 1.27 0.11 97.24
J107 J107_campo2_01-6 tschermakitic hbl 45.10 1.03 13.25 4.39 0.04 17.46 13.77 1.29 0.15 97.46
J107 J107_campo8_01-1 Mg-hbl 46.88 0.66 10.73 3.91 0.04 19.39 13.78 1.30 0.20 97.88
J107 J107_campo7_01-4 Mg-hbl 46.14 0.84 12.52 4.39 0.07 17.96 13.83 1.46 0.16 97.82
J107 J107_campo5_02-2 tschermakitic hbl 45.10 0.81 13.00 4.66 0.02 17.64 13.84 1.33 0.11 97.22
J107 J107_campo8_01-3 Mg-hbl 46.60 0.84 12.36 4.60 0.05 17.74 13.87 1.52 0.09 98.80
J107 J107_campo2_01-4 tschermakitic hbl 45.09 1.11 12.69 4.39 0.07 17.55 13.88 1.28 0.21 97.16
J107 J107_campo8_01-1 Mg-hbl 45.65 0.83 11.85 4.18 0.04 18.03 13.89 1.46 0.11 97.03
J107 J107_campo4_01-3 Mg-hbl 48.79 0.60 9.47 3.93 0.05 19.21 13.90 1.07 0.12 97.91
J107 J107_campo4_01-1 Mg-hbl 47.90 0.66 10.34 4.01 0.06 18.81 13.92 1.22 0.13 97.94
J107 J107_campo2_01-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.49 1.06 12.36 4.41 0.06 17.63 13.95 1.12 0.11 97.14
J107 J107_campo8_01-5 Mg-hbl 50.11 0.47 7.66 3.64 0.00 19.87 13.95 0.93 0.14 97.41
J107 J107_campo6_02-2 Mg-hbl 46.89 0.51 11.58 4.31 0.06 18.08 13.95 1.38 0.19 97.57
 265

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J107 J107_campo6_02-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.99 0.65 12.82 4.21 0.00 17.90 13.96 1.46 0.19 97.89
J107 J107_campo6_02-6 Mg-hbl 46.87 0.56 11.66 4.29 0.04 18.40 13.97 1.39 0.20 97.98
J107 J107_campo5_02-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.51 1.02 13.50 4.66 0.02 17.42 13.98 1.30 0.13 98.39
J107 J107_campo7_01-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.77 0.68 12.93 4.36 0.06 17.94 13.99 1.43 0.17 97.81
J107 J107_campo2_01-7 Mg-hbl 51.83 0.47 6.51 3.47 0.00 20.48 14.00 0.56 0.10 97.80
J107 J107_campo5_03-2 tschermakitic hbl 45.46 0.87 13.31 4.63 0.04 17.53 14.00 1.16 0.10 97.92
J107 J107_campo2_01-5 tschermakitic hbl 45.02 1.05 13.28 4.36 0.03 17.42 14.02 1.38 0.18 97.74
J107 J107_campo5_03-1 tschermakitic hbl 44.81 0.97 13.71 4.59 0.04 17.36 14.03 1.33 0.10 97.72
J107 J107_campo4_01-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.88 0.94 12.45 4.31 0.01 17.86 14.03 1.28 0.13 98.11
J107 J107_campo1_01-2 Mg-hbl 45.77 1.16 11.65 4.05 0.02 17.97 14.07 1.27 0.15 97.21
J107 J107_campo6_02-5 tschermakitic hbl 45.56 0.76 12.94 4.44 0.04 17.71 14.08 1.54 0.17 98.00
J107 J107_campo8_01-4 Mg-hbl 49.47 0.51 8.36 3.67 0.05 19.70 14.13 1.04 0.11 97.74
J107 J107_campo7_01-2 tschermakitic hbl 45.84 0.89 12.80 4.39 0.05 17.84 14.13 1.38 0.18 98.08
J107 J107_campo1_01-1 tschermakitic hbl 45.36 1.06 12.53 4.22 0.00 18.01 14.15 1.39 0.21 98.14
J107 J107_campo7_01-3 Mg-hbl 46.26 0.77 12.56 4.33 0.03 17.88 14.15 1.35 0.15 98.02
J107 J107_campo8_01-2 Mg-hbl 46.28 0.84 11.67 4.16 0.05 18.16 14.28 1.41 0.13 97.92
J107 J107_campo6_01-8 Mg-hbl 48.38 0.52 10.24 3.93 0.03 18.90 14.37 1.20 0.12 98.16
J109 J109_amp_c3-1 Mg-hbl 50.31 0.03 8.00 4.05 0.05 20.96 12.72 0.49 0.11 97.16
J109 J109_amp_c3-2 Mg-hbl 50.75 0.10 8.05 4.16 0.10 21.02 12.79 0.49 0.12 97.92
J109 J109_amp_c3-3 Mg-hbl 50.94 0.09 7.86 4.21 0.09 20.82 12.93 0.49 0.10 97.78
J109 J109_amp_c3-4 Mg-hbl 51.42 0.09 7.70 3.97 0.03 20.94 12.83 0.50 0.11 97.98
J109 J109_amp_c3-5 Mg-hbl 50.36 0.09 8.35 4.33 0.07 20.37 12.79 0.56 0.14 97.55
J109 J109_amp_c3-6 Mg-hbl 51.35 0.07 7.83 4.09 0.07 20.92 12.92 0.48 0.12 98.14
J109 J109_olv_c3-7 Mg-hbl 50.46 0.06 7.59 4.12 0.08 20.85 12.76 0.12 96.18
J109 J109_olv_c3-8 Mg-hbl 50.88 0.06 7.21 3.94 0.06 21.13 12.85 0.12 96.36
 266

Sample Comment Amphibole SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Total
J109 J109_olv_c3-9 Mg-hbl 50.64 0.07 8.07 4.21 0.03 20.51 12.82 0.14 96.74
J109 J109_olv_c3-10 Mg-hbl 50.73 0.07 7.79 4.11 0.07 20.58 12.81 0.12 96.43
J109 J109_olv_c1-1 Mg-hbl 50.29 0.04 7.32 4.11 0.08 21.06 12.62 0.09 95.76
J109 J109_olv_c1-2 Mg-hbl 50.51 0.06 8.03 4.17 0.07 20.33 12.75 0.08 96.25
J109 J109_olv_c1-3 Mg-hbl 51.84 0.03 6.78 3.94 0.05 20.87 12.95 0.06 96.76
J109 J109_olv_c1-4 Mg-hbl 50.96 0.05 7.56 4.11 0.08 20.60 12.74 0.24 96.56
 267

Tabela B-5: Mineral chemistry: Clinopyroxene

Sample Comment CPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-1 diopside 53.42 0.19 1.94 2.77 0.11 16.57 24.25 0.05 0.07 99.37
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-2 diopside 53.04 0.32 2.68 2.95 0.11 16.53 24.53 0.04 0.07 100.27
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-3 diopside 54.12 0.20 1.84 2.71 0.13 16.95 24.51 0.05 0.14 100.64
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-4 diopside 54.18 0.17 1.82 2.76 0.11 16.93 24.54 0.06 0.17 100.73
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-5 diopside 54.02 0.18 1.85 2.74 0.12 17.00 24.64 0.04 0.14 100.72
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-6 diopside 55.26 0.06 0.65 2.20 0.13 16.94 25.59 0.03 0.06 100.92
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-7 diopside 54.17 0.18 1.69 2.70 0.12 17.03 24.47 0.03 0.08 100.47
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-8 diopside 54.33 0.16 1.52 2.72 0.13 17.16 24.42 0.03 0.09 100.57
J71 J71_1_cpx_c3-9 diopside 53.39 0.31 2.50 2.83 0.14 16.58 24.51 0.01 0.09 100.36
J107 J107_c1_01-1 diopside 51.10 0.33 2.16 2.68 0.08 17.09 26.42 0.06 0.07 0.13 100.13
J107 J107_c1_01-2 diopside 51.67 0.26 1.94 2.69 0.08 17.07 26.49 0.08 0.01 0.11 100.41
J107 J107_c1_01-3 diopside 52.14 0.27 2.02 2.66 0.05 16.91 26.51 0.11 0.01 0.14 100.83
J107 J107_c1_01-4 diopside 51.02 0.29 2.03 2.79 0.06 17.12 27.27 0.07 0.06 0.15 100.87
J107 J107_c1_01-5 diopside 51.79 0.28 2.14 2.58 0.11 17.05 26.97 0.06 0.07 0.13 101.21
J107 J107_c1_01-6 diopside 51.96 0.27 2.08 2.55 0.04 17.07 26.18 0.13 0.06 0.17 100.54
J107 J107_c1_01-7 diopside 51.67 0.27 1.96 2.62 0.01 17.02 26.73 0.04 0.04 0.07 100.43
J107 J107_c3_01-1 diopside 51.64 0.29 1.77 2.86 0.04 16.94 26.87 0.08 0.00 0.16 100.67
J107 J107_c3_01-2 diopside 51.95 0.21 1.87 2.50 0.07 17.20 27.11 0.07 0.03 0.23 101.26
J107 J107_c3_01-3 diopside 51.51 0.20 1.62 2.74 0.06 17.14 26.59 0.06 0.03 0.21 100.21
J107 J107_c3_01-4 diopside 51.40 0.24 1.72 3.03 0.12 16.84 26.76 0.13 0.05 0.12 100.43
J107 J107_c3_01-5 diopside 51.92 0.28 1.71 2.68 0.06 15.97 27.33 0.09 0.05 0.20 100.29
J107 J107_c3_01-6 diopside 51.66 0.27 2.19 2.72 0.07 16.96 26.22 0.09 0.09 0.16 100.43
J107 J107_c3_01-7 diopside 51.06 0.32 1.98 2.82 0.05 16.82 26.39 0.07 0.08 0.11 99.71
J107 J107_c3_01-8 diopside 51.26 0.34 2.71 3.00 0.03 16.73 26.58 0.08 0.07 0.13 100.93
J107 J107_c4_01-1 diopside 51.02 0.17 1.96 2.96 0.07 17.14 27.07 0.08 0.06 0.22 100.75
J107 J107_c4_01-2 diopside 51.94 0.19 1.72 2.86 0.01 17.29 26.58 0.06 0.07 0.19 100.93
J107 J107_c4_01-3 diopside 51.29 0.25 1.75 2.87 0.04 17.23 26.45 0.02 0.06 0.15 100.12
 268

Sample Comment CPX SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J107 J107_c4_01-4 diopside 51.15 0.26 1.87 2.59 0.09 17.16 26.95 0.11 0.06 0.18 100.41
J107 J107_c4_01-5 diopside 51.05 0.18 1.90 2.72 0.05 16.93 26.60 0.10 0.07 0.15 99.75
J107 J107_c4_01-6 diopside 51.97 0.22 1.80 2.85 0.06 17.03 26.88 0.07 0.07 0.20 101.18
J107 J107_c4_01-7 diopside 51.50 0.20 1.72 2.78 0.09 17.19 26.66 0.09 0.03 0.24 100.52
J107 J107_c4_01-8 diopside 51.12 0.08 1.50 2.80 0.05 17.23 26.46 0.06 0.06 0.19 99.56
J107 J107_c6_01-1 diopside 51.52 0.19 2.15 2.95 0.08 16.72 26.72 0.07 0.05 0.08 100.53
J107 J107_c6_01-3 diopside 51.96 0.25 2.08 2.87 0.05 16.98 25.79 0.05 0.05 0.09 100.18
J107 J107_c6_01-4 diopside 51.75 0.20 2.26 3.01 0.07 16.99 25.82 0.10 0.06 0.10 100.41
J107 J107_c6_01-5 diopside 51.05 0.25 2.21 3.08 0.07 17.07 27.00 0.09 0.07 0.11 101.00
J107 J107_c6_01-6 diopside 51.68 0.36 2.59 2.95 0.05 16.87 27.06 0.13 0.11 0.04 101.84
J107 J107_c8_01-1 diopside 51.75 0.23 1.88 2.80 0.08 17.18 26.45 0.06 0.01 0.11 100.56
J107 J107_c8_01-2 diopside 51.01 0.27 2.00 2.60 0.11 16.91 26.90 0.08 0.03 0.15 100.06
J107 J107_c8_01-3 diopside 50.85 0.27 2.25 2.70 0.11 16.82 27.18 0.09 0.02 0.17 100.45
J107 J107_c8_01-4 diopside 51.82 0.29 1.97 2.68 0.06 17.27 26.48 0.05 0.05 0.15 100.81
J107 J107_c8_01-5 diopside 51.83 0.13 0.74 2.05 0.04 17.40 27.87 0.02 0.10 0.05 100.22
J107 J107_c8_01-6 diopside 52.02 0.31 1.75 2.59 0.06 17.05 26.63 0.09 0.04 0.16 100.76
J107 J107_c8_01-7 diopside 51.50 0.22 1.92 2.68 0.06 17.14 26.74 0.09 0.01 0.15 100.52
 269

Tabela B-6: Mineral chemistry: Spinel group minerals

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J71 J71-1-sn-c1-1 hercynite 0.01 0.05 58.28 17.91 0.21 17.17 6.76 100.39
J71 J71-1-sn-c1-3 hercynite 0.03 0.04 56.73 18.12 0.24 16.57 7.93 99.65
J71 J71-1-sn-c3-1 hercynite 0.04 0.02 59.89 17.66 0.20 17.39 5.30 100.51
J71 J71-1-sn-c3-2 hercynite 0.01 0.04 59.75 20.07 0.25 15.70 4.80 100.62
J71 J71-1-sn-c3-3 hercynite 0.03 0.02 59.22 17.63 0.25 17.29 5.70 100.14
J71 J71-1-sn-c3-4 hercynite 0.03 0.03 60.10 17.32 0.19 17.73 5.09 100.49
J71 J71-1-sn-c3-5 hercynite 0.02 0.03 59.94 17.31 0.22 17.76 5.10 100.38
J71 J71-1-sn-c4-1 hercynite 0.03 0.02 57.67 18.66 0.19 16.65 7.08 100.30
J71 J71-1-sn-c4-2 hercynite 0.01 0.05 57.26 19.12 0.18 16.33 7.24 100.19
J71 J71-1-sn-c4-3 hercynite 0.01 0.03 59.04 17.97 0.22 17.07 5.35 99.69
J71 J71-1-sn-c4-4 hercynite 0.03 0.03 56.21 18.60 0.20 16.36 7.62 99.06
J71 J71-1-sn-c5-1 hercynite 0.02 0.06 58.01 18.39 0.24 17.04 7.17 100.93
J71 J71-1-sn-c5-2 hercynite 0.02 0.03 55.84 19.41 0.26 16.20 9.31 101.07
J71 J71-1-sn-c5-3 hercynite 0.00 0.04 60.36 17.67 0.17 17.64 4.37 100.25
J71 J71-1-sn-c5-4 hercynite 0.02 0.03 58.93 20.91 0.25 15.16 5.37 100.67
J71 J71_c2_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.00 54.68 25.83 0.11 9.92 0.63 7.88 99.11
J71 J71_c2_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 54.54 26.50 0.16 9.51 0.62 7.90 99.29
J71 J71_c2_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.02 53.40 28.42 0.16 8.29 0.65 7.74 98.75
J71 J71_c2_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.08 53.99 28.51 0.16 7.86 0.54 8.82 99.99
J71 J71_c2_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.01 53.80 24.94 0.10 10.53 0.64 8.80 98.95
J71 J71_c2_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.02 54.31 23.98 0.12 11.01 0.68 8.48 98.67
J71 J71_c3_01-1 hercynite 0.02 0.06 56.71 26.77 0.15 9.25 0.83 5.95 99.88
J71 J71_c3_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.05 56.35 27.60 0.17 9.15 0.45 5.83 99.70
J71 J71_c3_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.02 56.15 27.00 0.09 9.60 0.76 6.18 99.89
J71 J71_c3_01-4 hercynite 0.01 0.00 56.71 26.94 0.10 9.89 0.69 5.59 99.97
J71 J71_c3_01-5 hercynite 0.02 0.05 58.07 24.00 0.12 12.61 0.81 4.50 100.24
J71 J71_c3_01-6 hercynite 0.02 0.04 58.21 25.91 0.18 11.47 0.81 4.50 101.21
 270

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J71 J71_c3_01-7 hercynite 0.00 0.00 57.83 25.81 0.20 10.78 0.84 4.39 99.91
J71 J71_c3_02-1 hercynite 0.00 0.01 54.04 27.97 0.14 8.70 0.65 7.84 99.43
J71 J71_c3_02-2 hercynite 0.00 0.09 54.19 28.45 0.14 8.65 0.70 8.06 100.36
J71 J71_c3_02-3 hercynite 0.05 0.04 53.03 28.96 0.12 8.32 0.65 8.30 99.55
J71 J71_c4_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.06 60.33 17.87 0.14 16.72 0.87 4.32 100.38
J71 J71_c4_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.02 60.41 17.85 0.15 16.54 0.91 4.57 100.52
J71 J71_c4_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.05 60.57 17.65 0.11 16.50 0.92 4.54 100.40
J71 J71_c4_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.01 57.62 21.69 0.09 13.55 0.77 6.21 99.98
J71 J71_c4_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.04 57.71 21.21 0.08 13.77 0.70 6.45 99.96
J71 J71_c5_01-1 hercynite 0.01 0.00 55.76 27.61 0.13 9.57 0.57 5.83 99.46
J71 J71_c5_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.02 56.73 27.36 0.13 10.08 0.62 6.00 101.02
J71 J71_c5_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.05 56.45 27.12 0.16 9.93 0.61 6.09 100.49
J71 J71_c5_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.02 57.65 23.32 0.13 12.88 0.67 6.01 100.78
J71 J71_c5_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.09 57.24 25.20 0.09 11.26 0.58 6.03 100.66
J71 J71_c5_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.07 57.20 25.06 0.19 10.19 0.64 5.82 99.21
J71 J71_c6_01-1 hercynite 0.03 0.03 59.31 17.85 0.12 16.92 0.71 6.23 101.23
J71 J71_c6_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.06 58.64 18.17 0.10 16.91 0.73 6.18 100.90
J71 J71_c7_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.00 57.03 23.34 0.11 12.54 0.70 6.81 100.62
J71 J71_c7_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 57.34 23.44 0.06 13.02 0.67 5.68 100.26
J71 J71_c7_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.02 58.20 22.96 0.13 12.89 0.69 6.33 101.35
J71 J71_c7_01-4 hercynite 0.01 0.09 57.96 21.53 0.15 13.83 0.67 6.07 100.38
J71 J71_c7_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.04 58.58 22.75 0.12 12.71 0.67 5.99 100.89
J71 J71_c7_01-6 hercynite 0.03 0.04 57.40 23.17 0.13 12.34 0.67 6.19 100.02
J71 J71_c7_02-1 hercynite 0.00 0.00 56.55 19.03 0.07 15.62 0.89 7.92 100.17
J71 J71_c7_02-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 56.58 19.38 0.02 15.64 0.79 7.71 100.15
J79 J79A - C3 - 9 hercynite 0.00 0.05 59.83 19.43 0.20 16.56 4.13 100.24
J79 J79A - C3 - 10 hercynite 0.03 0.00 59.26 19.82 0.09 16.83 4.59 100.63
 271

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J79 J79A - C2 - 9 hercynite 0.05 0.04 61.11 18.51 0.11 17.25 4.32 101.40
J79 J79A - C2 - 10 hercynite 0.01 0.04 60.26 20.65 0.26 16.77 3.12 101.13
J79 J79A - C2 - 14 hercynite 0.04 0.06 60.85 20.24 0.18 16.22 3.39 101.01
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 14 hercynite 0.00 0.05 58.03 22.54 0.20 15.73 5.29 101.84
J79 J79 A1 - C1 - 15 hercynite 0.06 0.01 58.32 21.93 0.27 15.32 4.42 100.34
J79 J79_c1_02-1 hercynite 0.00 0.13 36.82 27.17 0.15 11.46 0.24 22.11 98.23
J79 J79_c7_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.02 54.39 22.79 0.11 13.84 0.42 7.79 99.50
J79 J79_c2_03-6 hercynite 0.03 0.07 56.53 21.95 0.11 14.99 0.43 5.17 99.28
J79 J79_c2_03-4 hercynite 0.00 0.05 56.61 21.60 0.17 15.31 0.46 5.36 99.57
J79 J79_c4_02-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 56.72 20.80 0.11 15.59 0.48 4.42 98.22
J79 J79_c2_03-7 hercynite 0.00 0.03 56.96 20.89 0.15 15.27 0.51 4.53 98.42
J79 J79_c4_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 57.06 20.47 0.17 15.96 0.57 5.34 99.62
J79 J79_c2_01-3 hercynite 0.03 0.00 57.12 20.54 0.14 15.51 0.47 4.03 98.01
J79 J79_c6_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.01 57.28 20.91 0.09 15.73 0.51 5.88 100.55
J79 J79_c2_03-8 hercynite 0.00 0.03 57.45 22.02 0.17 14.79 0.49 5.60 100.72
J79 J79_c6_01-3 hercynite 0.01 0.00 57.59 21.65 0.13 15.08 0.48 5.06 100.09
J79 J79_c2_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.11 57.64 22.46 0.15 12.72 0.44 5.09 99.40
J79 J79_c6_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.06 57.68 19.75 0.08 15.84 0.56 5.02 99.07
J79 J79_c7_01-7 hercynite 0.02 0.02 57.68 20.73 0.15 15.03 0.54 5.27 99.53
J79 J79_c2_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.00 57.80 21.21 0.13 15.58 0.45 4.25 99.47
J79 J79_c7_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.00 57.88 21.31 0.15 15.58 0.48 4.35 99.82
J79 J79_c2_03-5 hercynite 0.00 0.03 57.92 21.01 0.12 15.82 0.46 3.53 98.97
J79 J79_c1_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.05 58.04 19.70 0.09 16.15 0.46 4.71 99.29
J79 J79_c6_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.04 58.09 19.26 0.11 16.26 0.49 5.02 99.34
J79 J79_c4_01-4 hercynite 0.01 0.04 58.11 19.12 0.11 16.20 0.43 4.91 99.04
J79 J79_c7_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.03 58.16 20.17 0.12 15.99 0.49 4.43 99.47
J79 J79_c4_02-1 hercynite 0.01 0.00 58.19 20.28 0.16 16.24 0.47 4.11 99.51
 272

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J79 J79_c7_01-2 hercynite 0.02 0.04 58.21 21.24 0.12 15.37 0.44 4.90 100.43
J79 J79_c3_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.06 58.45 20.32 0.17 16.35 0.46 4.31 100.13
J79 J79_c2_03-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 58.48 20.68 0.19 16.00 0.46 3.66 99.54
J79 J79_c6_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.01 58.51 19.98 0.14 15.69 0.50 5.24 100.17
J79 J79_c4_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.56 19.95 0.13 16.40 0.43 3.78 99.30
J79 J79_c4_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.57 19.71 0.12 16.35 0.48 3.77 99.09
J79 J79_c4_01-5 hercynite 0.03 0.00 58.70 20.17 0.17 16.16 0.44 3.82 99.58
J79 J79_c2_03-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.73 20.06 0.16 15.96 0.47 3.43 98.91
J79 J79_c1_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.03 58.73 19.35 0.10 16.80 0.52 4.04 99.61
J79 J79_c4_01-2 hercynite 0.01 0.01 58.75 20.21 0.18 16.38 0.49 3.98 100.09
J79 J79_c1_01-6 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.77 19.05 0.13 16.72 0.48 4.06 99.32
J79 J79_c7_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.05 58.77 19.78 0.16 15.74 0.44 4.22 99.19
J79 J79_c4_01-7 hercynite 0.00 0.06 58.93 20.16 0.15 16.37 0.47 3.51 99.65
J79 J79_c1_01-3 hercynite 0.01 0.04 58.99 19.25 0.12 16.68 0.55 3.99 99.66
J79 J79_c1_01-5 hercynite 0.01 0.01 59.15 19.14 0.11 16.82 0.59 4.18 100.09
J79 J79_c1_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 59.41 18.92 0.09 17.04 0.52 4.22 100.27
J79 J79_c2_03-3 hercynite 0.05 0.05 59.48 19.14 0.14 16.45 0.55 3.43 99.31
J81 J81-2-sn-c2-1 hercynite 0.00 0.01 58.28 19.34 17.70 5.01 100.54
J81 J81-2-sn-c2-2 hercynite 0.02 0.03 56.81 20.06 17.37 4.92 99.37
J81 J81-2-sn-c2-3 hercynite 0.00 0.02 57.05 20.44 17.18 4.72 99.58
J81 J81-2-sn-c2-4 hercynite 0.01 0.02 58.04 19.74 17.81 4.98 100.77
J81 J81-2-sn-c2-5 hercynite 0.02 0.04 58.28 20.09 17.61 4.54 100.76
J81 J81-2-sn-c3-1 hercynite 0.01 0.02 57.75 19.59 17.88 5.41 100.86
J81 J81-2-sn-c3-2 hercynite 0.01 0.03 57.55 19.56 17.80 5.46 100.55
J81 J81-2-sn-c3-3 hercynite 0.02 0.04 57.65 20.21 17.76 5.40 101.26
J81 J81-2-sn-c3-4 hercynite 0.04 0.01 57.53 19.36 17.86 5.58 100.56
J81 J81-2 C1 - 10 hercynite 0.02 0.05 54.79 21.21 0.24 16.23 7.10 99.63
 273

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J81 J81-2 C1 - 19 hercynite 0.03 0.00 57.19 20.31 0.16 16.39 6.24 100.34
J81 J81-2 C1 - 22 hercynite 0.05 0.00 59.07 18.91 0.07 17.00 5.85 100.95
J81 J81-1_c4_01-3 hercynite 0.01 0.01 56.90 21.59 0.08 16.46 0.54 4.19 99.86
J81 J81-1_c4_01-1 hercynite 0.03 0.00 57.67 20.32 0.12 16.60 0.65 4.37 99.92
J81 J81-1_c3_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.01 57.80 18.97 0.11 17.23 0.55 4.63 99.42
J81 J81-1_c4_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.46 20.12 0.10 16.21 0.61 4.47 100.14
J81 J81-1_c4_01-5 hercynite 0.00 0.00 58.74 19.18 0.12 16.73 0.64 4.47 99.90
J81 J81-1_c4_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 59.03 19.02 0.13 17.07 0.58 4.05 99.89
J81 J81-1_c1_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.01 59.30 17.35 0.10 17.66 0.59 3.76 98.80
J81 J81-1_c1_02-2 hercynite 0.00 0.04 59.35 17.63 0.11 17.76 0.60 3.85 99.39
J81 J81-1_c3_01-1 hercynite 0.02 0.02 59.39 18.34 0.08 17.75 0.53 3.60 99.78
J81 J81-1_c1_02-3 hercynite 0.00 0.03 59.45 17.18 0.06 17.77 0.65 3.61 98.82
J81 J81-1_c1_02-4 hercynite 0.00 0.02 59.55 17.60 0.06 17.81 0.65 3.92 99.72
J81 J81-1_c2_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.00 59.63 17.05 0.06 17.76 0.65 3.45 98.60
J81 J81-1_c1_02-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 59.75 17.91 0.04 17.85 0.57 3.58 99.78
J81 J81-1_c3_01-3 hercynite 0.05 0.01 59.86 18.58 0.10 17.56 0.56 3.04 99.80
J81 J81-1_c1_01-1 hercynite 0.01 0.00 59.93 17.17 0.08 17.63 0.67 3.72 99.27
J81 J81-1_c2_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.00 59.96 17.26 0.10 17.56 0.67 3.70 99.29
J81 J81-1_c2_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.07 60.33 16.84 0.09 17.86 0.62 3.67 99.53
J81 J81-1_c2_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.00 60.38 16.93 0.09 18.03 0.65 3.48 99.66
J107 J107_c2_02-4 hercynite 0.00 0.03 52.21 20.34 0.04 12.49 0.32 13.33 98.98
J107 J107_c2_02-5 hercynite 0.34 0.01 52.96 19.66 0.03 12.85 0.33 12.29 98.84
J107 J107_c8_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.04 56.47 16.72 0.01 15.26 0.58 9.42 98.65
J107 J107_c8_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.06 56.54 17.10 0.04 15.22 0.57 9.30 98.91
J107 J107_c8_01-4 hercynite 0.00 0.06 56.74 16.56 0.02 15.64 0.59 8.75 98.46
J107 J107_c2_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.07 56.80 17.95 0.10 14.86 0.64 7.88 98.38
J107 J107_c1_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 57.40 15.92 0.03 16.62 0.60 8.08 98.83
 274

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J107 J107_c1_01-2 hercynite 0.00 0.05 57.50 15.52 0.04 16.47 0.61 8.03 98.30
J107 J107_c1_01-3 hercynite 0.00 0.04 57.61 15.18 0.04 16.41 0.62 8.18 98.20
J107 J107_c2_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.03 58.21 17.27 0.01 16.17 0.53 6.60 98.88
J107 J107_c3_02-1 hercynite 0.00 0.02 58.35 17.41 0.08 15.66 0.61 6.56 98.75
J107 J107_c3_02-2 hercynite 0.03 0.01 58.38 17.02 0.04 15.62 0.64 7.03 98.83
J107 J107_c2_02-1 hercynite 0.02 0.03 58.72 17.76 0.04 14.83 0.47 6.61 98.58
J107 J107_c2_02-2 hercynite 0.01 0.02 58.77 17.64 0.09 14.91 0.51 6.64 98.75
J107 J107_c2_01-2 hercynite 0.03 0.00 58.85 16.31 0.03 15.94 0.56 6.65 98.46
J107 J107_c2_02-3 hercynite 0.02 0.00 58.96 17.42 0.08 14.98 0.45 6.67 98.77
J107 J107_c5_03-1 hercynite 0.00 0.01 61.03 22.09 0.14 12.28 0.57 3.22 99.40
J107 J107_c5_03-2 hercynite 0.01 0.05 61.48 22.28 0.15 11.77 0.52 3.38 99.72
J107 J107_c5_03-3 hercynite 0.01 0.02 62.46 18.31 0.07 15.20 0.61 2.83 99.58
J107 J107_c5_03-4 hercynite 0.01 0.02 62.49 18.32 0.03 15.17 0.47 2.95 99.56
J107 J107_c7_01-1 hercynite 0.00 0.00 62.77 19.26 0.08 14.36 0.61 1.67 98.76
J107 J107_c7_01-2 hercynite 0.01 0.00 62.77 19.87 0.17 13.86 0.57 1.80 99.11
J107 J107_c7_01-3 hercynite 0.04 0.00 62.78 16.87 0.07 16.07 0.65 1.56 98.12
J107 J107_c7_01-6 hercynite 0.01 0.05 62.84 19.04 0.08 13.85 0.71 1.51 98.09
J107 J107_c5_01-2 hercynite 0.05 0.02 63.04 14.45 0.04 17.65 0.60 2.13 98.07
J107 J107_c7_01-5 hercynite 0.05 0.00 63.11 18.60 0.11 14.17 0.71 1.46 98.23
J107 J107_c5_01-3 hercynite 0.03 0.03 63.44 14.76 0.05 17.92 0.59 2.24 99.07
J107 J107_c5_01-5 hercynite 0.02 0.05 63.51 14.95 0.06 17.74 0.58 2.22 99.17
J107 J107_c7_01-4 hercynite 0.01 0.07 63.64 17.70 0.10 15.24 0.61 1.76 99.13
J107 J107_c5_01-4 hercynite 0.01 0.01 64.02 14.57 0.05 18.26 0.52 2.13 99.60
J107 J107_c5_01-1 hercynite 0.02 0.03 64.64 14.66 0.05 18.53 0.62 2.08 100.67
J109 J109_c1_01-2 spinel 0.00 0.01 61.59 5.64 0.02 23.37 0.29 7.66 99.64
J109 J109_c1_01-3 spinel 0.00 0.11 61.55 5.83 0.01 23.41 0.28 7.50 98.78
J109 J109_c2_01-8 spinel 0.00 0.02 61.31 7.49 0.02 23.90 0.47 5.66 98.95
 275

Sample Comment Spinel SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Cr2O3 Total
J109 J109_c3_01-11 spinel 0.00 0.01 62.01 6.08 0.03 24.31 0.40 6.19 99.08
J109 J109_c3_01-12 spinel 0.00 0.00 60.97 7.11 0.03 24.32 0.40 6.32 99.18
J109 J109_c4_01-15 spinel 0.00 0.01 64.54 4.55 0.01 25.34 0.26 6.12 100.90
J109 J109_c4_01-16 spinel 0.01 0.00 64.17 4.50 0.03 25.36 0.24 6.11 100.51
J109 J109_c5_01-20 spinel 0.00 0.02 59.84 6.86 0.02 24.03 0.32 7.56 98.70
J109 J109_c5_01-21 spinel 0.00 0.01 59.56 6.47 0.04 24.01 0.29 7.98 98.45
J109 J109_c6_01-27 spinel 0.02 0.02 61.02 5.81 0.03 23.66 0.33 7.53 98.50
J109 J109_c6_01-28 spinel 0.00 0.01 61.60 5.31 0.03 23.91 0.24 7.73 98.90
 276

Tabela B-7: Mineral chemistry: Chlorite

Sample Comment Chlorite SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J67 J67B_chl_c1-1 clinochlore 31.33 0.06 15.99 4.65 0.02 32.41 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.29 84.77
J67 J67B_chl_c1-2 clinochlore 31.97 0.09 17.22 4.88 0.01 33.46 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.26 87.90
J67 J67B_chl_c3-1 clinochlore 30.09 0.10 19.47 4.94 0.01 32.40 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.27 87.33
J67 J67B_chl_c3-2 clinochlore 30.17 0.09 19.29 5.04 0.03 32.20 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.28 87.11
J67 J67B_chl_c3-3 clinochlore 30.33 0.10 19.17 4.85 0.04 32.42 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.29 87.23
J67 J67B_chl_c3-4 clinochlore 30.35 0.09 18.91 4.92 0.03 32.47 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.28 87.10
J67 J67B_chl_c5-1 clinochlore 30.30 0.10 19.14 4.96 0.03 32.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.26 86.93
J67 J67B_chl_c5-2 clinochlore 30.13 0.13 19.31 4.98 0.02 32.27 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.25 87.11
J67 J67B_chl_c5-3 clinochlore 30.41 0.09 19.40 4.94 0.04 31.89 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.30 87.13
J67 J67B_chl_c5-4 clinochlore 31.22 0.07 17.55 4.73 0.02 33.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.26 86.87
J71 J71-1_chl_c1-1 clinochlore 29.83 0.09 20.40 4.59 0.02 31.66 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.44 87.09
J71 J71-1_chl_c1-2 clinochlore 29.88 0.12 20.82 4.84 0.01 31.89 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.42 87.99
J71 J71-1_chl_c4-1 clinochlore 29.95 0.11 20.42 4.37 0.07 32.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.38 87.42
J71 J71-1_chl_c5-1 sheridanite 29.48 0.07 21.19 4.15 0.03 32.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.39 87.36
J71 J71-1_chl_c5-2 clinochlore 28.83 0.08 20.35 3.88 0.04 30.71 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.32 84.26
J71 J71-1_chl_c5-3 clinochlore 29.82 0.08 20.84 4.16 0.03 32.36 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.44 87.76
J71 J71-1_chl_c5-4 sheridanite 29.38 0.06 21.27 4.04 0.02 31.63 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.41 86.86
J71 J71_c6_01-4 clinochlore 29.27 0.05 20.18 4.19 0.03 29.78 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.47 0.83 84.97
J71 J71_c6_01-1 clinochlore 28.70 0.03 20.19 4.39 0.04 30.00 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.39 0.70 84.63
J71 J71_c7_02-2 clinochlore 29.60 0.07 20.60 4.43 0.01 30.88 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.38 0.36 86.42
J71 J71_c6_01-3 clinochlore 29.35 0.14 20.64 4.12 0.04 30.77 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.73 86.27
J71 J71_c7_01-3 sheridanite 26.83 0.09 20.73 4.51 0.02 29.34 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.34 82.39
J71 J71_c7_02-1 sheridanite 28.59 0.04 20.82 4.37 0.00 29.66 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.31 84.32
J71 J71_c5_01-4 clinochlore 29.22 0.05 20.90 4.67 0.08 29.90 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.37 0.24 85.63
J71 J71_c7_01-1 clinochlore 29.28 0.06 20.97 4.69 0.00 29.75 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.29 85.52
J71 J71_c7_02-3 clinochlore 28.91 0.03 21.02 4.38 0.00 30.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.39 85.25
J71 J71_c5_02-2 clinochlore 28.88 0.10 21.04 4.85 0.01 29.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.47 0.29 84.90
 277

Sample Comment Chlorite SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J71 J71_c2_01-4 clinochlore 29.68 0.04 21.13 4.54 0.03 30.61 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.41 86.72
J71 J71_c6_01-2 sheridanite 29.01 0.09 21.16 4.36 0.02 30.47 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.54 86.18
J71 J71_c2_01-2 clinochlore 30.00 0.06 21.22 4.50 0.03 30.56 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.36 87.02
J71 J71_c7_01-2 sheridanite 29.13 0.07 21.24 4.81 0.05 30.29 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.41 0.39 86.49
J71 J71_c2_01-1 clinochlore 29.83 0.12 21.26 4.44 0.02 30.50 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.34 86.88
J71 J71_c5_01-3 sheridanite 28.41 0.04 21.70 4.81 0.00 29.32 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.35 0.26 85.07
J71 J71_c2_01-5 sheridanite 29.53 0.06 21.89 4.50 0.00 30.28 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.37 86.93
J71 J71_c2_01-3 sheridanite 29.40 0.11 21.96 4.55 0.04 30.33 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.42 87.14
J71 J71_c5_02-3 talc-chlorite 39.38 0.00 24.33 4.59 0.06 16.71 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.00 85.33
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-1 sheridanite 29.82 0.08 21.24 4.94 0.01 32.99 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.31 89.63
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-2 sheridanite 29.72 0.05 20.86 4.96 0.05 32.84 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.29 89.01
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-3 sheridanite 29.66 0.03 20.96 4.79 0.02 33.15 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.27 89.15
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-4 sheridanite 29.72 0.06 20.77 4.97 0.05 33.28 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.34 89.43
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-5 sheridanite 29.85 0.05 20.84 4.91 0.02 32.94 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.18 0.36 89.21
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-6 sheridanite 29.67 0.06 21.01 5.04 0.03 33.25 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.29 89.58
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-7 sheridanite 30.04 0.06 21.14 4.87 0.02 33.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.32 89.74
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-8 sheridanite 29.74 0.07 20.88 5.01 0.02 33.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.24 0.32 89.35
J79 J79-2_chl_c1-9 sheridanite 30.34 0.06 21.04 5.02 0.01 33.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.32 90.57
J79 J79-2_chl_c2-1 sheridanite 29.85 0.06 20.73 5.00 0.02 32.74 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.33 88.94
J79 J79-2_chl_c2-2 sheridanite 29.58 0.03 20.71 4.89 0.03 32.67 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.26 88.42
J79 J79-2_chl_c2-3 sheridanite 29.94 0.06 20.59 5.06 0.03 32.65 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.30 88.88
J79 J79-2_chl_c2-4 sheridanite 29.70 0.06 20.87 4.80 0.02 32.79 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.33 88.77
J79 J79-2_chl_c2-5 sheridanite 29.76 0.04 20.91 4.87 0.03 32.86 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.32 89.02
J79 J79-1_chl_c2-1 sheridanite 29.64 0.06 20.95 4.81 0.04 32.69 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.24 0.33 88.79
J79 J79-1_chl_c2-2 sheridanite 29.78 0.05 20.79 4.78 0.02 32.70 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.37 88.82
J79 J79-1_chl_c2-3 clinochlore 30.03 0.04 20.47 4.90 0.04 32.47 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.33 88.55
J79 J79-1_chl_c2-4 sheridanite 30.00 0.08 21.33 4.79 0.03 33.90 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.23 0.32 90.72
 278

Sample Comment Chlorite SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-1 penninite 39.61 0.47 16.77 4.97 0.02 27.08 0.03 0.13 7.29 0.33 0.20 96.90
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-2 sheridanite 29.57 0.05 20.80 4.85 0.03 33.11 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.37 89.07
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-3 sheridanite 29.80 0.03 21.03 4.93 0.03 32.47 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.29 88.86
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-4 sheridanite 29.81 0.04 20.80 4.88 0.02 32.45 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.25 0.35 88.67
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-5 sheridanite 29.82 0.07 21.32 4.76 0.01 32.61 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.26 89.11
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-6 sheridanite 29.89 0.06 21.00 4.63 0.06 32.63 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.30 88.82
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-7 sheridanite 29.89 0.06 20.55 4.87 0.05 32.73 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.36 88.76
J79 J79-1_chl_c4-8 sheridanite 29.86 0.05 20.73 4.93 0.04 32.58 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.38 88.76
J79 J79_c7_01-2 clinochlore 28.98 0.03 20.40 4.84 0.02 29.71 0.17 0.08 0.07 0.22 0.44 84.98
J79 J79_c6_01-1 clinochlore 29.54 0.00 20.41 4.72 0.05 30.58 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.43 86.01
J79 J79_c2_02-2 clinochlore 29.12 0.05 20.45 4.87 0.05 30.11 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.39 85.28
J79 J79_c2_01-1 clinochlore 29.01 0.08 20.47 4.98 0.02 29.92 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.21 0.29 85.14
J79 J79_c2_01-2 clinochlore 29.36 0.05 20.57 4.82 0.03 29.86 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.29 85.30
J79 J79_c7_01-3 clinochlore 29.02 0.04 20.59 4.81 0.02 30.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.33 85.21
J79 J79_c4_02-3 clinochlore 29.26 0.02 20.60 4.82 0.07 30.43 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.27 0.37 85.87
J79 J79_c7_01-1 clinochlore 29.53 0.08 20.61 4.36 0.02 28.58 0.55 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.35 84.67
J79 J79_c2_01-3 clinochlore 29.28 0.03 20.72 4.76 0.01 30.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.27 85.51
J79 J79_c6_01-2 sheridanite 28.72 0.01 20.76 4.58 0.02 29.98 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.46 84.85
J79 J79_c2_02-4 sheridanite 28.66 0.03 20.79 4.76 0.03 30.62 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.32 85.53
J79 J79_c2_02-3 clinochlore 29.40 0.09 20.83 4.90 0.01 30.94 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.35 86.77
J79 J79_c2_02-1 clinochlore 29.13 0.05 20.93 4.49 0.00 30.50 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.36 85.81
J79 J79_c7_01-4 clinochlore 29.20 0.08 20.98 4.80 0.00 30.30 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.35 86.10
J79 J79_c4_02-4 clinochlore 29.26 0.09 21.08 4.91 0.05 30.22 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.32 86.22
J79 J79_c4_02-2 sheridanite 28.67 0.05 21.13 4.88 0.01 29.90 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.34 85.16
J79 J79_c4_02-1 clinochlore 29.31 0.00 21.20 4.70 0.00 29.32 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.33 85.21
J79 J79_c6_01-3 clinochlore 29.59 0.09 21.26 4.45 0.00 30.84 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.49 87.07
J79 J79_c6_01-4 sheridanite 28.89 0.07 21.41 4.35 0.03 30.43 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.21 0.54 85.99
 279

Sample Comment Chlorite SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O NiO Cr2O3 Total
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-1 clinochlore 30.26 0.07 20.29 4.57 0.05 32.53 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.23 88.01
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-2 clinochlore 30.18 0.02 20.05 4.09 0.05 32.48 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.21 87.09
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-3 clinochlore 30.38 0.03 20.02 4.55 0.04 32.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 87.80
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-4 clinochlore 30.45 0.03 19.92 4.44 0.01 32.69 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.22 87.79
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-5 clinochlore 30.26 0.00 20.12 4.29 0.01 32.56 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.22 87.48
J81 J81-2_chl_c1-6 clinochlore 29.67 0.03 20.52 4.73 0.05 32.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 87.43
J81 J81-2_chl_c3-1 sheridanite 29.42 0.03 20.58 4.31 0.03 32.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 86.65
J81 J81-2_chl_c3-2 clinochlore 29.32 0.04 20.02 4.22 0.04 31.72 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.21 85.59
J81 J81-2_chl_c2-1 clinochlore 29.94 0.02 20.03 4.07 0.03 32.43 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.24 86.78
J81 J81-2_chl_c2-2 clinochlore 30.00 0.05 20.30 4.30 0.00 32.59 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.22 87.48
J81 J81-2_chl_c2-3 clinochlore 30.04 0.05 20.44 4.08 0.05 32.88 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 87.82
J81 J81-2 C1 - 16 clinochlore 29.58 0.05 20.52 4.19 0.11 30.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.48 84.96
J81 J81-2 C1 - 29 clinochlore 30.05 0.03 20.14 4.36 0.00 30.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 85.21
J81 J81-1_c4_01-1 clinochlore 29.48 0.02 20.15 4.44 0.02 31.51 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.26 0.33 86.39
J81 J81-1_c4_01-2 sheridanite 29.52 0.08 20.72 4.23 0.01 31.76 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.30 86.95
J109 J109_chl_c2-2 clinochlore 30.71 0.03 20.16 2.24 0.01 35.42 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 0.35 89.24
J109 J109_chl_c2-4 clinochlore 30.66 0.02 20.23 2.41 0.00 35.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.37 89.06
J109 J109_chl_c3-5 clinochlore 30.73 0.01 19.66 2.40 0.01 35.25 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.26 0.22 88.55
J109 J109_chl_c2-1 sheridanite 30.64 0.04 20.48 2.21 0.02 35.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.38 89.50
J109 J109_chl_c2-3 sheridanite 30.22 0.04 19.98 2.48 0.01 35.09 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.39 88.51
J109 J109_chl_c4-1 sheridanite 30.45 0.02 20.14 2.47 0.00 35.28 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.37 89.00
J109 J109_chl_c4-2 sheridanite 30.47 0.02 20.56 2.06 0.00 35.44 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.36 89.17
J109 J109_chl_c5-1 sheridanite 30.58 0.01 20.54 2.17 0.02 35.30 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.41 89.30
J109 J109_chl_c5-3 sheridanite 30.00 0.02 20.48 2.26 0.03 35.71 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.37 89.14
J109 J109_chl_c5-4 sheridanite 30.15 0.02 20.38 1.90 0.01 34.78 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.46 87.95
J109 J109_chl_c5-5 sheridanite 30.42 0.00 20.39 2.39 0.01 35.68 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.36 89.54
J109 J109_chl_c5-6 sheridanite 30.06 0.03 19.88 2.38 0.02 34.84 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.39 87.86
 280

Tabela B-8: Mineral chemistry: Serpentine

Sample Comment Mineral SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MnO MgO Na2O NiO Total
J109 J109-c1-1 Serpentine 40.52 0.00 0.61 2.62 0.10 42.83 0.00 0.59 87.28
J109 J109-c1-2 Serpentine 41.06 0.02 0.66 2.37 0.08 42.75 0.00 0.51 87.46
J109 J109-c1-3 Serpentine 41.93 0.01 0.33 1.99 0.03 43.01 0.00 0.53 87.86
J109 J109-c1-4 Serpentine 38.33 0.00 2.49 3.63 0.11 41.56 0.00 0.18 86.33
J109 J109-c3-1 Serpentine 41.41 0.04 0.21 2.39 0.06 43.19 0.00 0.42 87.75
J109 J109-c3-2 Serpentine 42.48 0.04 0.02 1.90 0.05 43.12 0.01 0.29 87.94
J109 J109-c3-3 Serpentine 42.75 0.00 0.05 1.81 0.04 43.57 0.01 0.31 88.56
J109 J109-c3-4 Serpentine 40.79 0.00 2.23 2.44 0.08 42.26 0.01 0.03 87.87
J109 J109-c4-3 Serpentine 42.22 0.03 0.07 2.25 0.06 41.09 0.01 0.43 86.19
J109 J109-c4-4 Serpentine 42.21 0.03 0.03 1.94 0.03 43.30 0.00 0.32 87.91
J109 J109-c5-2 Serpentine 41.67 0.03 0.07 2.29 0.05 42.35 0.00 0.56 87.04
J109 J109-c5-7 Serpentine 41.81 0.01 0.02 1.95 0.06 43.79 0.01 0.33 87.99
 281

Tabela B-9: Mineral chemistry: Talc

Sample Comment SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO Cr2O3 CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 NiO Total
J71 J71_c4_01-5 58.29 0.07 2.41 3.50 28.27 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.25 93.03
J71 J71_c8_01-3 59.08 0.10 1.75 2.50 28.99 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.36 93.14
J71 J71_c4_01-1 59.09 0.15 2.83 2.82 28.69 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.16 94.08
J71 J71_c5_01-1 59.16 0.08 1.98 1.95 29.06 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.47 93.17
J71 J71_c8_02-4 59.41 0.18 3.35 3.05 27.98 0.05 0.14 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.37 94.71
J71 J71_c4_01-2 59.58 0.08 2.20 2.10 28.89 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.28 93.38
J71 J71_c3_01-2 59.62 0.09 2.93 3.49 28.33 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.23 94.93
J71 J71_c3_01-3 59.90 0.15 2.97 3.68 28.55 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.23 95.73
J71 J71_c8_02-2 60.04 0.09 2.12 3.59 28.27 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.38 94.76
J71 J71_c3_02-3 60.05 0.13 2.02 2.71 29.47 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.30 94.94
J71 J71_c4_01-6 60.14 0.11 3.56 3.55 28.34 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.39 96.53
J71 J71_c5_01-2 60.20 0.09 1.83 2.12 29.06 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.44 94.21
J71 J71_c8_02-1 60.35 0.09 2.32 2.65 29.59 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.46 95.96
J71 J71_c3_01-1 60.43 0.07 1.77 2.71 28.98 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.45 94.57
J71 J71_c8_01-4 60.52 0.12 2.58 2.80 28.94 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.41 95.73
J71 J71_c8_01-1 60.54 0.08 2.07 3.54 29.04 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.26 95.83
J71 J71_c8_02-3 60.58 0.03 1.55 3.71 28.84 0.21 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.19 95.24
J71 J71_c3_02-4 60.60 0.06 1.11 3.26 29.17 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.06 0.24 94.82
J71 J71_c4_01-4 60.74 0.12 0.86 1.88 29.64 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.35 93.81
J71 J71_c3_01-6 60.84 0.06 0.34 6.02 27.83 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 95.30
J71 J71_c5_01-6 61.21 0.04 1.55 3.65 28.88 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.18 95.82
J71 J71_c5_01-5 61.51 0.05 0.71 3.19 28.94 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.23 94.88
J71 J71_c8_01-2 61.79 0.06 1.46 2.41 29.31 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.39 95.64
J107 J107_c8_01-2 52.57 0.04 5.08 10.02 23.99 0.11 0.77 0.12 0.15 0.02 0.28 93.31
J107 J107_c4_01-2 59.59 0.04 0.61 7.23 26.49 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 94.28
J107 J107_c2_01-1 59.50 0.06 2.25 3.53 27.54 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.08 93.18
J107 J107_c5_02-1 58.97 0.10 3.17 2.91 27.57 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.17 93.15
 282

Sample Comment SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO Cr2O3 CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 NiO Total
J107 J107_c7_01-2 58.93 0.14 2.68 2.92 27.88 0.06 0.07 0.16 0.02 0.03 0.19 93.09
J107 J107_c7_01-3 59.21 0.08 2.76 3.19 27.96 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.12 93.55
J107 J107_c7_01-4 59.18 0.14 2.82 2.69 28.05 0.07 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.18 93.43
J107 J107_c7_01-6 60.71 0.08 2.17 3.26 28.35 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.18 95.06
J107 J107_c2_01-2 59.77 0.06 1.81 2.96 28.39 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.07 93.43
J107 J107_c7_01-1 60.36 0.05 2.06 2.61 28.99 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.14 94.49
J107 J107_c5_02-3 59.88 0.05 1.64 2.33 29.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.11 93.33
J107 J107_c7_01-5 60.36 0.07 1.80 2.51 29.13 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.15 94.30
 283

Tabela B-10: Mineral chemistry: Magnetite

Sample Comment Mineral TiO2 Al2O3 Cr2O3 FeO MnO MgO NiO Total
J109 J109_c1_01-4 Magnetite 0.08 0.45 6.07 79.52 0.28 4.98 1.72 93.11
J109 J109_c1_01-6 Magnetite 0.03 0.44 6.32 79.66 0.31 4.98 1.68 93.44
J109 J109_c2_01-9 Magnetite 0.02 0.20 5.11 81.30 0.25 4.37 1.79 93.04
J109 J109_c2_01-10 Magnetite 0.01 0.28 5.14 81.37 0.32 4.18 1.89 93.20
J109 J109_c4_01-17 Magnetite 0.03 0.30 5.30 81.07 0.26 4.99 1.81 93.80
J109 J109_c4_01-18 Magnetite 0.00 0.30 5.15 80.82 0.29 4.91 1.82 93.31
J109 J109_c5_01-22 Magnetite 0.05 0.29 5.73 80.18 0.27 5.49 1.72 93.76
J109 J109_c5_01-24 Magnetite 0.07 0.18 5.56 79.60 0.28 5.92 1.80 93.75
J71 J71_c6_01-3 Magnetite 0.41 0.30 5.62 86.61 0.01 0.19 1.10 94.29
J71 J71_c6_01-2 Magnetite 0.59 1.70 10.97 79.67 0.10 0.70 1.29 95.14
J71 J71_c6_01-4 Magnetite 0.98 1.26 13.75 77.40 0.13 0.79 0.99 95.46
J71 J71_c6_01-1 Magnetite 0.75 2.57 14.36 73.67 0.08 0.91 1.25 93.69
J79 J79_c2_03-7 Magnetite 0.23 0.66 5.33 86.50 0.01 0.06 0.60 93.44
J79 J79_c1_02-4 Magnetite 2.65 4.13 17.32 66.53 0.30 2.29 0.55 93.90
J79 J79_c1_02-3 Magnetite 2.58 4.54 17.86 67.19 0.25 2.34 0.48 95.31
J79 J79_c1_02-5 Magnetite 2.64 4.55 18.23 65.69 0.24 2.41 0.52 94.33
J81 J81-1_c4_01-1 Magnetite 0.80 1.48 6.93 82.25 0.02 0.85 0.41 92.78
J81 J81-1_c4_01-2 Magnetite 0.74 1.65 7.23 82.30 0.06 0.88 0.36 93.36
 284

Tabela B-11: REE zircon data for the chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels (sample J67)
Spot J67_50 J67_75 J67_73 J67_86 J67_91 J67_94 J67_95 J67_106 J67_107 J67_110 J67_87 J67_92
number
Al2O3 0.086 <0.001 <0.001 0.195 0.066 0.002 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.384 0.183 0.639
SiO2 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57
CaO <0.045 <0.045 <0.048 0.089 <0.071 <0.044 <0.041 <0.050 <0.045 <0.049 <0.052 <0.045
TiO2 0.027 <0.000 <0.000 0.076 10.93 <0.001 <0.000 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.137 0.098
Sr 0.428 0.279 0.326 2.793 0.683 0.265 0.216 0.61 2.213 0.647 1.69 2.757
Y 547.065 124.396 209.785 3028.817 1201.914 36.247 76.024 2645.883 674.233 1304.228 1752.576 3248.573
Zr 430300.1 431329.1 406355.1 470526.9 467398.8 410087.8 413142.5 442418.3 411207 432575.1 425846.3 406732
Nb 0.723 0.382 0.426 1.296 9.724 0.479 0.355 2.254 0.482 1.346 1.329 1.785
Ba 0.074 <0.098 <0.090 0.305 0.304 <0.091 <0.058 0.73 2.867 1.157 0.277 0.362
La 0.008 <0.004 <0.004 0.095 0.216 0.009 <0.005 0.164 0.978 0.041 0.081 0.148
Ce 0.513 0.151 0.092 2.891 1.073 0.097 0.103 23.974 6.688 1.195 1.358 2.627
Pr 0.009 <0.003 <0.002 0.031 0.022 0.009 <0.003 0.549 0.834 0.017 0.025 0.041
Nd 0.074 0.019 0.012 0.323 0.384 0.031 0.008 7.355 4.589 0.156 0.361 0.431
Sm 0.285 0.1 0.077 1.529 0.858 0.029 <0.033 13.703 2.435 1.061 0.925 1.681
Eu 0.405 0.067 0.078 2.564 0.999 0.076 0.04 7.126 1.284 1.212 1.231 2.313
Gd 4.365 0.571 1.077 28.185 10.549 0.334 0.427 81.433 7.382 12.098 15.648 26.815
Tb 2.124 0.338 0.599 14.226 5.379 0.114 0.237 24.326 2.747 5.794 6.941 13.195
Dy 37.802 6.616 12.958 232.864 94.05 2.223 4.253 277.943 44.961 99.998 129.688 239.103
Ho 17.564 3.491 6.397 105.612 41.436 1.038 2.362 90.714 20.543 46.655 61.711 115
Er 91.703 23.262 39.141 569.194 219.05 6.944 13.666 392.418 122.539 228.493 324.444 564.673
Tm 19.45 6.721 10.5 119.774 45.96 1.743 3.788 73.852 31.937 45.672 66.722 115.69
Yb 188.313 78.792 103.348 985.358 402.499 22.175 46.954 620.322 317.195 421.246 638.469 1071.13
Lu 38.93 22.144 26.878 184.639 76.23 6.121 13.173 119.968 75.177 79.877 119.214 196.173
Hf 7678.772 7709.386 10961.18 12159.56 9008.057 5562.427 7398.919 10329.96 12569.25 9552.544 9842.551 8963.352
Ta 0.176 0.13 0.229 0.317 0.8 0.05 0.139 1.095 0.245 0.242 0.341 0.362
Th 15.087 9.486 6.721 46.885 29.332 4.489 5.991 250.021 18.185 29.503 28.075 50.806
U 47.177 445.194 357.726 85.371 69.947 174.591 272.121 322.359 772.511 69.314 68.972 67.365
 285

Tabela B-12: REE zircon data for calc-silicate rock (sample J82)
Spot J82_16.1 J82_15 J82_13 J82_11 J82_30 J82_36 J82_33 J82_72 J82_68 J82_37 J82_76 J82_10
number
Al2O3 0.029 0.001 0.003 0.015 0.002 0.012 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.009 0.002 0.007
SiO2 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57 31.57
CaO 0.027 <0.023 <0.020 <0.036 <0.022 <0.025 <0.025 <0.029 <0.046 <0.042 <0.084 <0.039
TiO2 0.002 0 0 0.001 <0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.000
Sr 0.878 0.285 0.248 0.364 0.454 0.314 0.3 0.273 0.709 0.818 0.259 0.607
Y 1111.603 65.988 12.185 40.951 19.907 42.568 26.068 26.763 892.197 904.855 11.524 422.585
Zr 422549.6 421130.9 407589.2 405037.9 418371.2 427300.9 429115.4 379493 405287.1 430766.9 456871.2 422242.8
Nb 5.3 1.088 0.765 0.893 0.683 1 0.734 0.763 2.218 4.096 0.667 1.981
Ba 0.276 <0.044 <0.064 0.336 <0.062 0.161 <0.058 0.099 0.094 0.256 <0.138 0.082
La 0.834 0.034 0.173 3.351 0.237 2.882 0.005 1.353 10.891 0.295 0.016 0.395
Ce 11.009 1.659 1.321 9.565 1.167 11.088 1.102 5.726 11.009 43.314 1.154 12.758
Pr 0.473 0.02 0.099 1.558 0.046 1.647 0.014 0.862 2.945 0.147 0.023 0.252
Nd 2.767 0.189 0.565 8.46 0.236 8.75 0.163 2.629 9.905 1.755 0.053 1.552
Sm 3.324 0.436 0.47 4.323 0.31 3.709 0.487 1.327 6.92 3.19 0.185 1.373
Eu 0.739 0.208 0.142 0.819 0.114 0.969 0.181 0.465 1.45 1.387 0.062 0.487
Gd 19.787 2.213 1.223 5.052 1.121 4.492 1.547 2.114 16.526 17.206 0.821 6.996
Tb 6.959 0.542 0.245 0.659 0.236 0.78 0.395 0.41 5.988 5.652 0.192 2.393
Dy 93.955 5.795 1.843 5.191 1.863 6.026 3.154 3.057 81.134 76.161 1.182 32.744
Ho 35.846 1.893 0.39 1.129 0.526 1.247 0.643 0.731 30.432 28.352 0.327 13.018
Er 172.882 8.162 1.325 4.187 2.965 3.708 2.21 2.394 151.337 139.687 0.88 67.997
Tm 37.874 1.736 0.195 0.866 0.787 0.623 0.345 0.391 34.399 32.373 0.1 15.822
Yb 356.301 16.717 1.773 7.891 9.685 4.322 2.668 2.824 336.632 315.037 0.866 156.422
Lu 73.91 3.593 0.269 1.668 2.812 0.662 0.474 0.433 70.433 62.17 0.1 34.352
Hf 9909.068 9041.843 8008.529 8555.256 9249.41 8661.104 9342.082 7020.948 10579.73 8834.542 6830.301 10607.58
Ta 1.891 0.758 0.605 0.545 0.71 0.783 0.797 0.691 1 1.285 0.37 1.254
Th 182.417 102.744 76.486 44.735 47.201 82.935 99.482 106.567 45.545 322.272 53.693 128.691
U 650.329 2621.448 2272.02 2174.171 1962.201 2952.497 2851.028 2672.224 115.687 518.455 1350.893 292.491
 286

Tabela B-13: SIMS d18O data for the analyzed zircon grains from the amphibole-enstatite-chlorite
granofels(Sample J67) and the calc-silicate rock (J82)
d18O Age
Spot d18O VSMOW 2SD Age (Ma) Spot 2SD
VSMOW (Ma)
Chlorite-olivine-amphibole granofels
Calc-silicate (Sample J82)
(Sample J67)
J67-33 7.12 0.28 654 J82_105 3.73 0.18 593
J67-51 7.22 0.28 603 J82_22.1 3.90 0.18 509
J67-37 7.37 0.28 647 J82_109 4.01 0.18 -
J67-15 7.77 0.28 616 J82_88 4.05 0.18 -
J67-32 7.77 0.28 689 J82_107 4.10 0.18 -
J67-19 7.90 0.28 617 J82_54 4.12 0.18 597
J67-71 7.95 0.28 765 J82_76 4.13 0.18 601
J67-30 7.95 0.28 622 J82_70 4.13 0.18 -
J67-17 8.01 0.28 656 J82_74 4.24 0.18 -
J67-16 8.03 0.28 639 J82_52 4.36 0.18 -
J67-13 8.09 0.28 559 J82_73 4.36 0.18 588
J67-14 8.22 0.28 581 J82_120 4.39 0.18 -
J67-13 8.23 0.28 559 J82_106 4.42 0.18 596
J67-11 8.31 0.28 538 J82_72 4.59 0.18 664
J67-10 8.43 0.28 538 J82_21.1 4.71 0.18 527
J82_87 3.54 0.18 -
J82_48 3.62 0.18 -
J82_51 3.66 0.18 2722
J82_93 3.79 0.18 -
J82_92 4.24 0.18 1968
J82_71 4.25 0.18 -
J82_67 4.29 0.18 2620
J82_56 4.58 0.18 2913
J82_75 4.73 0.18 -
J82_49 4.93 0.18 -
J82_50 4.98 0.18 -
J82_14 6.09 0.18 511
J82_13.1 6.16 0.18 598