New FTIR data of calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the Oas-Gutai Mts. and post eruption effects on the water content of phenocrysts

<p>We studied volcanic rocks from the Oas-Gutai Mts. (Transylvania, Romania) to measure the &#8216;structural hydroxyl&#8217; content of the nominally anhydrous minerals (NAMs such as clinopyroxene, plagioclase, quartz), from which water content of the parental magma can be estimated.&#160; The Neogene volcanic chain of the Carpathian-Pannonian region (CPR), due to petrologic variability, is an excellent area for such investigation.</p><p>Recent FTIR studies on the calc-alkaline rocks from CPR, showed that the &#8216;structural hydroxyl&#8217; content of NAMs could be modified during and after volcanic eruptions [1], [2], [3]. However, transmission FTIR-microscopy is an adequate technique for recognizing this these changes because FTIR spectra of the NAMs indicate signs in the case of hydroxyl loss [4].</p><p>For studying the pre-eruptive water contents clinopyroxenes are the most promising mineral because it has one of the lowest diffusion rates for hydroxyl in NAMs [5]. With the detailed study of the clinopyroxenes FTIR spectra, conclusions can be drawn concerning the potential post-eruptive loss of hydroxyl [4].</p><p>We have examined 8 volcanic rock samples, four dacite samples from Oas and one basalt two andesite and one rhyolite sample from the Gutai Mts. The samples show diverse volcanic facies such as lava, ignimbrite and debris avalanche. The diversity of samples is important for future research because it will help to choose the most adequate volcanic facies to estimate the magmatic equilibrium water contents.</p><p>The studied clinopyroxenes contain 83-371 ppm &#8216;structural hydroxyl&#8217; content,which can be considered as normal values compared to the work of [6] where &#8216;structural hydroxyl&#8217; content in clinopyroxenes show a range from 75 to 390 ppm in the mafic calc-alkaline lavas from Salina, Italy.</p><p>[1] Lloyd, A.S., Ferriss, E., Ruprecht, P., Hauri, E.H., Jicha, B.R., & Plank, T. (2016): Journal of Petrology, 57, pp. 1865-1886</p><p>[2] Bir&#243;, T., I. Kov&#225;cs, D. Kar&#225;tson, R. Stalder, E. Kir&#225;ly, G. Falus, T. Fancsik, J. & S&#225;ndorn&#233; Kov&#225;cs (2017): American Mineralogist, 102, pp.</p><p>[3] P&#225;los, Z., Kov&#225;cs, I. J., Kar&#225;tson, D., Bir&#243;, T., S&#225;ndorn&#233; Kov&#225;cs, J., Bertalan, &#201;., & Wesztergom, V. (2019): Central European Geology, 62(1)</p><p>[4] Patk&#243;, L., Liptai, N., Kov&#225;cs, I., Aradi, L., Xia, Q.K., Ingrin, J., Mih&#225;ly, J., O'Reilly, S.Y., Griffin, W.L., Wesztergom, V., & Szab&#243;, C. (2019): Chemical Geology, 507, pp. 23-41.</p><p>[5] Farver, J.R. (2010): Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 72 (1), pp. 447&#8211;507.</p><p>[6] Nazzareni, S., Skogby H., & Zanazzi, P.F. (2011): Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 162, pp. 275&#8211;288.</p>