12 Undergraduate Research Posters

Monday, 19 May 2025
8:00 AM - 5:30 PM
Ballroom A&B

ANALYSIS OF BASALTS AND METABASALTS FROM SCATTERED LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Paper number: 12-13
Program: Theme Sessions
Time: 8:00 AM – 5:30 PM

Authors

  • Ryan Oatman Presenting Author
    Kent State Universtiy at Stark, North Canton, OH

Abstract

An unknown specimen was compared to a known specimen through elemental analysis in order to determine the unknown’s composition and igneous rock classification. The two specimens were analyzed using Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) after being coated in platinum using a sputter coater (EMS150TS) in the labs at Kent State University at Stark. For the chemical analysis of both specimens, a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), model JEOL JSM-6010 Plus/LV, as well as an Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDS), model Oxford Instruments X-Max, were used. This research was done to determine the chemical differences in two different potential basalt protoliths. Specimen 1 contains high weight percentages of oxygen, carbon, silicon, iron, and aluminum. Common minerals that are formed due to these chemicals would be quartz (SiO2), olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4), garnets/almandine (Fe3Al2Si3O12), and potentially corundum (Al2O3). Specimen 2 was found to have similarly high amounts of oxygen, carbon, silicon, and aluminum, but contained much less iron in its weight percentage instead having calcium much higher. Due to the relative abundance of calcium, it is likely that Specimen 2 contains much higher levels of diopside (CaMg(Si2O6)) compared to Specimen 1. The initial hypothesis that both specimens were of basalt origin was supported. Minerals like chlorite form when a basaltic (mafic) rock is metamorphosed. The metamorphic specimen, Specimen 1, contains higher levels of the elements magnesium, aluminum, and iron that are needed when forming chlorite, thus providing insight into the relative product-versus-protolith relationship. The results from this research suggest that Specimen 1 had a mafic protolith, where Specimen 2 was most likely an andesite or a basaltic andesite.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 57, No. 5

doi: 10.1130/abs/2025RM-409629

© Copyright 2025 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.