CHAPTER 8: VALUE OF HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
FOR PROVENANCE, TRANSPORT HISTORY AND STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION
Andrew Morton
HM Research Associates,
2 Clive Road, Balsall Common, Coventry CV7 7DW, UK
and CASP, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB3 0DH, UK
E-mail: heavyminerals@hotmail.co.uk
INTRODUCTION
Studies of detrital heavy minerals in sand and
sandstone have been a fundamental part of research
into sediments and sedimentary rocks since modern
geological investigations began. In a history of early
studies of sediment mineralogy, Boswell (1933)
identified a paper by de Réaumur (1718) as the first
to record the mineralogical constituents of
sediments, although systematic studies did not
commence until the 19th century. The first attempt
to relate modern sand composition to sediment
source appears to be that of De Filippi (1839), with
Thürach (1884) being the first to use heavy minerals
as guides to the provenance of ancient clastic rocks.
The recognition that different sedimentary units can
be distinguished on the basis of their heavy mineral
assemblages (Boswell 1916) was recognized at an
early stage by the oil industry, leading to the
widespread application of heavy mineral
stratigraphy in the correlation of unfossiliferous
clastic successions (Hedberg 1928, Illing 1916,
Reed 1924, Tickell 1924). Since that time, heavy
minerals have been frequently used for the purposes
of provenance and correlation of sandstone units,
with progressive advances in technology leading to
increasingly sophisticated solutions.
The enduring role of heavy mineral analysis in
provenance and correlation studies is a testament to
the sensitivity of heavy minerals as indicators of
sediment source. In their invaluable identification
guide, Mange & Maurer (1992) document over fifty
non-opaque detrital minerals, many of which have
specific parageneses that enable direct links
between sediment and source lithology to be
established. Developments in single grain analytical
techniques, such as electron microprobe analysis
(EMPA) for major elements and laser ablation–
inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry
(LA–ICP–MS) for trace and rare earth elements,
have provided a new dimension to heavy mineral
provenance studies by enabling chemical character-
Mineralogical Association of Canada Short Course 42, St. John’s NL, May 2012, p. 133-165
133
ization of individual mineral populations (Mange &
Morton 2007). Likewise, the ability to undertake
single grain radiometric dating of a range of
minerals, in particular zircon, but also monazite,
rutile, amphibole, apatite and mica, has enabled the
establishment of geochronological links between
sediment and source. The integration of
mineralogical, mineral chemical and radiometric
data is extremely powerful, since it provides both
lithological and geochronological constraints on
sediment provenance.
This review considers the present status of
heavy mineral analysis in provenance and
correlation of clastic sediments. The chapter covers
the analytical methods currently in use, discusses
the controls on the composition of heavy mineral
assemblages, and considers which parameters can
be best used to relate sediment composition to
source. The review concludes with two case studies
that demonstrate the value of heavy minerals for
evaluating provenance, transport history and
correlation.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Heavy minerals (grains with densities >2.8
g.cm–3) are generally minor components of
sandstone. They typically form ~1% of the sample
(Mange & Wright 2007), although the heavy
mineral concentrations in modern first cycle sands
derived from volcanic, plutonic, or metamorphic
rocks commonly exceed 20% (Garzanti & Andò
2007). Therefore, to facilitate their study, they must
be concentrated by separating them from the lower
density components that comprise the bulk of the
rock. Separation is normally achieved using dense
liquids, such as bromoform, tetrabromoethane or
sodium heteropolytungstate, either by gravity
settling or use of centrifuge, although panning,
magnetic separation and concentrating table have all
been used as alternative methods (Mange & Maurer
1992).
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
The key questions concerning analytical
methods are:
(i) what type of sample to use.
(ii) how to prepare the sample prior to separation.
(iii) what size fraction to analyze.
(iv) what identification method to use.
Sample type
The issues regarding sample type mainly
concern lithology and acquisition of suitable
material. Heavy mineral analysis is normally
undertaken on sand and sandstone. However,
studies have also been undertaken on volcaniclastic
rocks, and there is increasing interest in applying the
technique to siltstone and mudstone. This is
especially important because these fine-grained
lithologies are more abundant in the sedimentary
record than sandstone, yet their provenance is
poorly understood. Challenges involved in analyz-
ing fine-grained sediments arise during both sample
preparation and mineral identification. However,
Totten & Hanan (2007) have described methods that
deal effectively with sample preparation, and
identification can now be readily achieved either by
SEM–EDS (Totten & Hanan 2007) or by Raman
spectroscopy (Andò et al. 2011).
The various sample types that are used in
sandstone provenance and correlation studies have
both positive and negative aspects. Many heavy
mineral studies are undertaken on outcrop samples,
but studies are also undertaken on subsurface
material from boreholes, particularly for correlation
purposes related to hydrocarbon exploration and
production. Samples available from the subsurface
include core, sidewall core and ditch cuttings.
Factors to consider when interpreting data from the
range of materials available are sample size, data
integrity, stratigraphic coverage and weathering.
The advantages and disadvantages of each type of
sample are summarized in Table 8-1.
TABLE 8-1. The relative merits of sample types most commonly used in provenance and correlation studies.
Core Sidewall
core
Sample size large small
Data integrity high high
Stratigraphic often often
coverage poor poor
Weathering none none
at outcrop
134
Sample preparation
Issues involved in sample preparation concern
disaggregation, cleaning of the grains and use of
chemicals to remove diagenetic components. These
issues were discussed in detail by Mange & Maurer
(1992) and will not be reiterated here. However, it
must be stressed that the use of chemicals prior to
heavy mineral separation is strongly discouraged, in
order to avoid modification of the mineral
assemblage before analysis takes place. Diagenetic
carbonate is commonly encountered during heavy
mineral provenance studies, and it has been
common practice in some laboratories to use dilute
HCl to remove this phase. Unfortunately, dilute HCl
also readily removes apatite, which is a key mineral
for provenance studies because its sensitivity to
weathering makes it an important indicator of
transport history. It is therefore recommended that
acid treatment is not used during sample
preparation. If carbonate proves to be abundant after
heavy mineral separation has been achieved, dilute
acetic acid, which does not affect apatite, can be
used to remove the carbonate. Grain coatings, such
as clay and Fe oxides, are generally removed by
ultrasonic treatment. An ultrasonic probe unit is
most effective, but similar results can be obtained
using an ultrasonic bath providing the samples are
immersed for a relatively long period.
Size fraction
Possibly the most contentious issue regarding
sample preparation is the question of which size
fraction to analyze. One school of thought advocates
analysis of the entire sand fraction, and another
prefers to restrict the analysis to a narrow size range
(Mange & Maurer, 1992).
The argument in favor of analyzing the entire
sand fraction is largely based on the possibility that
analyzing a narrow size fraction could lead to the
lack of detection of diagnostic species (Mange &
Unwashed Washed and Outcrop
cuttings dried cuttings
large small large
low low high
good good good
none none likely
 A. MORTON
Maurer 1992). The problems associated with
analyzing the entire size range are that the resulting
data will be heavily affected by differences in
hydrodynamics (as manifested as differences in
grain size and sorting) between samples. Hence,
fine-grained sandstone and coarse-grained sand-
stone, both derived from the same area, will have
markedly different relative abundances of detrital
heavy mineral species. Extracting meaningful
differences in provenance from a data set derived
from the entire sand fraction is therefore fraught
with difficulty, and could lead to erroneous
conclusions especially where heavy minerals are
used for correlation purposes. A more practical
problem is that analyzing the entire sand fraction
causes problems with production of heavy mineral
mounts and with petrographic identification (Mange
& Maurer 1992).
Two alternative strategies have been proposed
for the acquisition of heavy mineral data that can be
readily used to identify differences in provenance.
One approach is to use a narrow size fraction at the
fine-grained end of the sand size range, such as the
63–125 μm fraction. This approach minimizes the
possibility of missing diagnostic minerals, since
even if key minerals are present only as coarse
grains in the parent rock, the processes of
mechanical breakdown during erosion and transport
will inevitably lead to their presence as finer grains
in the transported detritus. Furthermore, using this
size fraction makes mounting and petrographic
identification of heavy minerals a comparatively
simple task. However, it is important to recognize
that this method in itself does not eliminate the
hydrodynamic control on heavy mineral assemblage
composition, and relative mineral abundances will
vary according to grain size and sorting. These
variations can be minimized by comparing
abundances of minerals with similar hydrodynamic
properties, following the provenance-sensitive ratio
method described by Morton & Hallsworth (1994)
and discussed later in this chapter.
The alternative approach, advocated by
Garzanti et al. (2009), is to undertake a ‘multiple
window’ study involving separate heavy mineral
analyses of either 0.25 or 0.50 φ size fractions
(including total heavy mineral abundance as a
proportion of the whole sample) in order to build up
a detailed profile of the size distribution for each
heavy mineral. By applying a source rock density
(SRD) index correction to the data, Garzanti et al.
(2009) demonstrated that hydrodynamic effects can
be essentially eliminated, enabling recognition of
135
variations in provenance despite wide variations in
grain size. This approach is especially effective for
quantifying sediment flux in modern rivers such as
the Nile (Garzanti et al. 2006a) and the Brahma-
putra (Garzanti et al. 2010), but cannot be readily
applied to ancient systems because of the problems
associated with diagenetic overprinting (Garzanti et
al. 2009), which both removes detrital heavy
minerals and adds authigenic phases.
Heavy mineral identification
Traditionally, heavy minerals have been
identified on the basis of their optical properties
using the petrographic microscope (Milner 1962,
Mange & Maurer 1992). This method remains
fundamental to understanding sediment provenance,
because it not only enables quantification of heavy
mineral abundances but also allows observation of
textural and morphological features, in particular the
presence or absence of dissolution features on grain
surfaces. However, optical methods have some
drawbacks. In particular, some minerals (especially
those that are colorless) have overlapping optical
properties that can cause problems with identific-
ation. Also, optical petrography cannot distinguish
opaque minerals unless samples are cut, polished
and studied under reflected light.
There are a number of other approaches that are
being increasingly used for heavy mineral analysis.
These include techniques based on energy-
dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) such as
CCSEM (Kuelen et al. 2009), QemSCAN (Pirrie et
al. 2004), and MLA (Sylvester, this volume),
together with Raman spectroscopy (Andò et al.
2011). Both approaches have considerable potential
value for heavy mineral identification, not least
because they enable identification of opaque phases
as well as translucent minerals and (as discussed
above) allow heavy mineral studies to be extended
to fine-grained clastic rocks that are difficult to
analyze by conventional optical methods. However,
the EDS-based techniques have some drawbacks,
because they cannot distinguish mineral polymorphs
such as rutile, anatase and brookite (all TiO2) or
kyanite, andalusite and sillimanite (all Al2SiO5), and
also cannot readily discriminate minerals with
similar composition, such as biogenic and detrital
apatite or corundum and diaspore. X-ray diffraction
has also been used to identify and quantify heavy
mineral assemblages (Webster et al. 2003), but
although the method is reliable for major compon-
ents, it seems to be less accurate for identification
and quantification of minor components.
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
PROCESSES CONTROLLING HEAVY
MINERAL ASSEMBLAGE COMPOSITION
Although source rock mineralogy is the
ultimate control on the composition of heavy
mineral assemblages, many other processes operate
during the sedimentary cycle to obscure the original
provenance signal. It is crucial that the effects of
these factors are fully appreciated when interpreting
provenance from heavy mineral data. The impact of
these processes (weathering, mechanical abrasion,
hydraulic processes, and burial diagenesis) have
been reviewed by many authors (Boswell 1933,
Garzanti et al. 2009, Hubert 1971, Mange & Maurer
1992, Milner 1962, Morton 1985, Morton & Halls-
worth 1999) and their effects are summarized here.
Weathering
Weathering may cause modification of source
rock mineralogy at source (prior to incorporation
into the transport system), during periods of
exposure on the floodplain during transport (alluvial
storage), and at outcrop. Modification occurs by
dissolution of unstable minerals through the action
of groundwater.
Weathering in the source area modifies
mineralogy before sand enters the transport system.
The degree to which heavy mineral assemblages are
modified by weathering depends on three main
factors: the composition of the heavy mineral suite
(controlled by the parent rock lithology), the
physiographic setting, and the climate. In broad
terms, there are two regimes that operate ‒
weathering-limited and transport-limited (Johnsson
et al. 1991). In a weathering-limited regime, the
transport processes that remove detritus are more
rapid than the weathering processes generating the
material. Detritus is quickly removed without
significant modification by chemical weathering and
the provenance signature of the parent rocks is
likely to be preserved. By contrast, in a transport-
limited regime, the maximum weathering rate
exceeds the ability of transport processes to remove
material. Weathering products have a longer time to
react with soil and groundwater, strongly affecting
the composition of detritus, leading to extensive
modification of heavy mineral suites.
A considerable amount of information is
available on relative stability of heavy minerals in
soil profiles. Zircon, rutile, tourmaline, kyanite,
andalusite and sillimanite invariably show high
stability, whereas apatite, olivine and the pyroxene
group are all very unstable. Minerals with moderate
stability (such as amphibole, epidote, garnet,
136
staurolite, titanite and epidote) do not always have
consistent stability relationships. This may be partly
due to the wide compositional variation displayed
by some of these minerals, but could also result
from variations in the composition and
concentration of the groundwater responsible for the
leaching (Mitchell 1975). Furthermore, in some
environments, indigenous micro-organisms may
significantly alter weathering patterns as a result of
scavenging a limiting supply of nutrients (Bennett et
al. 2001). Therefore, the approximate order of
stability of heavy minerals in weathering
environments shown in Table 8-2 should be
regarded as an overall framework within which
some relative stability variations can be expected.
The pattern shown in Table 8-2 is in accord with
results of leaching experiments under acidic
conditions (Nickel 1973).
Despite the evidence for loss of heavy minerals
during weathering, there is rarely any significant
reduction in overall heavy mineral diversity between
source rock and transport system. For example,
sediment presently derived from areas subjected to
intense tropical weathering, such as Puerto Rico and
the Orinoco Basin, contain abundant unstable
minerals such as pyroxene and amphibole (Walker
TABLE 8-2. GENERALIZED ORDER OF HEAVY
MINERAL STABILITY IN ACIDIC WEATHERING
CONDITIONS
least stable
apatite
olivine
clinopyroxene
orthopyroxene
calcic amphibole
epidote group
garnet
monazite
titanite
topaz
staurolite
kyanite
andalusite
sillimanite
tourmaline
zircon
rutile, anatase, brookite
most stable
Taken from Goldich (1938), Dryden & Dryden (1946),
Piller (1951), Weyl & Werner (1953), Lemcke et al.
(1953), Grimm (1973), Nickel (1973), Bateman & Catt
(1985, 2007), Velbel (1999) and Lång (2000).

1974). Sands with highly stable and restricted
diversity heavy mineral assemblages can be found
in modern rivers in tropical environments such as
the White Nile, but the mineral depletion is
interpreted as resulting from weathering during
periods of alluvial storage in the subequatorial Sudd
and Machar swamps of southern Sudan, rather than
at source (Garzanti et al. 2006a). The same
explanation is likely to apply to ancient sandstone
units with low diversity heavy mineral assemblages
deposited in tropical weathering environments, such
as those found in the Eocene–Oligocene of Borneo
(van Hattum et al. 2006).
Possibly the most important mineral in Table
8-2 is apatite, since it is highly unstable in acidic
weathering environments, but stable during burial
diagenesis (Morton & Hallsworth 2007). In a study
of apatite in a peat bog from the Black Forest
(Germany), Le Roux et al. (2006) estimated that
complete apatite dissolution occurred after only a
few decades. The other phases that are highly
unstable in weathering, such as olivine, amphibole
and pyroxene, are also highly unstable during burial
diagenesis, and consequently their absence from
sandstone cannot be considered diagnostic of either
weathering or burial diagenesis.
Variations in apatite (measured as the
apatite:tourmaline ratio, ATi, as defined by Morton
& Hallsworth, 1994) in shallow marine Upper
Jurassic sandstone units of the North Sea can be
directly correlated with changes in relative sea level
(Fig. 8-1). Sandstone deposited during sea level
highstand has high apatite:tourmaline, whereas
sandstone deposited during low-stand has low
apatite:tourmaline (Morton et al. 2012a). There
2565
true vertical depth subsea (m)
2570
2575
2580
2585
2590
2595
2600
0 50 100 0
gamma
(API)
A. MORTON
is no evidence for significant changes in provenance
through the succession, and since apatite and
tourmaline have similar hydrodynamic behavior and
are stable during burial diagenesis, the observed
variations cannot have resulted from hydraulic
fractionation or burial-related dissolution. Given the
known instability of apatite in weathering environ-
ments, the variations in apatite are attributable to
changes in the extent of floodplain residence. More
prolonged weathering occurred during sea level
low-stands compared with high-stands, apparently
the direct result of the increase in areal extent of the
floodplain. The sensitivity of apatite to acidic
weathering environments makes it invaluable as a
tracer of periods of alluvial storage on the
floodplain, even in deeply buried sandstone where
other sensitive phases have been removed during
diagenesis.
Mechanical abrasion
Despite evidence from experimental studies that
determined the relative mechanical stability of
heavy minerals (Table 8-3), there is no evidence
from natural studies that heavy minerals disappear
from assemblages through this process. Studies of
major river systems with extremely long transport
distances, such as the Mississippi (Russell 1937),
the Nile (Garzanti et al. 2006a, Shukri 1949), the
Brahmaputra (Garzanti et al. 2010) and the Rhine
(van Andel 1950) show no evidence for any
decrease in mineral diversity downstream. Likewise,
in a study of in the Namib sand sea of southern
Africa, Garzanti et al. (2012) demonstrated that
mechanical abrasion had no noticeable effect on
provenance signatures during long distance and
P2b (lowstand) FIG. 8-1. Variations in
apatite:tourmaline index
P2a (highstand) (ATi) and rutile:zircon
index (RuZi) in Upper
Jurassic sandstone from
P1b (lowstand) the Piper Formation of
the Piper Field, showing
the contrast in ATi
between high-stand and
P1a (highstand) low-stand sandstone
(adapted from Morton et
al. 2012a).
Sgiath Fm
40 80 0 40 80
ATi RuZi
137
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

TABLE 8-3. EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED RELATIVE MECHANICAL STABILITY OF HEAVY MINERALS.

Friese (1931) Thiel (1940, 1945) Dietz (1973)

most resistant
Tourmaline Tourmaline Zircon
Corundum Staurolite Kyanite
Chrome spinel Titanite Garnet
Spinel Garnet Rutile
Rutile Epidote Staurolite
Staurolite Zircon Tourmaline
Augite Calcic amphibole Olivine
Topaz Rutile Andalusite
Garnet Orthopyroxene
Epidote Apatite
Apatite Augite
Zircon Kyanite
Kyanite
Olivine
Andalusite
Diopside
Monazite
least resistant

9
prolonged transport in a high energy eolian setting.
8
Kowalewski & Rimstidt (2003) showed that
7
survivability of grains is not dependent on hardness,
grain survival

but is closely comparable to dissolution rates under 6 aragonite

acidic (weathering) conditions (Fig. 8-2). The 5 calcite

4 apatite
effects of abrasion on heavy mineral proportions
3 biotite
during transport therefore appear to be negligible, muscovite
but mechanical loss of heavy minerals remains a 2
K-feldspar
possibility in exceptional circumstances. 1
hornblende
By contrast, there is strong evidence that 0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
zircon
proportions of susceptible minerals can be reduced DH
forsterite

through the abrasive action of the drill bit. A augite

comparison of heavy mineral assemblages 9

anorthite
bytownite
recovered from cores and ditch cuttings from the 8
andesine
Devonian-Carboniferous of the Clair Field (Morton 7 oligoclase
et al. 2010) shows that apatite is especially
grain survival

6 albite
susceptible to depletion, with ATi being 5 quartz
significantly lower in ditch cuttings samples 4
compared with core (Fig. 8-3). It is therefore 3
important to bear in mind the possibility of 2
mechanically induced modification of heavy mineral 1
assemblages when undertaking provenance studies 0
of subsurface samples acquired during drilling (as 5 10 15
DC
opposed to coring).
FIG. 8-2. Relationships between mineral survival,
mechanical durability (DH) and chemical durability
(DC), adapted from Kowalewski & Rimstidt (2003).
Mineral survival is estimated as log-transformed
standard deviation of grain age.

138
 A. MORTON

100 100

80 80 FIG. 8-3. Comparison of apatite:

tourmaline index (ATi) and garnet:
GZi

GZi
60 60 zircon index (GZi) in the Lower Clair
Group of wells 206/8-8 and 206/8-9Y
40 40 in the Clair Field, showing that ATi
Unit VIb Unit VIa values from ditch cuttings are lower
20 20 than in core from the same
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 stratigraphic units. See Allen and
ATi ATi Mange-Rajetzky (1992) and Morton
100 100
et al. (2010) for details of Clair Group
stratigraphy.
80 80
GZi

GZi
60 60

40 40
Unit V Unit IV
20 20
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
ATi ATi
100

80 206/8-8 (core)
206/8-9Y (ditch cuttings)
GZi

60

40
Unit III
20
20 40 60 80 100
ATi

Hydraulic processes (1981) and Komar (2007) demonstrated that high

Heavy minerals are denser than quartz and
feldspar grains and therefore behave differently
during transport and deposition. In consequence, the
size distribution of heavy minerals in sandstone
differs from that of the light minerals, with the
denser heavy minerals having finer mean grain sizes
than the associated quartz and feldspar. Rubey
(1933) introduced the concept of hydraulic
equivalence (later termed settling equivalence by
Reid and Frostick, 1985), which states that grains
with the same settling velocity are deposited
together. Rubey (1933) proposed that settling
velocity is a function of grain size and grain density,
so that smaller, denser minerals are deposited with
larger, less dense ones. Rubey (1933) also
introduced the term ‘hydraulic equivalent size’,
defined as the difference in size between a given
heavy mineral and the size of a quartz sphere with
the same settling velocity in water. Many studies of
heavy minerals and grain size have shown that a
good relationship exists between density and
hydraulic equivalent size (Fig. 8-4). Baba & Komar
density heavy minerals settle more rapidly than low
density heavy minerals and quartz (Fig. 8-5), in
accordance with the settling equivalence concept. A
detailed study of major Alpine, Himalayan, and
African sedimentary systems (Garzanti et al. 2008)
revealed systematic concentration of denser grains
in finer grained fractions in accord with the settling-
equivalence principle. However, this study revealed
that the settling-equivalence formula is complex,
because settling of sand grains is resisted by both
viscosity and turbulence, causing deviations from
grain size distributions as predicted by Stokes’ law.
Many situations occur where heavy minerals do
not display a clear relationship between density and
hydraulic equivalent size. For example, van Andel
(1950) showed that garnet grains in Rhine sediments
are anomalously coarse, being only slightly finer
grained than quartz. A similar phenomenon was
observed in dominantly ophiolite-derived coastal
and shelf sediments of southern Turkey, in which
pyroxenes and amphiboles are anomalously coarse-
grained (Mange-Rajetzky 1983). These deviations

139
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

102
Rio Grande river sands Gold (18)
5.5

5.0
Cassiterite (7.0) Quartz (2.65)
Density gm cm-3

4.5 10

SETTLING VELOCITY, Ws (cm/sec)

spheres
sand grains
4.0

3.5
Garnet (4.0)
3.0
Ilmenite (4.75)

2.5
Re = 0.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Hydraulic size

ge
10 - 1

an
Magnetite Ilmenite Zircon

sR
Garnet Baryte Titanite

ke
Sto
Orthopyroxene Apatite Kyanite
Clinopyroxene Amphibole Tourmaline

New Jersey beach sands

10 - 2
5.5
10 - 2 10 - 1 10
GRAIN DIAMETER, D (mm)
5.0
FIG. 8-5. Relationships between settling velocities and
Density gm cm-3

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
0.0 0.2 0.4
Hydraulic size
Zircon Garnet
Leucoxene Tourmaline
Orthopyroxene Sillimanite
Glauconite Clinopyroxene
FIG. 8-4. Relationships between hydraulic equivalent size
(Rubey 1933) and density for heavy minerals in Rio
Grande river sands (Rittenhouse 1943) and New Jersey
beach sands (McMaster 1954).
are interpreted as resulting from inheritance of grain
size distributions from the source rocks. A
comparison of heavy mineral grain size distributions
in river and beach sediments in the Baixada de
Jacarepagua, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) demonstrates
the importance of inherited grain size distributions
(Fig. 8-6). The river sands, which represent first
cycle detritus derived from Precambrian
metamorphic and igneous basement (Savage et al.
1988), show no correlation between mean grain
sizes and densities of the heavy minerals. Heavy
minerals in the river sands therefore have highly
anomalous hydraulic equivalence relationships. By
contrast, heavy minerals in the beach sediments
display good correlation between mean grain sizes
grain sizes of a variety of heavy minerals compared
with quartz (adapted from Komar 2007). Published
with permission from Elsevier.
and density (Fig. 8-6). It therefore appears that the
long transport distances associated with the beach
sands have allowed the heavy minerals to approach
0.6 0.8 1.0 hydraulic equilibrium.
Reid and Frostick (1985) showed that heavy
Staurolite mineral grains that comprise heavy mineral laminae
Epidote
in sandstone are too large to be in settling
Amphibole
equivalence with the neighboring quartz grains, and
considered this is due to selective grain entrainment
and entrapment. Slingerland (1977), Komar &
Wang (1984) and Komar (2007) showed that
increasing density and grain size require higher
threshold stresses for incorporation of grains into
the flow (Fig. 8-7). Another factor influencing
entrainment of heavy minerals into the current is
that the smaller heavy mineral grains have limited
exposure to water flow compared with larger quartz
grains, and their larger pivoting angles cause greater
resistance to entrainment (Fig. 8-8).
Grain shape also has an important effect on
heavy mineral transport and deposition. The effects
of grain shape on entrainment, transport and
deposition was investigated by Briggs et al. (1962),
who showed that minerals with platy habit such as
kyanite display significantly greater resistance to
flow to minerals with near-spherical habit such as
apatite and magnetite (Fig. 8-9). The effect is
especially pronounced with mica owing to its

140
 A. MORTON

3.5

3.0 Increasing flow

velocity above
2.5 sediment bed
grain size (f)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
river sands
0.0 FIG. 8-8. Schematic illustration of the effects of exposure
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 and pivoting angle of grains on entrainment of grains,
from Komar (2007). Heavy mineral grain is shaded.
3.5
Published with permission from Elsevier.
3.0

2.5 100
grain size (f)

2.0

1.5

1.0 Drag coefficient (CD )

0.5
beach sands
10
0.0
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

density (g.cm -3)

FIG. 8-6. Mean grain sizes and densities of heavy

minerals in river and beach sands from the Baixada de
Jacarepagua, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Note the good
correlation for the beach sands and the anomalous
relationships in the river sands. 1
102
1 10 100
Reynolds number (R)
Gold (18)

Cassiterite (7.0) kyanite magnetite apatite

THRESHOLD STRESS T† (dynes/cm2)

Ilmenite (4.75)
Garnet FIG. 8-9. Relationship between drag coefficient (CD) and
10 (4.0)
Reynolds number for kyanite, apatite and magnetite,
Quartz from Briggs et al. (1962). Note that kyanite grains
(2.65)
have higher drag coefficients than apatite and
magnetite, and that apatite and magnetite have similar
behaviour despite their strong density contrast.
extreme platy habit. Doyle et al. (1983) and Komar
T† = 0.00515 (ρs - ρ) gD0.568 tan & Wang (1984) both demonstrated that mica has
settling equivalence to smaller quartz grains,
contrary to all other heavy minerals. Because of the
anomalous hydrodynamic behavior of mica and
10 - 1
10 - 2 10 - 1 10 mica-like minerals such as chlorite, it is
GRAIN DIAMETER, D (mm) recommended that these minerals are excluded
FIG. 8-7. Entrainment flow stress curves for a selection when quantifying relative heavy mineral
of heavy minerals, after Komar (2007). Published abundances for provenance and correlation
with permission from Elsevier. purposes, although their presence should be noted.

141
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
In summary, density, diameter and shape are
the fundamental controls on the hydrodynamic
behavior of heavy minerals. Grains with the same
hydrodynamic behavior are transported and depos-
ited together, and their relative abundances cannot
be fractionated by varying hydrodynamic cond-
itions. For a more detailed review of the behavior of
heavy minerals during transport and deposition, see
Komar (2007) and Garzanti et al. (2008).
Burial diagenesis
Arguably, of all the factors that obscure the
original provenance signal, burial diagenesis in the
subsurface has the most profound effect on heavy
mineral assemblages. Heavy mineral suites react to
burial diagenesis by dissolution of unstable phases
(a process known as intrastratal dissolution) and
growth of secondary minerals. Burial diagenesis has
the potential to alter heavy mineral assemblages
dramatically, causing detrital suites that have high
diversity at the time of deposition to become highly
restricted at great burial depths. Mineral dissolution
in the subsurface is diagnosed by:
(i) the presence of corroded surfaces on mineral
grains.
(ii) the co-existence of high diversity and low
diversity assemblages in adjacent high and low
permeability sandstone.
(iii) decreasing mineral diversity with increasing
burial depth.
The presence of all three lines of evidence may
be taken as proof of intrastratal dissolution, but
caution is required if some of the evidence is
missing. For instance, decreasing diversity with
a c
b
e Norwegian Sea
100 microns
d Norwegian Sea
142
increasing depth might be a provenance effect, and
the presence of corrosion textures on mineral grains
may be the result of localized weathering processes
(for example, in a non-marine depositional setting or
below a subaerial unconformity). Another poten-
tially useful parameter is the overall abundance of
detrital heavy minerals (heavy mineral concen-
tration in the terminology of Garzanti & Andò,
2007), which will also reduce as intrastratal
dissolution proceeds.
The most direct indication of heavy mineral
dissolution is the presence of corrosion textures on
grain surfaces (Fig. 8-10). Corrosion textures, first
documented by Edelman and Doeglas (1932, 1934),
include etch pits, surface mamillae, facets, ragged
edges, hacksaw terminations and skeletal structures
(Hemingway & Tamar-Agha 1975, Milliken 2007,
Morton 1979, Rahmani 1973, Turner & Morton
2007, Velbel 1999). Corrosion textures similar to
those observed on natural grain surfaces have been
produced in laboratory experiments (Berner et al.
1980, Hansley 1987, Nickel 1973). Facets on garnet
grains have been attributed to both corrosion and
overgrowth, but Morton et al. (1989) and Salvino
and Velbel (1989) concluded that the overgrowth
hypothesis cannot be sustained on the basis of
thermodynamic considerations, experimental
studies, distribution of faceted garnets in the
subsurface, textural relationships and compositional
variations within faceted grains.
Direct evidence for mineral dissolution in the
subsurface is provided by the occurrence of high-
diversity detrital heavy mineral zones within
sandstone successions otherwise typified by low-
FIG. 8-10. Scanning electron
micrographs showing typical
heavy mineral corrosion
textures.
a = clinopyroxene, Eocene,
Rockall Trough
b = calcic amphibole,
Pliocene, South Caspian
Basin
c = epidote, Paleocene,
Faroe-Shetland Basin
d = titanite, Paleocene,
Norwegian Sea
e = kyanite, Jurassic,
f = staurolite, Cretaceous,
g Norwegian Sea
f g = garnet, Jurassic,
 A. MORTON
diversity assemblages. Bramlette (1941) was the
first to recognize that early calcite concretions may
contain higher diversity assemblages compared with
enclosing friable sandstone. Blatt & Sutherland
(1969) observed that mudstone contains higher-
diversity assemblages compared with interbedded
sandstone units. Yurkova (1970) showed that oil-
bearing sandstone has higher diversity assemblages
compared with adjacent water-wet sandstone.
Similar cases have been described in Paleocene
sandstone units of the UK continental shelf (Morton
& Hallsworth 2007). In all these cases, it is
unreasonable to argue for a difference in provenance
between the high diversity and adjacent low
diversity zones, indicating that at the time of
deposition they had similar heavy mineral
assemblages and, subsequently, the high diversity
zones were protected from the corrosive action of
pore waters, unlike the adjacent low diversity
sandstone units. These example show that protection
of heavy minerals against dissolution is afforded by
a variety of factors, including poor permeability (as
with the case of mudstone), early cementation
(sealing sandstone from pore waters), poor fluid
connectivity (restricting circulation of pore waters),
and displacement of pore waters by oil during
hydrocarbon emplacement. Identification of high
diversity heavy mineral assemblages within
otherwise low diversity sandstone units not only
proves that intrastratal dissolution has taken place,
but also provides a record of the composition of the
detrital assemblage prior to dissolution.
Decreasing mineral diversity with increasing
burial depth has been observed in sedimentary
basins worldwide, and is most likely to be
attributable to intrastratal dissolution during burial
diagenesis. However, since such patterns could arise
through changes in provenance, other lines of
evidence (presence of corrosion textures or
occurrence of anomalous high diversity zones) are
required to diagnose intrastratal dissolution. Burial-
related heavy mineral depletion has been positively
identified in the North Sea of the UK and Norway,
the Faroe-Shetland Basin of the UK, the Vøring and
Møre basins offshore Norway, the US Gulf of
Mexico, the South Caspian Basin of Azerbaijan, the
Bengal Basin offshore India, the Sava River Basin
of Croatia, the northern Apennines of Italy, the
Vienna Basin of Austria, the Cleveland Basin of the
UK, offshore New Zealand, Alberta and
Saskatchewan in Canada and the North Sumatra
Basin of Indonesia (Cavazza & Gandolfi 1992,
Gazzi 1965, Milliken 2007, Milliken & Mack 1990,
143
Morton 1985, Morton & Hallsworth 2007, Morton
et al. 1994, 2012b, Rahmani 1973, Scavnicar 1979,
Smithson 1941, Walderhaug & Porten 2007,
Wieseneder & Maurer 1958). Intrastratal dissolution
therefore appears to be a ubiquitous feature of burial
diagenesis. Furthermore, patterns of mineral
depletion are closely comparable between
sedimentary basins, enabling formulation of a
generalized order of relative heavy mineral stability
(Table 8-4).
Although the relative stability of heavy
minerals remains essentially uniform in sedimentary
basins worldwide, there are major differences in the
burial depths at which specific minerals become
depleted. For example, amphibole depletion takes
place at ~4000 m in the Pliocene of the South
Caspian Basin, but only ~600 m in the North Sea
Eocene. Similarly, garnet dissolution is complete at
~3500 m in the North Sea Jurassic, but shows only
incipient signs of dissolution at the same depth in
the Bengal Basin (Morton & Hallsworth 2007).
Burial depth is therefore only an indirect control, the
important factors being pore fluid temperature and
composition, rate of pore fluid movement, and time
(Morton & Hallsworth 2007).
Pore fluid temperatures inevitably increase
during burial. The increasing temperature drives
reactions such as the smectite-to-illite transform-
ation (Hower et al. 1976) and the decarboxylation of
organic matter (Tissot et al. 1974), causing changes
in pore water composition. As pore fluid
temperatures increase and pore water compositions
change, heavy minerals become unstable and start
TABLE 8-4. RELATIVE STABILITY OF DETRITAL
HEAVY MINERALS IN DEEP BURIAL CONDITIONS
least stable
olivine
orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene
sodic pyroxene
calcic amphibole, andalusite, sillimanite
epidote
titanite
kyanite
sodic amphibole
staurolite
allanite
garnet, chloritoid
tourmaline, monazite, spinel
rutile, anatase, brookite, zircon, apatite
most stable
(from Morton & Hallsworth 2007).
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
to dissolve. The depths at which minerals become
unstable depend on the pore fluid temperature
gradient, which is ultimately controlled by heat
flow. The temperatures at which heavy minerals
became completely depleted from sandstone on the
Norwegian continental shelf have been estimated by
Walderhaug & Porten (2007), with amphibole
disappearing at 40oC, titanite at 45oC, kyanite at
92oC, epidote at 95oC, staurolite at 109oC and garnet
at 175oC. Walderhaug & Porten (2007) also
observed a relationship between heavy mineral
dissolution and the extent of quartz cementation.
Secondary quartz is absent in sandstone containing
amphibole and titanite, but there is <1% quartz
cement in sandstone containing kyanite and epidote,
up to 6% quartz in staurolite-bearing sandstone, up
to 24% in chloritoid-bearing sandstone, up to 25%
in garnet-bearing sandstone, and 25–35% quartz
cement in sandstone containing only stable heavy
minerals.
Pore fluid movement is another important factor
in governing mineral distribution in the subsurface.
Poor porosity and low permeability inhibit pore
fluid movement, thereby decreasing the rate of
mineral dissolution. For this reason, siltstone,
mudstone and sandstone with early carbonate
cement have more diverse heavy mineral
assemblages compared with adjacent friable
sandstone (Blatt & Sutherland 1969, Bramlette
1941).
144
Pettijohn (1941) proposed that geological age is
the principal cause of heavy mineral loss, based on
the observation that older sandstone units have
less diverse heavy mineral assemblages compared
with younger sandstone units. However, there are
many examples of ancient sandstones with rich
and diverse heavy mineral assemblages,
including Permo-Triassic sandstone units in
Ukraine, Devonian sandstone units of the
Pyrenees, and Ordovician sandstone units of
Scotland and Ireland (Dewey & Mange 1999,
Kelling 1962, Sarksiyan 1958, Stattegger 1976,
Styles et al. 1989). Therefore, although older
sandstone units tend to have low diversity heavy
mineral assemblages, the presence of ancient
sandstone with diverse heavy mineral assemblages
proves that geological age is not the main control on
intrastratal dissolution. Nevertheless, geological
time plays an important role, because with
increasing time, dissolution events are more likely
to occur, and even slow chemical reactions may
proceed to completion.
Heavy mineral assemblages and the sedimentary
cycle
The processes that affect the composition of
heavy mineral assemblages from source to sink are
shown schematically in Fig. 8-11. Mineralogy is
ultimately controlled by the composition of the
FIG. 8-11. Schematic
diagram showing the
controls on heavy
mineral assemblages
operative from source to
sink (adapted from
Hurst & Morton 2001).

source rocks in the hinterland and by the weathering
regime (transport- or weathering-limited) that is
operative in the drainage basin. When detritus enters
the alluvial basin, it undergoes weathering-related
degradation during periods of storage. The extent to
which the sediment is modified in the alluvial basin
is controlled by time, climate and accommodation
space. Apatite is an especially sensitive indicator of
the extent of weathering during alluvial storage.
On the shallow marine shelf, sedimentary
processes involve repeated cycles of erosion and
deposition, which tend to homogenize the
mineralogical variations present further up-system
through changes in provenance and weathering.
Consequently, heavy mineral signatures of shallow
marine strata tend to be characterized by more
gradual and/or lower frequency changes than those
of alluvial basin strata. Heavy mineral signatures of
deep marine (turbidite) sequences have different
styles, some having uniform characteristics whereas
others show high frequency variations (Fig. 8-12).
These differences are explained by contrasting
sediment transport paths (Hurst & Morton 2001).
Deep water sandstones with fluctuating mineralogy
are inferred to be derived directly from alluvial
basins, bypassing any contemporaneous shallow
marine shelf, whereas those with homogeneous
characteristics are inferred to be fed by sediment
that originally accumulated on the shallow marine
shelf.
Well 22/11a-5
2320 2100
2330 2110
2340 2120
2350
depth (m)
2130
2360 2140
2370 2150
2380 2160
60
2390
2400
40 50 60 70 80
FIG. 8-12. Contrasting styles in turbidite mineralogy in
the Paleocene of the UK continental shelf. The ATi
profile in well 22/11a-5 is from the Forties Formation
in the central North Sea, whereas that from 204/24a-3
is from the Vaila Formation in the Faroe-Shetland
Basin. Note the much greater fluctuation in ATi in the
Forties Formation compared with the Vaila Formation,
suggesting the Forties depositional system bypassed
the shelf, in contrast to the Vaila sandstone, which is
interpreted as having been shed from a shallow marine
shelf area. Adapted from Hurst and Morton (2001).
A. MORTON
Recycling
Since many heavy minerals are stable during
weathering and diagenesis, they can be readily
recycled from pre-existing sandstone. However,
quantifying the amount of recycled detritus in a
heavy mineral population is a complex issue. A
heavy mineral assemblage rich in unstable phases
such as pyroxene and amphibole almost certainly
indicates the sandstone has an important first cycle
component, but the stable phases such as zircon,
rutile and tourmaline may nevertheless be recycled.
Furthermore, the recycled component is likely to be
relatively depleted in heavy minerals compared with
the first cycle component, especially one derived
from a mafic or intermediate source. Hence, the
recycled contribution is likely to be underestimated
if provenance is interpreted on the basis of heavy
mineral abundances without regard to the heavy
mineral productivity of the first cycle and recycled
sources.
Low diversity heavy mineral assemblages may
be indicative of recycling, especially if they have a
high degree of textural maturity. Hubert (1962)
introduced the zircon-tourmaline-rutile (ZTR) index
as a measure of maturity, and this index has often
been used to estimate the extent recycling.
However, it is important to recognize that burial
diagenesis has significant potential to modify ZTR.
Furthermore, it is also possible that first cycle
sandstones may have high ZTR, especially if they
Well 204/24a-3
have a largely granitic provenance and underwent
intense tropical weathering during the sedimentary
cycle, as in the case of Eocene–Oligocene of Borneo
(van Hattum et al. 2006).
PROVENANCE-SENSITIVE PARAMETERS
The processes of weathering, transport,
deposition and diagenesis play a major part in
controlling heavy mineral assemblage compositions.
It is therefore vital that provenance-sensitive
70 80 90 100
parameters are used to evaluate accurately
provenance and to develop reliable correlation
frameworks. Such parameters must be
comparatively insensitive to variations in the extent
of weathering, to changes in hydraulic conditions,
and to differences in the extent of burial diagenesis.
Two complementary approaches are recommended
to assess heavy mineral provenance (Mange-
Rajetzky 1995, Mange & Wright 2007, Morton &
Hallsworth 1994, 1999). The first is conventional
heavy mineral analysis, which uses attributes shown
by the entire heavy mineral suite, whereas varietal
heavy mineral analysis, also termed high resolution
145
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

heavy mineral analysis (HRHMA) by Mange-
Rajetzky (1995), concentrates on the attributes
shown by individual mineral species.
Conventional heavy mineral analysis
The processes of transport and deposition
control the relative proportions of minerals with
different hydraulic behavior. The principal factors
influencing hydraulic behavior are grain size and
density, with shape being an important but
subordinate influence. Therefore, changes in
hydrodynamic conditions cause variations in the
ratio of denser minerals, such as zircon, garnet or
rutile, to less dense minerals, such as apatite and
tourmaline, within the size range recommended for
analysis.
In order to minimize the effects of hydro-
dynamic fractionation on the original provenance
signal, it is necessary to determine the relative
abundance of minerals that behave in the same way
during transport and deposition. Since grain size and
grain density are the principal controls on hydraulic
behavior, the provenance signal can be isolated by
restricting the analysis to a relatively narrow size
fraction and by determining ratios of minerals with
similar density, such as apatite:tourmaline and
rutile:zircon. In order to maximize the possibility of
identifying the full range of detrital minerals, the
size fraction concerned should be at the fine end of
the sand range, the most suitable being the 63–125
μm fraction (Morton & Hallsworth 1994).
To minimize the diagenetic effects on heavy
mineral assemblages, it is important to consider only
those minerals considered to be stable in the context
of the study. This can be assessed by a consideration
of the overall diversity of the assemblage, the burial
history, and whether grain surfaces display evidence
of corrosion.
Morton & Hallsworth (1994, 1999) considered
that ratios of stable minerals with similar
hydrodynamic behavior (Table 8-5) reflect source
area characteristics, since they cannot be
significantly fractionated either by burial diagenesis
TABLE 8-5. PROVENANCE-SENSITIVE HEAVY MINERAL RATIOS
or by hydraulic processes that operate during
transport and deposition. Of the provenance-
sensitive parameters proposed by Morton &
Hallsworth (1994), rutile:zircon (RuZi), monazite:
zircon (MZi), chrome spinel:zircon (CZi) and
apatite:tourmaline (ATi) are unaffected by burial
diagenetic processes, since apatite, chrome spinel,
monazite rutile, tourmaline and zircon are all stable
under such conditions. However, garnet:zircon
(GZi) has dubious value in sandstone units that have
suffered garnet dissolution. Although ATi is a
useful provenance-sensitive parameter, it is also a
reflection of the extent of weathering, since apatite
is unstable under such conditions. Consequently,
ATi may provide information on sediment transport
history. Prolonged or intense weathering may also
result in lowered GZi, as in the Statfjord Formation
of the northern North Sea (Morton & Berge 1995)
since garnet is also unstable in weathering, although
to a lesser extent than apatite.
As noted above, the zircon-tourmaline-rutile
index (ZTR) is commonly used as a measure of
maturity of heavy mineral assemblages (Hubert
1962). However, it is important to bear in mind that
a high ZTR index could also be the result of intense
diagenetic modification, and may not necessarily
indicate a polycyclic history.
Varietal heavy mineral analysis
The effects of diagenesis on heavy mineral
assemblages can be minimized by concentrating on
properties displayed by a single stable mineral
group. This approach also minimizes the density-
controlled sorting that occurs during transport.
Varietal heavy mineral methods fall into three main
categories: petrographic, mineral chemical, and
isotopic.
Petrographic data
Petrographic varietal data are acquired by
categorizing different varieties of individual
minerals on the basis of optical properties such as
color, habit or zoning pattern, and is termed

Index Definition
ATi apatite:tourmaline index % apatite in total apatite plus tourmaline
GZi garnet:zircon index % garnet in total garnet plus zircon
RuZi rutile:zircon index % rutile in total rutile plus zircon
MZi monazite:zircon index % monazite in total monazite plus zircon
CZi chrome spinel:zircon index % chrome spinel in total chrome spinel plus zircon
From Morton & Hallsworth (1994)

146
 A. MORTON

HRHMA by Mange-Rajetzky (1995). For example, Mineral chemical data

zircon morphology has been used as a petrogenetic
indicator (Pupin 1980), and color varieties of zircon
(Mackie 1923) and tourmaline (Krynine 1946) may
be diagnostic of provenance. Variations in
amphibole color have been used as a proxy for
metamorphic grade of detritus in Alpine rivers
(Garzanti et al. 2004, 2006b). Textural data, such as
the extent of grain rounding, may also yield
important information on sedimentation history. An
example of the application of HRHMA is shown in
Fig. 8-13, which displays marked changes in
varieties of tourmaline, zircon and apatite in a
Triassic red-bed succession from the UK central
North Sea (Mange-Rajetzky 1995) and suggests that
the provenance evolved substantially during
deposition. By comparison, the overall heavy
mineral spectrum shows relatively little variation
and does not resolve the changes in provenance
evident from the HRHMA data.
Virtually every component of the heavy mineral
suite displays a range of compositions that can be
used to categorize and differentiate mineral varieties
(Mange & Morton 2007). Furthermore, in many
cases, mineral chemical data can be used to relate
sediment directly to specific source rock types.
Mineral chemical data have been used to evaluate
provenance of clinopyroxene (Pinto et al. 2004),
amphibole (von Eynatten & Gaupp 1999), epidote
(Spiegel et al. 2002), titanite (Asiedu et al. 2000),
staurolite (Acquafredda et al. 1997), garnet (von
Eynatten & Gaupp 1999), tourmaline (Morton et al.
2005), chrome spinel (Pober & Faupl 1988),
chloritoid (Lonergan & Mange-Rajetzky 1994),
apatite (Morton & Yaxley 2007), rutile (Meinhold et
al. 2008) and zircon (Grimes et al. 2007).
Compositions of opaque minerals, notably ilmenite
and magnetite, have also been used for provenance
evaluation (Grigsby 1990, 1992, Schneiderman

FIG. 8-13. Heavy mineral

assemblages in the
Triassic of well 22/24a-5,
UK sector of the central
North Sea, from Mange-
Rajetzky (1995). The
conventional heavy min-
eral data show little
systematic variation,
but varietal analysis
(HRHMA) of tourmaline,
zircon and apatite reveals
distinct provenance-
related variations that can
be used for correlative
purposes.

147
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
1995), with ilmenite compositions having particular
significance for diamond exploration (Nowicki et al.
2007). There is potential to use other minerals, such
as monazite, which displays variations in REE
patterns (Fleischer & Altschuler 1969) and kyanite,
andalusite and sillimanite, which have variable trace
element compositions (Pearson & Shaw 1960), but
as yet little attention has been paid to these minerals
in a provenance context.
The minerals that have greatest application in
provenance and correlation studies are those that are
stable, since they provide crucial provenance
information from sandstone that has undergone
extensive diagenetic modification. The minerals that
have been most widely used are garnet and
tourmaline, since both are relatively stable and show
a wide range in compositions that can be related to
specific source rock types (Henry & Guidotti 1985;
Mange & Morton 2007). However, garnet cannot be
used universally because it undergoes dissolution in
very deep burial conditions. Care is required if
garnet geochemistry is used to evaluate provenance
in sandstone units that show evidence for advanced
garnet dissolution, since Ca-rich garnet is less stable
than Ca-poor varieties (Morton & Hallsworth 2007).
Recent studies of rutile, another ultrastable mineral,
suggest this mineral will play an important role in
provenance studies of diagenetically modified
sandstone (Zack et al. 2004, Meinhold et al. 2008).
Mineral chemical analysis of apatite and chrome
spinel also have considerable potential for
reconstructing provenance in such circumstances.
Isotopic data
Single grain isotopic methods provide powerful
constraints on provenance, since they give
geochronological data that can be used to
complement the mineralogical constraints provided
by conventional heavy mineral and mineral
chemical data. Single grain dating is possible on a
wide range of heavy minerals. Detrital zircon U–Pb
age dating (Fedo et al. 2003) has become almost
ubiquitous in provenance studies, and is frequently
complemented by Lu–Hf isotopic analysis
(Augustsson et al. 2006). Other minerals that can be
used to provide geochronological constraints on
provenance are amphibole (Hemming et al. 1998),
mica (von Eynatten & Wijnbrans 2003), monazite
(Evans et al. 2001), rutile (Birch et al. 2007), apatite
(Chew & Donelick, this volume) and titanite
(McAteer et al. 2010). An alternative approach is to
use fission track dating of minerals such as apatite
or zircon (Carter 1999) to provide information on
148
the metamorphic history and unroofing of the source
terrain.
HEAVY MINERALS AS INDICATORS OF
SEDIMENT PROVENANCE
In order to maximize the provenance
information from heavy mineral assemblages, it is
important to adopt an integrated approach involving:
(i) conventional (petrographic) analysis, to
determine the overall composition and
concentration of the heavy mineral assemblages
and to assess the roles played by hydrodynamic
sorting and the extent of diagenetic
modification.
(ii) determination of provenance-sensitive ratios,
which directly reflect source area character-
istics and are comparatively insensitive to
processes operative during the sedimentary
cycle (Morton & Hallsworth 1999).
(iii) acquisition of varietal data, including
petrographic characteristics, mineral chemical
data and single grain isotopic information.
Acquisition of varietal data is especially
important in sandstones that have undergone
extensive diagenetic modification, since
considerable amounts of provenance
information is destroyed under such
circumstances, and it is therefore critical that as
much information as possible is obtained from
the phases that remain.
This combination of approaches achieves
three purposes: first, it categorizes sandstone units
into different provenance groups; second, it
evaluates the extent to which the assemblages have
been modified during the sedimentary cycle, and;
third, it establishes a fingerprint that enables the
sediment to be traced back to source areas in terms
both of mineralogy and geochronology.
Case study: Paleocene submarine fan sandstone
units, Faroe-Shetland Basin
The importance of an integrated approach to
provenance is illustrated by a case study dealing
with Paleocene deep water submarine fan sandstone
units in the Faroe-Shetland Basin (Morton et al.
2012b). In this basin, four different sand types
(FSP1, FSP2, FSP3 and FSP4) have been identified
on the basis of a combination of parameters:
conventional heavy mineral data (in particular
clinopyroxene abundance), provenance-sensitive
ratios (notably rutile:zircon), garnet and rutile
geochemistry, U–Pb dating of detrital zircon, and
palynofloral analysis.
 A. MORTON
Sand types FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4 were all
sourced from the eastern margin of the basin
(Orkney-Shetland Platform). FSP1 is interpreted as
having an important basement component
comprising both Archean (Lewisian) gneiss and
Proterozoic (Moine/Dalradian) metasedimentary
rocks. FSP2 includes a large recycled Triassic
component, and FSP4 was at least partly recycled
from the Carboniferous. The FSP2 source area was
located towards the south of the Orkney-Shetland
Platform, whereas FSP4 sands were derived from
further north. The amount of recycling diminished
with time: FSP2 and FSP3 sandstone types are
dominant in the earlier sediments, with FSP1
detritus becoming more abundant in younger
sandstone layers.
By contrast, FSP3 sandstone was derived from
the west. It was in part derived from mafic volcanic
rocks and in part from Archean basement rocks. A
westerly origin is confirmed by the association with
a diagnostic ‘Greenland’ palynoflora. The source of
the FSP3 sandstone type remains uncertain since
zircon age data rule out derivation from the
Greenland landmass, and it is considered most likely
that it was sourced from intrabasinal highs. The
distribution of the four sand types and of the
‘Greenland’ palynoflora are shown in Figure 8-14.
An integrated approach was crucial in the
recognition of these four sand types and to
determine their provenance, because they cannot be
distinguished on the basis of one single parameter.
The rutile:zircon index (RuZi) distinguishes sand
type FSP3 from the other types, but cannot
discriminate FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4. Furthermore,
there is a limited amount of overlap in RuZi values
between FSP3 and FSP4 (Fig. 8-15). Clinopyroxene
is present only in sand type FSP3, but not every
FSP3 sandstone sample contains clinopyroxene
owing to the instability of this mineral during burial
diagenesis (Fig. 8-16). Garnet geochemistry is the
main parameter that has been used to distinguish
FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4 (Figs 8-17 and 8-18).
However, FSP3 garnet populations overlap those of
FSP1 and FSP2. Furthermore, this technique cannot
be used in the deeper parts of the basin owing to the
extensive garnet dissolution at burial depths
exceeding 4 km (Fig. 8-19). Rutile geochemistry
differentiates FSP2 from FSP1 and FSP4, but is
difficult to apply to FSP3 owing to its low rutile
content (Fig. 8-20). Zircon geochronology has
relatively poor discriminatory value. It is helpful in
distinguishing FSP3 from FSP1, 2 and 4 on the basis
of the abundance of the Archean component, but
149
does not enable differentiation of any of the other
three sand types (Fig. 8-21).
Terrestrially derived palynofloral assemblages
identify input to the Faroe-Shetland Basin from both
west and east. However, the distribution of the
westerly derived ‘Greenland flora’ is wider than the
distribution of the westerly derived sand type FSP3
(Fig. 8-14). The apparent decoupling of pollen and
sand provenance is interpreted as the result of their
different hydrodynamic behavior. Terrestrially
derived palynomorphs fall into the 5–60 μm size
range, and therefore have hydrodynamic properties
comparable with silt size sedimentary particles. As a
result, they are likely to remain in suspension for
longer periods than sand particles derived from the
same region. In consequence, they can be
transported further offshore than sand particles,
accounting for their wide distribution in the
Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin.
This study demonstrates that understanding the
complexity of sand provenance in sedimentary
basins requires an integrated approach, and that
significant detail is likely to be lost if only one
provenance tool is employed. In this instance, zircon
dating proved to be relatively poor at distinguishing
different sediment transport systems. Consequently,
an incomplete understanding of provenance patterns
in the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin would
have been reached if the only technique used had
been zircon age dating. An integrated approach
maximizes the amount of provenance information
and is crucial in building up a detailed picture of the
lithological, mineralogical and geochronological
constitution of sediment source regions.
CORRELATION USING HEAVY MINERALS
Heavy mineral stratigraphy has been used to
subdivide and correlate siliciclastic successions
since the early work of Illing (1916). The technique
is normally applied in cases where biostratigraphic
control is poor or absent, but is also used to
complement traditional biostratigraphy (Morton et
al. 2002). Successful application of the technique
depends on the presence of changes in sediment
provenance or transport history during deposition of
the succession in question. Reliable correlation also
depends on using parameters that reflect changes in
provenance and transport history, and are insensitive
to fractionation during transport and deposition or to
the effects of burial diagenesis. Early attempts to
zone hydrocarbon reservoir sandstone units using
heavy minerals failed because of a lack of
appreciation of these factors, notably burial-related
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

FIG. 8-14. Distribution of sand types FSP1, 2, 3 and 4, and of the ‘Greenland flora’, in the Faroe-Shetland Basin, west of
Shetland, UK (from Morton et al. 2012b). Published with permission from the Geological Society of America.

150
 A. MORTON

60 60

FSP1 FSP2

40 40
RuZi

RuZi
20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
ATi ATi
southern area northern area

60 60

FSP3 FSP4

40 40
RuZi

RuZi

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
ATi ATi
FSP4a FSP4b

FIG. 8-15. Plots of rutile:zircon index (RuZi) and apatite:tourmaline index (ATi) for sand types FSP1, FSP2, FSP3 and FSP4
in the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland Basin, from Morton et al. (2012b). Published with permission from the Geological
Society of America.
60

FIG. 8-16. Relationship between rutile:zircon index (RuZi)

40 and clinopyroxene abundance in the Paleocene of the
Faroe-Shetland Basin, from Morton et al. (2012b),
RuZi

showing that sandstone with high clinopyroxene contents

only occur in sandstone with low RuZi (sand type FSP3).
20 Published with permission from the Geological Society of
America.

0
0 20 40 60 80
% clinopyroxene
Sand Type FSP1 Sand Type FSP2

Sand Type FSP3 Sand Type FSP4

151
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

FIG. 8-17. Representative garnet ternary diagrams for sand types FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4, Paleocene, Faroe-Shetland Basin
(after Morton et al., 2012b). For definition of garnet types Ai, Aii, B and C, see Mange & Morton (2007) and Jolley
and Morton (2007). Published with permission from the Geological Society of America.

100

80

60
GZi

40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Burial depth (m)

FIG. 8-18. Relative abundance of garnet types Ai, Aii and
B+C in Paleocene sandstones of the Faroe-Shetland
Basin, showing the differentiation of sand types FSP1,
FSP2 and FSP4, and the overlap shown by FSP3.
Published with permission from the Geological Society
of America.
FIG. 8-19. Relationship between garnet:zircon index
(GZi) and present-day burial depth in Paleocene
samples from the Faroe-Shetland Basin. Published with
permission from the Geological Society of America.

152
 A. MORTON

50 50
204/19-3A, 1944.21 m, 208/17-2, 2405.00 m,
n=52 (FSP1) n=65 (FSP1)
40 40

30 30

% rutile
% rut ile
20 20

10 10

0 0

450-500
500-550
550-600
600-650
650-700
700-750
750-800
800-850
850-900
900-950
950-1000
1000-1050
1050-1100
450-500
500-550
550-600
600-650
650-700
700-750
750-800
800-850
850-900
900-950
950-1000
1000-1050
1050-1100
50 50
204/20-1z, 2673.15 m, 208/19-1, 2458.55 m,
n=58 (FSP2) n=60 (FSP4)
40 40
ToC ToC
30 30

% rut ile
% rut ile

20 20

10 10

0 0

450-500
500-550
550-600
600-650
650-700
700-750
750-800
800-850
850-900
900-950
950-1000
1000-1050
1050-1100
450-500
500-550
550-600
600-650
650-700
700-750
750-800
800-850
850-900
900-950
950-1000
1000-1050
1050-1100

ToC ToC
amphibolite/eclogite granulite amphibolite/eclogite granulite

metapelitic metamafic

FIG. 8-20. Rutile geochemistry for sand types FSP1, FSP2 and FSP4. Note the abundance of granulite-facies rutile in sand
type FSP2, which differentiates this sand type from FSP1 and FSP4. Differentiation of metamafic and metapelitic rutile is
achieved using Cr and Nb contents as described by Meinhold et al. (2008). Temperature calculation uses Zr following the
formula proposed by Watson et al. (2006). Published with permission from the Geological Society of America.
mineral dissolution that caused heavy mineral zones The key parameters that were used to erect the
to cross-cut other stratigraphic markers, sometimes correlation framework are provenance-sensitive
at high angles (Cogen 1936). Heavy mineral ratios of heavy minerals, notably GZi (garnet:
stratigraphy fell out of favor at this point, and has zircon), RuZi (rutile:zircon), SZi (staurolite:zircon)
been reaccepted only relatively recently following and ATi (apatite:tourmaline), together with apatite
research into the controls on heavy mineral grain morphology. Variations in these parameters,
distribution in the subsurface and a better which are shown for the fully cored well Core Area
understanding of provenance-sensitive parameters. 206/8-8 (Fig. 8-23), enable recognition of a
fundamental change in provenance at the Lower
Correlation case study Clair Group–Upper Clair Group boundary, together
The use of heavy minerals for stratigraphic with identification of six units (I-VI) and a number
correlation is illustrated using an example from the of subunits within the Lower Clair Group related to
largely non-marine Devonian–Carboniferous Clair more subtle changes in provenance and sediment
Group succession that hosts hydrocarbons in the transport history. Particular features of note are the
Clair Field, west of Shetland, UK (Fig. 8-22). The presence of two units (III and V) that contain
Clair Group comprises over 1000 m of clastic abundant well rounded apatite, interpreted as
sediment deposited in a range of fluvial, lacustrine indicating greater eolian influence, and the upward-
and eolian environments (Allen & Mange-Rajetzky decreasing trend in GZi in the upper part of Unit VI,
1992, Morton et al. 2010). The scarcity of which reflects increasing input from intermediate to
palynomorphs and microfossils precluded acidic gneiss.
development of a high resolution biostratigraphic The stratigraphic framework that was
correlation framework, requiring an alternative established for the cored well 206/8-8 (Fig. 8-23) is
approach to establish a viable reservoir model. This also evident in the adjacent well 206/8-9Y (Morton
has been achieved using heavy mineral analysis. et al. 2010), even though analysis on this well was

153
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

0.004
Sand type FSP1
(46/60, 90-100% concordant)
0.003
Archean = 33%
FIG. 8-21. Zircon age spectra In FSP1,
0.002
FSP2, FSP3 and FSP4 sandstone
units displayed as relative
0.001 probability plots generated using
0.000
Agedisplay (Sircombe, 2004). Dark
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 grey areas are zircon grains with 90-
0.004
Sand type FSP2
100% concordance, pale grey areas
0.003 (87/109, 90-100% concordant) are zircon grains with <90%
Archean = 31%
concordance. Published with
0.002
permission from the Geological
Society of America.
Relative probability

0.001

0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0.004
Sand type FSP3
0.003 (120/128, 90-100% concordant)
Archean = 63%
0.002

0.001

0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0.004
Sand type FSP4
0.003 (122/135, 90-100% concordant)
Archean = 38%
0.002

0.001

0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Age (Ma)

FIG. 8-22. Clair Field location map,

showing the main structural blocks
and wells mentioned in this paper.
From Morton et al. (2010).
Published with permission from
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
Geology).

154
 A. MORTON

1600
1620 UCG
1640 (VII/VIII)
1660 VIc
1680
1700
1720
VIb
1740
1760
1780
1800 VIa
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900 V
1920
1940
Depth (m)

1960
IVc
1980
2000
2020
2040 IVb
2060
2080 IVa
2100
2120
IIIc
2140
IIIb
2160
2180
2200 IIIa
2220
2240
2260 II
2280
2300
2320
2340 I
2360
2380
2400

gamma ATi ARi GZi RuZi SZi

FIG. 8-23. Heavy mineral stratigraphy of the cored well 206/8-8 (Core Area), showing subdivision of the Lower Clair Group
(units I-VI) and the contrasting composition of the Upper Clair Group (UCG).
ATi = apatite:tourmaline index RuZi = rutile:zircon index
ARi = apatite roundness index SZi = staurolite:zircon index
GZi = garnet:zircon index
conducted on ditch cuttings. However, as shown in (i) Thinning or absence of units below Unit V in
Fig. 8-3, ATi values are lower owing to the Lower Clair Group in the Ridge Area (well
mechanically induced loss of apatite through the 206/8-2).
abrasive action of the drill bit. Apatite roundness (ii) Thinning of the upper part of Unit VI on the
measurements are also lower in the ditch cuttings Ridge compared with the Core Area, possibly
samples due to grain fracturing. due to erosion following deposition of the
The heavy mineral stratigraphy established in Lower Clair Group and prior to deposition of
the Core Area wells 206/8-8 and 206/8-9Y is also the Upper Clair Group. This suggests that the
evident in other parts of the Clair Field structure Ridge Area was uplifted to form a positive
(Horst and Ridge, Fig. 8-22), enabling correlation structural feature. Evidence for tectonism at
across the entire field area (Fig. 8-24). Key features this time is supported by the major change in
of the correlation are: provenance that took place across the Lower
Clair Group–Upper Clair Group boundary.

155
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
206/8-2
(Ridge) 206/8-9Y
(Core)
X BC U
VII-
IX
VIb
VIa
V V
IVb
III
I/II
0
gamma (API)
200
0 200
gamma (API)
FIG. 8-24. Heavy mineral correlation of Clair Field wells 206/8-2 (Ridge), 206/8-9Y (Core), 206/8-8 (Core) and 206/13a-2
(Horst). BCU = base Cretaceous unconformity.
(iii) The increased thickness of the Upper Clair
Group in the Ridge Area, including
preservation of the youngest part of the
succession (Unit X).
(iv) Truncation of the Upper Clair Group in the two
Core Area wells, and of the upper part of the
Lower Clair Group in the Horst Area, implying
that the Core and Horst areas were structurally
elevated compared with the Ridge during the
Cretaceous.
The heavy mineral correlation framework
established for the Clair Field reservoir succession
has also been used to solve specific stratigraphic
problems. For example, well 206/9-1 (Fig. 8-22),
NE of the main part of the field, has a Clair Group
succession over 600 m thick. Initially, the majority
of the succession was assigned to the Lower Clair
Group, with a thin Upper Clair (Allen & Mange-
Rajetzky 1992). The stratigraphy was reinterpreted
following reprocessing of seismic data, and
concluded that the well had actually penetrated a
thick Upper Clair succession overlying a thin Lower
Clair. Heavy mineral data acquired from the
succession (Fig. 8-25) conclusively prove the latter
interpretation, since most of the succession has
156
206/8-8
(Core)
206/13a-2
(Horst)
VIb
VIa
IVc
IVb
IVa
IIIc
IIIb
III
IIIa
II
I
0 200
gamma (API)
0 200
gamma (API)
typical Upper Clair signatures (very high GZi and
SZi values) with only a thin Lower Clair Group
succession present at the base.
The existence of a high resolution stratigraphic
framework for the Clair Group succession in the
Clair Field has enabled the use of heavy mineral
analysis to be used to track stratigraphy on a ‘real-
time’ basis during drilling of high-angle appraisal
and production wells (Morton & Milne 2012). The
technique is effective because data can be generated
rapidly, with heavy mineral preparation and data
acquisition taking less than 2 hours from receipt of
each sample at the surface. Since the key logging
sensors are located more than 20 m behind the drill
bit, and penetration rates are commonly between 5
and 10 m/h, heavy mineral data are generally
acquired before geophysical logging data are
available. Furthermore, a change in stratigraphy can
usually be identified by a while single heavy
mineral determination, in general at least 10–15 m
of log trace is needed to identify the same change
with any confidence.
Well 206/8-A03Z is a typical example of the
application of heavy mineral analysis to monitor
stratigraphy during Clair Field drilling (Fig. 8-26).
 A. MORTON

2200
FIG. 8-25. Stratigraphic variations
in selected heavy mineral
parameters for well 206/9-1,
showing the heavy mineral pick
2400 for top Lower Clair Group,
identified by the marked
Measured depth (m)

downhole decrease in SZi and

coincident increase in ARi, and
the subsequent fall in GZi.
2600
ATi = apatite:tourmaline index
ARi = apatite roundness index
Top LCG as GZi = garnet:zircon index
defined by heavy
mineral data
SZi = staurolite:zircon index
2800
0 50 100 0 20 40 60 80 90 100 0 50 100
ATi ARi GZi SZi

VIb

VIa

2500

VIa
V
3000
VIa

3500
0 200 0.1 1000 2.1 2.7 20 100 0 50 40 100 0 40 0 100
gamma resistivity density ATi ARi GZi RuZi UTi
unstables

FIG. 8-26. Heavy mineral stratigraphy of the Clair Group acquired during drilling of Core area production well 206/8-A03Z.
ATi = apatite:tourmaline index
ARi = apatite roundness index
Unstables (white symbols) = epidote + titanite (%)
The well was planned to cross-cut the Upper Clair
Group, then build up the angle of penetration within
Unit VI and to become near-horizontal in Unit V
(Fig. 8-27). The aim was to maximize penetration of
Unit V, which has the best quality reservoir
sandstone. In practice, the outcome was somewhat
more complicated, with heavy mineral analysis
picking out repeated entry and exit from units V and
VIa through a faulted zone, before penetrating a
long section of the target Unit V reservoir at the toe
of the well (Figs. 8-26 and 8-27). The repeated
GZi = garnet:zircon index
RuZi = rutile:zircon index
UTi (grey symbols) = unstable minerals:tourmaline index
boundaries between Unit VIa and Unit V are clearly
marked by changes in ATi, ARi, GZi and UTi. Unit
boundaries picked on the basis of the heavy mineral
data are closely coincident with changes in density,
which is the most reliable log pick for the top of
Unit V. A decision was taken not to alter trajectory
while drilling through the faulted zone, since the
heavy mineral data showed that the well path was
tracking close to the Unit V – Unit VI boundary.
The successful application of heavy mineral
analysis in the Clair Field demonstrates that the

157
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
method can be reliably applied to correlation of
clastic successions, and is particularly applicable for
correlating hydrocarbon reservoir sandstone units.
The technique is successful because it generates
data that are independent of factors such as
hydrodynamics and diagenesis, and therefore
directly reflect correlatable geological events such
as changes in provenance, sediment transport
history and climate, and because it can be applied to
ditch cuttings samples with as much success as core
or outcrop material.
CONCLUSIONS
Heavy minerals are highly sensitive provenance
indicators with a long history of application in
studies of sand and sandstone. However, successful
application of heavy mineral analysis to evaluate
sand provenance and transport history requires
careful consideration of the effects of processes that
operate during the sedimentary cycle, since these
may obscure or remove crucial provenance inform-
ation. The processes that have the greatest impact
are hydrodynamic sorting during transport and
deposition, weathering during periods of alluvial
storage on the floodplain, and diagenesis during
deep burial. Mechanical abrasion appears to have
little impact in natural situations but some minerals,
notably apatite, are susceptible to depletion during
drilling through the abrasive action of the drill bit.
158
FIG. 8-27. Schematic diagram of
the 206/8-A03Z well track
showing the interpreted geology
along hole, adapted from
Morton and Milne (2012).
Parameters that can be reliably used to identify
provenance are those that are relatively insensitive
to hydrodynamics, weathering and diagenesis.
Suitable parameters include ratios of minerals that
are (i) stable in the diagenetic context of the study
and (ii) behave in a similar fashion during transport
and deposition (controlled by grain size, grain
density, and to a lesser extent, grain shape).
Provenance-sensitive data can also be acquired by
studies of individual mineral varieties (‘varietal
data’), including data acquired petrographically
(color, habit, shape), and major and trace element
data acquired by EMPA or LA–ICP–MS.
Heavy mineral provenance studies yield
optimum information when an integrated approach
is adopted, since this builds up a detailed picture of
the lithological, mineralogical and geochronological
constitution of sediment source regions. Acquisition
of single grain mineral chemical and isotopic data is
especially important in sandstone that has been
heavily modified during diagenesis, since a
significant amount of provenance information will
have been lost through mineral dissolution.
Changes in provenance or transport history
during sandstone deposition provide a potential
basis for correlation. Reliable correlation
frameworks depend on the use of provenance-
sensitive parameters, such as mineral ratios and
varietal data. It is especially important to exclude
 A. MORTON
use of minerals that are unstable in the diagenetic
context of the study, since this leads to erroneous
correlations (as recognized by Cogen 1936).
Apatite is a key mineral for provenance and
correlation studies, because its instability in
weathering makes it an important tracer of periods
of alluvial storage. In certain circumstances, notably
the Upper Jurassic of the North Sea, variations in
apatite abundance correlate with relative sea-level
change. Apatite is abundant in high-stand sandstone
but depleted in the low-stands, apparently the direct
result of the increase in areal extent of the
floodplain. Apatite also stores important textural
information, since it has relatively low hardness and
therefore is more readily rounded during prolonged
transport (especially under eolian conditions).
Apatite roundness is therefore a key indicator of
transport history and is an important parameter in
correlation of both Devonian–Carboniferous and
Triassic successions of the UK continental shelf
(Mange-Rajetzky 1995, Morton et al. 2010).
Advances in technology such as Raman
spectroscopy (Andò et al. 2011), QemSCAN (Pirrie
et al. 2004), MLA (Sylvester, this volume) and
CCSEM (Kuelen et al. 2009) offer great potential
for heavy mineral studies in the future, especially to
evaluate the provenance of siltstone and mudstone,
and to acquire information on opaque phases.
However, these methods should be used to
complement traditional petrographic data, which
provide varietal and textural information that the
newer methods cannot as yet resolve.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Eduardo Garzanti, Paul
Sylvester, Shane Tyrell and Grant Wach for their
detailed and constructive comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
ACQUAFREDDA, P., FORNELLI, A., PICCARRETA, G.
& SUMMA, V. (1997): Provenance and tectonic
implications of heavy minerals in Pliocene-
Pleistocene siliciclastic sediments of the southern
Apennines, Italy. Sediment. Geol. 113, 149-159.
ALLEN, P.A. & MANGE-RAJETZKY, M.A. (1992):
Sedimentary evolution of the Devonian-
Carboniferous Clair Field, offshore northwestern
UK: impact of changing provenance. Marine &
Petrol. Geol. 9, 29-52.
ANDÒ, S., VIGNOLA, P. & GARZANTI, E. (2011):
Raman counting: a new method to determine
159
provenance of silt. Rendiconti Lincei 22, 327-347.
ASIEDU, D.K., SUZUKI, S. & SHIBATA, T. (2000):
Provenance of sandstones from the Lower
Cretaceous Sasayama Group, Inner Zone of
Southwest Japan. Sediment. Geol. 131, 9-24.
AUGUSTSSON, C., MÜNKER, C., BAHLBURG, H. &
FANNING, C.M. (2006): Provenance of late
Palaeozoic metasediments of the SW South
American Gondwana margin: a combined U-Pb
and Hf-isotope study of single detrital zircons. J.
Geol. Soc., London 163, 983-995.
BABA, J. & KOMAR, P.D. (1981): Measurements and
analysis of settling velocities of natural quartz
sand grains. J. Sediment. Pet. 51, 631-640.
BATEMAN, R.M. & CATT, J.A. (1985): Modification
of heavy mineral assemblages in English
coversands by acid pedochemical weathering.
Catena 12, 1-21.
BATEMAN, R.M. & CATT, J.A. (2007): Provenance
and palaeoenvironmental significance of
superficial deposits, with particular reference to
post-depositional modification of heavy mineral
assemblages. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M.
Mange & D.T. Wright, eds). Developments in
Sedimentology 58, 151-188.
BENNETT, P.C., ROGERS, J.R., CHOI, W.J. &
HIEBERT, F.K. (2001): Silicates, silicate weather-
ing, and microbial ecology. Geomicrobiol. J. 18,
3-19.
BERNER, R.A., SJÖBERG, E.L., VELBEL, M.A. &
KROM, M.D. (1980): Dissolution of pyroxenes
and amphiboles during weathering. Science 207,
1205-1206.
BIRCH, W. D., BARRON, L. M., MAGEE, C. &
SUTHERLAND, F.L. (2007): Gold- and diamond-
bearing White Hills Gravel, St Arnaud district,
Victoria: age and provenance based on U-Pb
dating of zircon and rutile. Australian J. Earth
Sci. 54, 609-628.
BLATT, H. & SUTHERLAND B. (1969): Intrastratal
solution and non-opaque heavy minerals in
shales. J. Sediment. Pet. 39, 591-600.
BOSWELL, P.G.H. (1916): The stratigraphy and
petrology of the Lower Eocene deposits of the
north-eastern part of the London Basin. Quart. J.
Geol. Soc. London 71, 536-588.
BOSWELL, P.G.H. (1933): On the mineralogy of
sedimentary rocks. Murby & Co., London, 393 p.
BRAMLETTE, M.N. (1941): The stability of minerals
in sandstone. J. Sediment. Pet. 11, 32-36.
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
BRIGGS, L.I., MCCULLOCH, D.S. & MOSER, F.
(1962): The hydraulic shape of sand particles. J.
Sediment. Pet. 32, 645-656.
CARTER, A.J. (1999): Present status and future
avenues of source region discrimination and
characterisation using fission track analysis.
Sediment. Geol. 124, 31-45.
CAVAZZA, W. & GANDOLFI, G. (1992): Diagenetic
processes along a basin-wide marker bed as a
function of burial depth. J. Sediment. Pet. 62,
261-272.
CHEW, D.M. & DONELICK, R.A. (2012): Combined
apatite fission track and U-Pb dating by
LA-ICPMS and its application in apatite
provenance analysis. In Quantitative Mineralogy
and Microanalysis of Sediments and Sedimentary
Rocks (P. Sylvester, ed.). Mineral. Assoc.
Canada Short Course Series 42, 219-247 (this
volume).
COGEN, W.M. (1936): Heavy-mineral zones in the
Modelo Formation of the Santa Monica
Mountains, California. J. Sediment. Pet. 6, 3-14.
DE FILIPPI F. (1839): Sulla costituzione geologica
della pianura e delle colline della Lombardia.
Annali Universali di Statistica 59, 225-248.
DE RÉAUMUR, R.A.F. (1718): Essais de l’histoire
des rivieres et des ruisseaux du Royaume qui
roulent les paillettes d’Or. Mémoires de
l’Academie Royale 68-88.
DEWEY, J. & MANGE, M. (1999): Petrography of
Ordovician and Silurian sediments in the western
Irish Caledonides: tracers of a short-lived Ordovi-
cian continent-arc collision orogeny and the evol-
ution of the Laurentian Appalachian-Caledonian
margin. In Continental tectonics (C. MacNiocaill
& P.D. Ryan, eds). Geol. Soc. London, Special
Publication 164, 55-107.
DIETZ, V. (1973): Experiments on the influence of
transport on shape and roundness of heavy
minerals. Contrib. Sediment., 1,103-125.
DOYLE, L.J., CARDER, K.L. & STEWARD, R.G.
(1983): The hydraulic equivalence of mica. J.
Sediment. Pet. 53, 643-648.
DRYDEN, A.L. & DRYDEN, C. (1946): Comparative
rates of weathering of some common heavy
minerals. J. Sediment. Pet. 16, 91-96.
EDELMAN, C.H. & DOEGLAS, D.J. (1932):
Reliktstructuren detritischer pyroxene und
amphibole. Tschermaks Mineralogische und
Petrographische Mitteilungen 42, 482-490.
160
EDELMAN, C.H. & DOEGLAS, D.J. (1934): Über
umwandlungserscheinungen an detritischem
staurolith und anderen mineralien. Tschermaks
Mineralogische und Petrographische
Mitteilungen 44, 225-234.
EVANS, J.A., CHISHOLM, J.I. & LENG, M.J. (2001):
How U-Pb detrital monazite ages contribute to the
interpretation of the Pennine Basin infill. J. Geol.
Soc., London 158, 741-744.
FEDO, C.M., SIRCOMBE, K.N. & RAINBIRD, R.H.
(2003): Detrital zircon analysis of the sedimentary
record. In Zircon (J.M. Hanchar & P.W.O.
Hoskin, eds). Rev. Mineral. & Geochem. 53, 277-
303.
FLEISCHER, M. & ALTSCHULER, Z.S. (1969): The
relationship of the rare-earth element composition
of minerals to geological environment. Geochim.
et Cosmochim. Acta 33, 725-732.
FRIESE, F.W. (1931): Untersuchung von mineralen
auf abnutzbarkeit bei verfrachtung im wasser.
Tschermaks Mineralogische und Petrographische
Mitteilungen 41, 1-7.
GARZANTI, E. & ANDÒ, S. (2007): Heavy-mineral
concentration inmodern sands: implications for
provenance interpretation. In Heavy Minerals in
Use (M. Mange & D.T. Wright, eds).
Developments in Sedimentology 58, 517-545.
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S., FRANCE-LANORD, C.,
VEZZOLI, G., CENSI, P., GALY, V. & NAJMAN, Y.
(2010): Mineralogical and chemical variability of
fluvial sediments 1. Bedload sand (Ganga–
Brahmaputra, Bangladesh). Earth & Planet. Sci.
Lett. 299, 368-381.
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S., VEZZOLI, G., MEGID,
A.A.A. & EL KAMMAR, A. (2006a): Petrology of
Nile River sands (Ethiopia and Sudan): sediment
budgets and erosion patterns. Earth & Planet. Sci.
Lett. 252, 327-341.
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S. & VEZZOLI, G. (2006b):
The continental crust as a source of sand
(southern Alps cross section, northern Italy). J.
Geol 114, 533-554.
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S. & VEZZOLI, G. (2008):
Settling equivalence of detrital minerals and
grain-size dependence of sediment composition.
Earth & Planet. Sci. Lett. 273, 138-151.
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S. & VEZZOLI, G. (2009):
Grain-size dependence of sediment composition
and environmental bias in provenance studies.
Earth & Planet. Sci. Lett. 277, 422-432.
 A. MORTON
GARZANTI, E., ANDÒ, S. , VEZZOLI, G., LUSTRINO,
M., BONI, M., & VERMEESCH, P. (2012):
Petrology of the Namib sand Sea: long-distance
transport and compositional variability in the
wind-displaced Orange delta. Earth Sci. Rev. (in
press).
GARZANTI, E., VEZZOLI, G., LOMBARDO, B., ANDÒ,
S., MAURI, E., MONGUZZI, S. & RUSSO, M.
(2004): Collision-orogen provenance (western
Alps): detrital signatures and unroofing trends. J.
Geol. 112, 145-164.
GAZZI, P. (1965): On the heavy mineral zones in the
Geosyncline series. Recent studies in the northern
Apennines, Italy. J. Sediment. Pet. 35, 109-115.
GOLDICH, S.S. (1938): A study in rock weathering.
J. Geol. 46, 17-58.
GRIGSBY, J.D. (1990): Detrital magnetite as a
provenance indicator. J. Sediment. Petrol. 60,
940-951.
GRIGSBY, J.D. (1992): Chemical fingerprinting in
detrital ilmenite: a viable alternative in proven-
ance research. J. Sediment. Pet. 62, 331-337.
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, 643-646.
GRIMM, W.D. (1973): Stepwise heavy mineral
weathering in the Residual Quartz Gravel,
Bavarian Molasse (Germany). Contrib. Sediment.
1, 103-125.
HANSLEY, P.L. (1987): Petrologic and experimental
evidence for the etching of garnets by organic
acids in the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation,
northwestern New Mexico. J. Sediment. Pet. 57,
666-681.
HEDBERG, H.D. (1928): Some aspects of
sedimentary petrology in relation to stratigraphy
in the Bolivar coast fields of the Maracaibo Basin,
Venezuela. J. Palaeontology 2, 32-42.
HEMINGWAY, J.E. & TAMAR-AGHA, M.Y. (1975):
The effects of diagenesis on some heavy minerals
from the sandstones of the Middle Limestone
Group in Northumberland. Proc. Yorkshire Geol.
Soc. 40, 537-546.
HEMMING, S.R., BROECKER, W.S., SHARP, W.D.,
BOND, G.C., GWIAZDA, R.H., MCMANUS, J.F.,
KLAS, M. & HAJDAS I. (1998): Provenance of
Heinrich layers in core V28-82, northeastern
161
Atlantic: 40Ar/39Ar ages of ice-rafted hornblende,
Pb isotopes in feldspar grains, and Nd-Sr-Pb
isotopes in the fine sediment fraction. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 164, 317-333.
HENRY, D.J. & GUIDOTTI, C.V. (1985): Tourmaline
as a petrogenetic indicator mineral: an example
from the staurolite-grade metapelites of NW
Maine. American Mineral. 70, 1-15.
HOWER, J., ESLINGER, E.V., HOWER, M.E. & PERRY,
E.A. (1976): Mechanisms of burial and
metamorphism of argillaceous sediment. I.
Mineralogical and chemical evidence. Bull. Geol.
Soc. America 87, 725-737.
HUBERT, J.F. (1962): A zircon-tourmaline-rutile
maturity index and the interdependence of the
composition of heavy mineral assemblages with
the gross composition and texture of sandstones.
J. Sediment. Pet. 32, 440-450.
HUBERT, J.F. (1971): Analysis of heavy mineral
assemblages. In Procedures in Sedimentary
Petrology (R.E. Carver, ed.). Wiley, New York,
453-478.
HURST, A. & MORTON, A.C. (2001): Generic
relationships in the mineral-chemical stratigraphy
of turbidite sandstones. J. Geol. Soc. London 158,
401-404.
ILLING, V.C. (1916): The oilfields of Trinidad.
Proc. Geolog. Assoc. 27, 115.
JOHNSSON, M.J., STALLARD, R.F. & LUNDBERG, N.
(1991): Controls on the composition of fluvial
sands from a tropical weathering environment:
Sands of the Orinoco drainage basin, Venezuela
and Colombia. Bull. Geol. Soc. America 103,
1622-1647.
JOLLEY, D.W. & MORTON, A.C. (2007):
Understanding basin sedimentary provenance
using allied phytogeographic and heavy mineral
analytical techniques: evidence for sediment
transfer pathways in the Paleocene of the north-
east Atlantic. J. Geol. Soc., London 164, 553-563.
KELLING, G. (1962): The petrology and sediment-
ation of Upper Ordovician rocks in the Rhinns of
Galloway, south-west Scotland. Trans. Royal Soc.
Edinburgh 65, 107-137.
KOMAR, P.D. (2007): The entrainment, transport
and sorting of heavy minerals by waves and
currents. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M. Mange &
D.T. Wright, eds). Dev. Sediment. 58, 3-48.
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
KOMAR, P.D. & WANG, C. (1984): Processes of
selective grain transport and the formation of
placers on beaches. J. Geol. 92, 637-355.
KOWALEWSKI, M. & RIMSTIDT, J.D. (2003):
Average lifetime and age spectra of detrital
grains: toward a unifying theory of sedimentary
particles. J. Geol. 111, 427-439.
KRYNINE, P.D. (1946): The tourmaline group in
sediments. J. Geol. 54, 65-87.
KUELEN, N., HUTCHISON, M.T. & FREI, D. (2009):
Computer-controlled scanning electron
microscopy: a fast and reliable tool for diamond
prospecting. J. Geochem. Explor. 103, 1-5.
LÅNG, L.-O. (2000): Heavy mineral weathering
under acidic soil conditions. Applied Geochem.
15, 415-423.
LEMCKE, K., VON ENGELHARDT, W. &
FÜCHTBAUER, H. (1953): Geologische und
sedimentpetrographische untersuchungen im
Westteil der ungefalteten molasse des
süddeutschen Alpen-vorlandes. Beihefte zum
Geologischen Jahrbuch 11.
LE ROUX, G., LAVERRET, E. & SHOTYK, W. (2006):
Fate of calcite, apatite and feldspars in an
ombrotrophic peat bog, Black Forest, Germany. J.
Geol. Soc., London 163 641-646.
LONERGAN , L. & MANGE-RAJETZKY, M.A. (1994):
Evidence for the Internal Zone unroofing from
foreland basin sediments, Betic Cordillera, SE
Spain. J. Geol. Soc. London 151, 515-529.
MACKIE, W. (1923): The source of purple zircons in
the sedimentary rocks of Scotland. Trans.
Edinburgh Geol. Soc. 11, 200-213.
MANGE, M.A. & MAURER, H.F.W. (1992): Heavy
minerals in colour. Chapman and Hall, London,
147 p.
MANGE, M.A. & MORTON, A.C. (2007):
Geochemistry of heavy minerals. In Heavy
Minerals in Use (M. Mange & D.T. Wright, eds).
Dev. Sediment. 58, 345-391.
MANGE, M. & WRIGHT, D.T. (2007): High-
resolution heavy mineral analysis (HRHMA): a
brief summary. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M.
Mange & D.T. Wright, eds). Dev. Sediment. 58,
433-436.
MANGE-RAJETZKY, M.A. (1983): Sediment dispers-
al from source to shelf on an active continental
margin, S.Turkey. Marine Geol. 52, 1-26.
162
MANGE-RAJETZKY, M.A. (1995): Subdivision and
correlation of monotonous sandstone sequences
using high resolution heavy mineral analysis, a
case study: the Triassic of the Central Graben. In
Non-Biostratigraphical Methods of Dating and
Correlation (R.E. Dunay & E.A. Hailwood, eds).
Geol. Soc. London, Special Publication 89, 23-30.
MCATEER, C.A., DALY, J.S., FLOWERDEW, M.J.,
CONNELLY, J.N., HOUSH, T.B. & WHITEHOUSE,
M.J. (2010): Detrital zircon, detrital titanite and
igneous clast U–Pb geochronology and basement-
cover relationships of the Colonsay Group, SW
Scotland: Laurentian provenance and correlation
with the Neoproterozoic Dalradian Supergroup.
Precamb. Res. 181, 21-42.
MCMASTER, R.L. (1954): Petrography and genesis
of the New Jersey beach sands. Bulletin of the
New Jersey Department of Conservation & Econ-
omic Development, Geology Series 63, 239 p.
MEINHOLD, G, ANDERS, B, KOSTOPOULOS, D. &
REISCHMANN, T. (2008): Rutile chemistry and
thermometry as provenance indicator: an example
from Chios Island, Greece. Sediment. Geol. 203,
98-111.
MILLIKEN, K.L. (2007): Provenance and diagenesis
of heavy minerals, Cenozoic units of the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin.
In Heavy Minerals in Use (M. Mange & D.T.
Wright, eds). Dev. Sediment. 58, 247-261.
MILLIKEN, K.L. & MACK, L.E. (1990): Subsurface
dissolution of heavy minerals, Frio Formation
sandstones of the ancestral Rio Grande Province,
South Texas. Sediment. Geol. 68, 187-199.
MILNER, H.B. (1962): Sedimentary petrography, 4th
edition, vol. II. Principles and Applications. Allen
and Unwin, London, 715 p.
MITCHELL, W.A. (1975): Heavy Minerals. In Soil
Components II. Inorganic (J.E. Gieseking, ed.).
Springer-Verlag, New York, 449-480.
MORTON, A.C. (1979): Surface textures of heavy
mineral grains from the Palaeocene of the central
North Sea. Scot. J. Geol. 15, 293-300.
MORTON, A.C. (1985): Heavy minerals in
provenance studies. In Provenance of arenites
(G.G. Zuffa, ed.). Reidel, Dordrecht, 249-277.
MORTON, A.C. & BERGE C. (1995): Heavy mineral
suites in the Statfjord and Nansen Formations of
the Brent Field, North Sea: a new tool for
reservoir subdivision and correlation. Petroleum
Geosci. 1, 355-364.
 A. MORTON
MORTON, A.C. & HALLSWORTH, C.R. (1994):
Identifying provenance-specific features of
detrital heavy mineral assemblages in sandstones.
Sediment. Geol. 90, 241-256.
MORTON, A.C. & HALLSWORTH, C.R. (1999):
Processes controlling the composition of heavy
mineral assemblages in sandstones. Sediment.
Geol. 124, 3-29.
MORTON, A.C. & HALLSWORTH, C.R. (2007):
Stability of detrital heavy minerals during burial
diagenesis. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M. Mange
& D.T. Wright, eds). Dev. Sediment. 58, 215-245.
MORTON, A. & MILNE, A. (2012): Heavy mineral
stratigraphic analysis on the Clair Field, UK West
of Shetlands - a unique real-time solution for
redbed correlation while drilling. Petroleum
Geosci. 18, 115-128.
MORTON, A.C. & YAXLEY G. (2007): Detrital
apatite geochemistry and its application in
provenance studies. In Sediment provenance and
petrogenesis: perspectives from petrography and
geochemistry (J. Arribas, S. Critelli & M.J.
Johnsson, eds). Geol. Soc. America, Special
Paper 420, 319-344.
MORTON, A.C., BORG, G., HANSLEY, P.L.,
HAUGHTON, P.D.W., KRINSLEY, D.H. & TRUSTY
P. (1989): The origin of faceted garnets in
sandstones: dissolution or overgrowth.
Sedimentology 36, 927-942.
MORTON, A., ELLIS, D., FANNING, M., JOLLEY, D. &
WHITHAM, A. (2012b): The importance of an
integrated approach to provenance studies: a case
study from the Paleocene of the Faroe-Shetland
Basin, NE Atlantic. In Mineralogical and
Geochemical Approaches to Provenance (E.T.
Rasbury, S.R. Hemming & N.R. Riggs, eds).
Geol. Soc. America, Special Paper 487 (in press).
MORTON, A.C., HALLSWORTH, C.R., KUNKA, J.,
LAWS, E, PAYNE, S. & WALDER, D. (2010):
Heavy mineral stratigraphy of the Clair Group
(Devonian) in the Clair Field, west of Shetland,
UK. In Application of Modern Stratigraphic
Techniques: Theory and Case Histories (K.T.
Ratcliffe & B.A. Zaitlin, eds). SEPM Special
Publication 94, 183-199.
MORTON, A.C., HUMPHREYS B., DHARMAYANTI,
D.A. & SUNDORO (1994): Palaeogeographic
implications of the heavy mineral distribution in
Miocene sandstones of the North Sumatra Basin.
J. Southeast Asian Earth Sci. 10, 177-190.
163
MORTON, A.C., KNOX, R.W.O’B. & HALLSWORTH,
C.R. (2002): Correlation of hydrocarbon
reservoirs using quantitative heavy mineral
analysis. Petroleum Geosci. 8, 251-262.
MORTON, A.C., MUNDY, D.J.C. & BINGHAM, G.
(2012a): High-frequency fluctuations in heavy
mineral assemblages from Upper Jurassic
sandstones of the Piper Formation, UK North Sea:
relationships with sea level change and floodplain
residence. In Mineralogical and Geochemical
Approaches to Provenance (E.T. Rasbury, S.R.
Hemming and N.R. Riggs, eds). Geol. Soc.
America, Special Paper 487 (in press).
MORTON, A.C., WHITHAM, A.G. & FANNING, C.M.
(2005): Provenance of Late Cretaceous-Paleocene
submarine fan sandstones in the Norwegian Sea:
integration of heavy mineral, mineral chemical
and zircon age data. Sediment. Geol. 182, 3-28.
NICKEL, E. (1973): Experimental dissolution of light
and heavy minerals in comparison with
weathering and intrastratal solution. Contrib.
Sediment. 1, 1-68.
NOWICKI, T.E., MOORE, R.O., GURNEY, J.J. &
BAUMGARTNER, M.C. (2007): Diamonds and
associated heavy minerals in kimberlite: A review
of key concepts and applications. In Heavy
Minerals in Use (M. Mange & D.T. Wright, eds).
Dev. Sediment. 58, 1235-1267.
PEARSON, G.R. & SHAW, D.M. (1960): Trace
elements in kyanite, sillimanite and andalusite.
American Mineral. 45, 808-817.
PETTIJOHN, F.J. (1941): Persistence of heavy
minerals and geologic age. J. Geol. 49, 610-625.
PILLER, H. (1951): Über den schwermineralgehalt
von anstehendem und verwittertem Brockengranit
nördlich St. Andreasberg. Heidelberger Beitrage
zur Mineralogie und Petrographie 2, 523-537.
PINTO, L., HERAIL, G., MOINE, B., FONTAN, F.,
CHARRIER, R. & DUPRE, B. (2004): Using
geochemistry to establish the igneous
provenances of the Neogene continental
sedimentary rocks in the Central Depression and
Altiplano, Central Andes. Sediment. Geol. 166,
157-183.
PIRRIE, D., BUTCHER, A.R., POWER, M.R.,
GOTTLIEB, P. & MILLER, G.L. (2004): Rapid
quantitative mineral and phase analysis using
automated scanning electron microscopy
(QemSCAN); potential applications in forensic
geoscience. In Forensic geoscience: principles,
 HEAVY MINERALS IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
techniques and applications (K. Pye & D.J. Croft,
eds). Geol. Soc. London, Special Publ. 232, 123-
136.
POBER, E. AND FAUPL, P. (1988): The chemistry of
detrital chrome spinels and its implications for the
geodynamic evolution of the Eastern Alps.
Geologische Rundschau 77, 641-670.
PUPIN, J.P. (1980): Zircon and granite petrology.
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 73, 207-220.
RAHMANI, R.A. (1973): Grain surface etching
features of some heavy minerals. J. Sediment. Pet.
43, 882-880.
REED, R.D. (1924): Role of heavy minerals in the
Coalinga Tertiary formations. Econ. Geol. 19,
730-749.
REID, I. & FROSTICK, L.E. (1985): Role of settling,
entrainment and dispersive equivalence and of
interstice trapping in placer formation. J. Geol.
Soc., London 142, 739-746.
RITTENHOUSE, G. (1943): The transportation and
deposition of heavy minerals. Bull. Geol. Soc.
America 54, 1725-80
RUBEY, W.W. (1933): The size distribution of
heavy minerals within a water-lain sandstone. J.
Sediment. Pet. 3, 3-29.
RUSSELL, R.D. (1937): Mineral composition of
Mississippi River sands. Bull. Geol. Soc. America
48, 1307-1348.
SALVINO, J.F. & VELBEL, M.A. (1989): Faceted
garnets from sandstones of the Munising
Formation (Cambrian), northern Michigan:
petrographic evidence for origin by intrastratal
dissolution. Sedimentology 36, 371-379.
SARKSIYAN, S.G. (1958): Upper Permian
continental molasses of the Pre-Urals. Eclogae
Geologicae Helvetiae 51, 1043-1051.
SAVAGE, K.M., DE CESARO, P. & POTTER, P.E.
(1988): Mineralogic maturity of modern sand
along a high-energy tropical coast: Baixada de
Jacarepaguá, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J. S. Amer.
Earth Sci. 1, 317-328.
SCAVNICAR, B. (1979): Pjescenjaci Pliocena i
Miocena savske potoline. Zbornik Radova,
sekcija za primljenu geologiju, geofiziku,
geokemiju, Serija A 6, 351-382.
SCHNEIDERMAN, J.S. (1995): Detrital opaque oxides
as provenance indicators in River Nile sediments.
J. Sediment. Res. 65, 668-674.
164
SHUKRI, N.M. (1949): The mineralogy of Nile
sediments. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 105, 511-
529.
SIRCOMBE, K.N. (2004): AgeDisplay: an EXCEL
workbook to evaluate and display univariate
geochronological data using binned frequency
histograms and probability density distributions.
Computers & Geosci. 30, 21-31.
SLINGERLAND, R.L. (1977): The effect of
entrainment on the hydraulic equivalence
relationships of light and heavy minerals in sands.
J. Sediment. Pet. 47, 753-770.
SMITHSON, F. (1941): The alteration of detrital
minerals in the Mesozoic rocks of Yorkshire.
Geol. Mag. 78, 97-112.
SPIEGEL, C., SIEBEL, W., FRISCH, W. & BERNER, Z.
(2002): Nd and Sr isotopic ratios and trace
element geochemistry of epidote from the Swiss
Molasse Basin as provenance indicators:
implications for the reconstruction of the
exhumation history of the Central Alps. Chem.
Geol. 189, 231-250.
STATTEGGER, K. (1976): Schwermineralunter-
suchungen in den klastischen Serien der
Variszischen Geosynklinale der Ost- und Zentral-
pyrenäen. Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen
geographischen Gesellschaft 69, 267-290.
STYLES, M.T., STONE, P. & FLOYD, J.D. (1989): Arc
detritus in the Southern Uplands: mineralogical
characterisation of a ‘missing’ terrain. J. Geol.
Soc. London 146 397-400.
SYLVESTER, P. (2012): Mineral Liberation
Analyser. In Quantitative Mineralogy and
Microanalysis of Sediments and Sedimentary
Rocks (P. Sylvester, ed.). Mineral. Assoc. Canada
Short Course Series Volume 42, 1-16 (this
volume).
THIEL, G.A. (1940): The relative resistance to
abrasion of mineral grains of sand size. J.
Sediment. Pet. 10, 103-124.
THIEL, G.A. (1945): Mechanical effects of stream
transportation in mineral grains of sand size. Bull.
Geol. Soc. America 56, 1207.
THÜRACH, H. (1884): Über das verkommen
mikrospokischer zirkone und titanmineralien in
des gesteinen. Verhandlungen der Physikalisch-
Medizinischen Gesellschaft zu Würzburg 18, 203-
284.
 A. MORTON

TICKELL, F.G. (1924): The correlative value of the WEBSTER, J.R., KIGHT, R.P., WINBURN, R.S. &
heavy minerals. Bull. American Assoc. Petrol. COOL, C.A. (2003): Heavy mineral analysis of
Geol. 8, 158-168. sandstones by Rietveld analysis. Advances in X-
TISSOT, B., DURAND, B., ESPITALIC, J. & COMBAZ, ray Analysis 46, 198-203.
A. (1974): Influence of nature and diagenesis of WEYL, R. & WERNER, H. (1951): Schwermineral-
organic matter in formation of petroleum. Bull. untersuchungen im Jungtertïär und Altquartär
American Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 58, 499-506. Schleswig-Holsteins. Proceedings of the 3rd
TOTTEN, M.W. & HANAN, M.A. (2007): Heavy International Sedimentology Congress,
minerals in shales. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M. Groningen-Wageningen, 293-303.
Mange & D.T. Wright, eds). Dev. Sedimentology WIESENEDER, H. & MAURER, J. (1958): Ursachen
58, 323-341. der räumlichen und zeitlichen aenderung des
TURNER, G. & MORTON, A.C. (2007): The effects of mineralbestandes der sedimente des Wiener
burial diagenesis on detrital heavy mineral grain beckens. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 51, 1155-
surface textures. In Heavy Minerals in Use (M. 1172.
Mange & D.T. Wright, eds). Dev. Sedimentology YURKOVA, R.M. (1970): Comparison of postsedi-
58, 393-412. mentary alteration of oil-, gas- and water-bearing
VAN ANDEL, T.H. (1950): Provenance, transport rocks. Sedimentology 15, 53-68
and deposition of Rhine sediments. Veenman en ZACK, T., VON EYNATTEN, H. & KRONZ, A. (2004):
Zonen, Wageningen. Rutile geochemistry and its potential use in
VAN HATTUM, M.W.A, HALL, R., PICKARD, A.L. & quantitative provenance studies. Sediment. Geol.
NICHOLS, G.J. (2006): Southeast Asian sediments 171, 37-58.
not from Asia: Provenance and geochronology of
north Borneo sandstones. Geology 34, 589-592.
VELBEL, M.A. (1999): Bond strength and the
relative weathering rates of simple orthosilicates.
Amer. J. Sci. 299, 679-696.
VON EYNATTEN, H. & GAUPP, R. (1999): Proven-
ance of Cretaceous synorogenic sandstones in the
Eastern Alps: constraints from framework
petrography, heavy mineral analysis and mineral
chemistry. Sediment. Geol. 124, 81-111.
VON EYNATTEN, H. & WIJNBRANS, J.R. (2003):
Exhumation of the Central Alps: evidence from
40
Ar/39Ar laserprobe dating of detrital white micas
from the Swiss Molasse Basin. In Tracing
tectonic deformation using the sedimentary record
(T. McCann & A. Saintot, eds). Geol. Soc.
London, Special Publication 208, 289-305.
WALDERHAUG, O. & PORTEN, K.W. (2007):
Stability of detrital heavy minerals on the
Norwegian continental shelf as a function of
depth and temperature. J. Sediment. Pet. 77, 992-
1002.
WALKER, T.R. (1974): Formation of red beds in
moist tropical climates: a hypothesis. Bull. Geol.
Soc. America 85, 633-638.
WATSON, E.B., WARK, D.A., & THOMAS, J.B.
(2006): Crystallization thermometers for zircon
and rutile. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 151, 413-
433.

165