Optimized workflow using the composition of magnetite as an indicator mineral for porphyry Cu deposits - Supplemental tables and figures

Supplemental tables and figures for doi:Table S1 - S3: Major, minor, and trace element concentrations in magnetite from LA-ICP-MS techniques for sample 12-PMA-094-A01, 12-PMA-098-A01, and 12-PMA-101-A02 (respectively)Table S4: External standard relative percent differences between known and measured values for various workflowsTable S5: Relative standard deviations from repeat analyses on external standardsTable S6: External standard mean element concentration comparisons from using sum normalization versus internal standard techniquesTable S7: Example calculations for similarity coefficients for sample 12-PMA-094-A01Table S8: Linear discriminant analysis model (LDA2) from Pisiak et al. (2017) plotting templateFigure S1: Similarity coefficients calculated from the ratios of element concentrations between our various workflows and those of Pisiak et al., 2017, using elements that are germane to the magnetite crystal structure (Mg, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni). Similarity coefficient calculations after Borchardt et al. (1972). Outlier magnetite grains with similarity coefficients Figure S2: Scoring of igneous versus hydrothermal magnetite based on Ti versus Ni/Cr (Dare et al., 2014) using analytical results from Workflow 3 (this study) for samples: a) 12-PMA-094-A01, b) 12-PMA-098-A01, and c) 12-PMA-101-A02. Blue squares indicate if magnetite scored as hydrothermal (HTP) using the LDA2 model of Pisiak et al. (2017).