pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.27389 · v1 · pith:MI7DDXNDnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · ⚛️ physics.gen-ph

Magnetron Sputtering Formation of Nanoparticles from Natural Olivine Rock for Atmospheric CO2 Capture

Brendan Matulis , Greyson Wells , Stefania Crespi , Nicola Rotiroti , Alessandro Podest\`a , Yuwei Zhang , Alberto Calloni , Gianlorenzo Bussetti
show 2 more authors
Fernando C\'amara Marcel Di Vece
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 01:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.gen-ph
keywords olivinenanoparticlesmagnetron sputteringCO2 captureatmospheric carbonmineral processingcarbon mineralizationgas aggregation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Olivine nanoparticles fabricated by magnetron sputtering from natural rock absorb atmospheric CO2.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that nanoparticles of olivine can be produced from natural rock using magnetron sputtering in a gas aggregation source. Optimization involves adding hydrogen to the argon plasma and adjusting the aggregation distance to maximize yield. The resulting particles are confirmed to be olivine and to take up CO2 from the atmosphere through various analysis methods. This nanoscale conversion speeds up the mineralization process for carbon capture without requiring extreme conditions.

Core claim

Magnetron sputtering in a gas aggregation nanoparticle generator converts natural olivine rock into well-defined nanoparticles. These nanoparticles absorb atmospheric CO2, as confirmed by a suite of characterization techniques. The sputter target surface shows an interplay between the plasma and the mineral's crystallinity and morphology. The process yield is optimized by hydrogen introduction to the plasma and varying aggregation distance, and the argon plasma exhibits hysteresis with respect to power that may aid energy efficiency.

What carries the argument

Gas aggregation magnetron sputtering of natural olivine rock to form nanoparticles for CO2 absorption.

If this is right

  • The nanoscale form enhances CO2 absorption kinetics at ambient conditions.
  • Plasma hysteresis with power suggests a route to more energy-efficient production.
  • The method provides a practical step toward using olivine nanoparticles for carbon capture and storage.
  • It serves as a starting point for applying the technology to convert other minerals into nanoparticles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Scaling the sputtering process could enable larger-scale atmospheric CO2 removal if particle yields are high enough.
  • The nanoparticles might exhibit unique surface properties compared to mechanically ground olivine, potentially affecting long-term storage stability.
  • This approach could be tested for other carbon-capturing minerals like serpentine to broaden the method.
  • Integration with existing industrial sputtering equipment might lower barriers to adoption.

Load-bearing premise

The nanoparticles retain the chemical composition and structure of natural olivine sufficiently to enable the claimed CO2 absorption.

What would settle it

If X-ray diffraction or spectroscopy reveals that the nanoparticles are not olivine or if exposure to air shows no carbon uptake, the central claim would be falsified.

read the original abstract

The two-birds-one-stone mineralization of CO2 by olivine, is a promising method to both capture carbon directly from the atmosphere and at the same time locking it for storage or utilization. Converting olivine to the nanoscale considerably enhances the kinetics without the need for high temperatures or pressures. Here we present the fabrication of olivine nanoparticles from a natural rock that were fabricated in a gas aggregation magnetron nanoparticle generator. The nanoparticle yield was optimized by enhancing the argon plasma sputter plasma by hydrogen introduction and varying the aggregation distance. The hysteresis of the argon sputter plasma with respect to power is a promising property towards energy efficiency. The formation of well-defined olivine nanoparticles and their subsequent absorption of atmospheric CO2 was confirmed by a suite of techniques. The olivine sputter target surface revealed an intricate interplay between the sputter plasma and olivine composition in terms of crystallinity and morphology. More broadly, this work forms the next step in the practical application of Olivine nanoparticles for economical carbon capture and storage, it also is the starting point for the use of this specific nanoparticle technology for mineral-to-nanoparticle conversion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the fabrication of nanoparticles from natural olivine rock using a gas-aggregation magnetron sputtering source. Nanoparticle yield is optimized by adding hydrogen to the argon plasma and varying aggregation distance; plasma hysteresis with power is noted as potentially energy-efficient. The abstract states that formation of well-defined olivine nanoparticles and their atmospheric CO2 absorption were confirmed by a suite of techniques, while the target surface exhibits an intricate interplay between sputter plasma and olivine composition, crystallinity, and morphology. The work is positioned as advancing practical mineral-based CO2 capture.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the approach would demonstrate a room-temperature route to high-surface-area olivine nanoparticles from abundant natural rock, enabling faster CO2 mineralization kinetics for direct air capture without high temperature or pressure. The plasma-optimization parameters and noted hysteresis could offer practical advantages for scalable production.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'the formation of well-defined olivine nanoparticles and their subsequent absorption of atmospheric CO2 was confirmed by a suite of techniques' is load-bearing for the entire manuscript, yet the provided text supplies no quantitative results (e.g., XRD peak positions or intensities, XPS stoichiometry, TEM size distributions with error bars, or CO2 uptake curves). Without these data it is impossible to verify that the sputtered particles retain (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 stoichiometry and crystallinity rather than forming altered phases.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The text explicitly notes an 'intricate interplay between the sputter plasma and olivine composition in terms of crystallinity and morphology,' which raises the possibility of preferential sputtering, amorphization, or phase segregation. No section demonstrates that post-sputter nanoparticles are compositionally and structurally equivalent to the starting natural olivine with sufficient surface reactivity for the claimed CO2 absorption; this equivalence is required for the kinetic-enhancement assertion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for identifying areas where the abstract and supporting text require greater quantitative clarity. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the characterization data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'the formation of well-defined olivine nanoparticles and their subsequent absorption of atmospheric CO2 was confirmed by a suite of techniques' is load-bearing for the entire manuscript, yet the provided text supplies no quantitative results (e.g., XRD peak positions or intensities, XPS stoichiometry, TEM size distributions with error bars, or CO2 uptake curves). Without these data it is impossible to verify that the sputtered particles retain (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 stoichiometry and crystallinity rather than forming altered phases.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support. The full manuscript contains the relevant data in the Results and Characterization sections (XRD patterns with indexed peaks, XPS survey and high-resolution spectra, TEM histograms with measured size distributions, and CO2 exposure measurements). To address the concern directly, we will revise the abstract to include representative quantitative values extracted from these figures, such as retained stoichiometry ratios, average particle diameter with standard deviation, and observed CO2 uptake amounts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The text explicitly notes an 'intricate interplay between the sputter plasma and olivine composition in terms of crystallinity and morphology,' which raises the possibility of preferential sputtering, amorphization, or phase segregation. No section demonstrates that post-sputter nanoparticles are compositionally and structurally equivalent to the starting natural olivine with sufficient surface reactivity for the claimed CO2 absorption; this equivalence is required for the kinetic-enhancement assertion.

    Authors: The manuscript presents the nanoparticle characterization results as evidence that the sputtered particles retain the essential olivine properties needed for CO2 reactivity. However, we acknowledge that a more explicit side-by-side comparison of pre- and post-sputter material properties would strengthen the argument against phase alteration. We will add a concise discussion paragraph that directly compares the XRD, XPS, and TEM results of the nanoparticles to the starting rock, together with the CO2 uptake data, to demonstrate retained composition, crystallinity, and surface reactivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental fabrication and characterization

full rationale

The manuscript reports magnetron sputtering fabrication of olivine nanoparticles from natural rock, optimization of yield via plasma parameters, and confirmation of CO2 absorption via characterization techniques. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, derivations, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. All claims rest on physical processes and external measurements rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. This is the expected outcome for an experimental methods paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that nanoscale olivine enhances CO2 mineralization kinetics without high temperature or pressure, plus experimental choices for plasma parameters whose specific values are not reported.

free parameters (2)
  • hydrogen fraction in argon plasma
    Introduced to enhance sputter yield; exact percentage or flow rate not stated in abstract.
  • aggregation distance
    Varied to optimize nanoparticle formation; specific distances and resulting yields not provided.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Nanoscale conversion of olivine enhances CO2 reaction kinetics at ambient conditions
    Invoked in the opening sentence as the basis for pursuing nanoparticles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5761 in / 1334 out tokens · 45999 ms · 2026-06-29T01:36:19.288335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Economist 2023, 5

    2023

  2. [2]

    E. S. Sanz-Pérez, C. R. Murdock, S. A. Didas, C. W. Jones, Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 11840

    2016

  3. [3]

    M. Bui, C. S. Adjiman, A. Bardow, E. J. Anthony, A. Boston, S. Brown, P. S. Fennell, S. Fuss, A. Galindo, L. A. Hackett, J. P. Hallett, H. J. Herzog, G. Jackson, J. Kemper, S. Krevor, G. C. Maitland, M. Matuszewski, I. S. Metcalfe, C. Petit, G. Puxty, J. Reimer, D. M. Reiner, E. S. Rubin, S. A. Scott, N. Shah, B. Smit, J. P. M. Trusler, P. Webley, J. Wilc...

    2018

  4. [4]

    G. T. Rochelle, Science 2009, 325, 1652

    2009

  5. [5]

    E. Y. Mora Mendoza, A. Sarmiento Santos, E. Vera López, V. Drozd, A. Durygin, J. Chen, S. K. Saxena, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 2944

    2019

  6. [6]

    Y. Duan, D. Sorescu, D. Luebke, Int. J. Clean Coal Energy 2012, 01, DOI 10.4236/ijcce.2012.11001

    work page doi:10.4236/ijcce.2012.11001 2012

  7. [7]

    P. B. Kelemen, J. Matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008, 105, 17295

    2008

  8. [8]

    Arias, M

    B. Arias, M. Alonso, C. Abanades, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 2634

    2017

  9. [9]

    Sanna, M

    A. Sanna, M. Uibu, G. Caramanna, R. Kuusik, M. M. Maroto-Valer, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8049

    2014

  10. [10]

    S. Ó. Snæbjörnsdóttir, B. Sigfússon, C. Marieni, D. Goldberg, S. R. Gislason, E. H. Oelkers, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 90

    2020

  11. [11]

    A. A. Olajire, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2013, 109, 364

    2013

  12. [12]

    Michaelowa, M

    A. Michaelowa, M. Honegger, M. Poralla, M. Winkler, S. Dalfiume, A. Nayak, PLOS Clim. 2023, 2, e0000118

    2023

  13. [13]

    Kelemen, R

    P. Kelemen, R. Aines, E. Bennett, S. Benson, E. Carter, J. Coggon, J. de Obeso, O. Evans, G. Gadikota, G. Dipple, M. Godard, M. Harris, J. Higgins, K. Johnson, F. Kourim, R. Lafay, S. Lambart, C. Manning, J. Matter, K. Michibayashi, T. Morishita, J. Noël, K. Okazaki, P. Renforth, B. Robinson, H. Savage, R. Skarbek, M. Spiegelman, E. Takazawa, D. Teagle, J...

    2018

  14. [14]

    Kelemen, S

    P. Kelemen, S. M. Benson, H. Pilorgé, P. Psarras, J. Wilcox, Front. Clim. 2019, 1, DOI 10.3389/fclim.2019.00009

    work page doi:10.3389/fclim.2019.00009 2019

  15. [15]

    F. Wang, D. Dreisinger, M. Jarvis, T. Hitchins, Miner. Eng. 2019, 131, 185

    2019

  16. [16]

    Béarat, M

    H. Béarat, M. J. McKelvy, A. V. G. Chizmeshya, D. Gormley, R. Nunez, R. W. Carpenter, K. Squires, G. H. Wolf, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4802

    2006

  17. [17]

    Pokrovsky, J

    O. Pokrovsky, J. Schott, Geochim. Cosmochim. ACTA 2000, 64, 3313

    2000

  18. [18]

    P. Q. H. Nguyen, D. Zhang, R. Rapp, J. P. Bradley, P. Dera, RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 20687

    2021

  19. [19]

    Farina, N

    V. Farina, N. S. Gamba, F. Gennari, S. Garroni, F. Torre, A. Taras, S. Enzo, G. Mulas, Front. Energy Res. 2019, 7, DOI 10.3389/fenrg.2019.00107

    work page doi:10.3389/fenrg.2019.00107 2019

  20. [20]

    Pyrolysis (Ed.: Hassan Al- Haj Ibrahim), IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2019, p

    Ratnawulan Ratnawulan, Ahmad Fauzi, in Recent Adv. Pyrolysis (Ed.: Hassan Al- Haj Ibrahim), IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2019, p. Ch. 6

    2019

  21. [21]

    R. W. Saunders, J. M. C. Plane, Icarus 2011, 212, 373

    2011

  22. [22]

    Turri, K

    L. Turri, K. Gérardin, H. Muhr, F. Lapicque, A. Saravia, S. Szenknect, A. Mesbah, R. Mastretta, N. Dacheux, D. Meyer, A. Cloteaux, A. Gérard, S. Bertucci, Green Process. Synth. 2019, 8, 480

    2019

  23. [23]

    Rahmani, J

    O. Rahmani, J. Highfield, R. Junin, M. Tyrer, A. B. Pour, Molecules 2016, 21, DOI 10.3390/molecules21030353

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules21030353 2016

  24. [24]

    Dufourny, C

    A. Dufourny, C. Julcour, J. Esvan, L. Cassayre, P. Laniesse, F. Bourgeois, Front. Clim. 2022, 4, DOI 10.3389/fclim.2022.946735

    work page doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.946735 2022

  25. [25]

    M. L. Iozzia, F. Goto, A. Podestà, R. Vecchi, A. Calloni, C. Lenardi, G. Bussetti, M. Di Vece, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2024, n/a, 2400063

    2024

  26. [26]

    Haberland, M

    H. Haberland, M. Mall, M. Moseler, Y. Qiang, T. Reiners, Y. Thurner, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. Vac. Surf. Films 1994, 12, 2925

    1994

  27. [27]

    Haberland, M

    H. Haberland, M. Karrais, M. Mall, Y. Thurner, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. Vac. Surf. Films 1992, 10, 3266. 11

    1992

  28. [28]

    Sanzone, J

    G. Sanzone, J. Yin, K. Cooke, H. Sun, P. Lievens, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2021, 92, 033901

    2021

  29. [29]

    Coroa, G

    J. Coroa, G. Sanzone, T. Höltzl, H. Sun, E. Janssens, J. Yin, Surf. Coat. Technol. 2025, 500, 131892

    2025

  30. [30]

    Kim, C.-J

    C. Kim, C.-J. Yoo, H.-S. Oh, B. K. Min, U. Lee, J. CO2 Util. 2022, 65, 102239

    2022

  31. [31]

    B. Li, Y. Duan, D. Luebke, B. Morreale, Spec. Issue Adv. Sustain. Biofuel Prod. Use - XIX Int. Symp. Alcohol Fuels - ISAF 2013, 102, 1439

    2013

  32. [32]

    Kondratenko, G

    E. Kondratenko, G. Mul, J. Baltrusaitis, G. Larrazábal, J. Pérez-Ramírez, ENERGY Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 3112

    2013

  33. [33]

    Hepburn, E

    C. Hepburn, E. Adlen, J. Beddington, E. A. Carter, S. Fuss, N. Mac Dowell, J. C. Minx, P. Smith, C. K. Williams, Nature 2019, 575, 87

    2019

  34. [34]

    F. Clos, M. Gilio, H. L. M. van Roermund, Lithos 2014, 192–195, 8

    2014

  35. [35]

    C. V. Budtz-Jørgensen, P. Kringhøj, J. Bøttiger, Surf. Coat. Technol. 1999, 116–119, 938

    1999

  36. [36]

    Berti, A

    G. Berti, A. Calloni, A. Brambilla, G. Bussetti, L. Duò, F. Ciccacci, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2014, 85, 073901

    2014

  37. [37]

    J. H. Scofield, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1976, 8, 129

    1976

  38. [38]

    Fairley, V

    N. Fairley, V. Fernandez, M. Richard‐Plouet, C. Guillot-Deudon, J. Walton, E. Smith, D. Flahaut, M. Greiner, M. Biesinger, S. Tougaard, D. Morgan, J. Baltrusaitis, Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv. 2021, 5, 100112

    2021

  39. [39]

    Jablonski, Surf

    A. Jablonski, Surf. Interface Anal. 1993, 20, 317

    1993

  40. [40]

    Pozsgai, Ultramicroscopy 1997, 68, 69

    I. Pozsgai, Ultramicroscopy 1997, 68, 69

    1997

  41. [41]

    Polonskyi, O

    O. Polonskyi, O. Kylián, M. Drábik, J. Kousal, P. Solař, A. Artemenko, J. Čechvala, A. Choukourov, D. Slavínská, H. Biederman, J. Mater. Sci. 2014, 49, 3352

    2014

  42. [42]

    Marek, J

    A. Marek, J. Valter, S. Kadlec, J. Vyskočil, PSE 2010 Spec. Issue 2011, 205, S573

    2010

  43. [43]

    C. A. Owen, A. Podestà, C. Lenardi, S. Kadkhodazadeh, M. Di Vece, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2022, 47, 34594

    2022

  44. [44]

    Acsente, S

    T. Acsente, S. D. Stoica, C. Craciun, B. Mitu, G. Dinescu, Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2024, 44, 2233

    2024

  45. [45]

    B. B. Singh, S. Kumar, E. A. Krall, M. Goldman, T. W. Heo, U. Kortshagen, P. J. Bruggeman, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2026, 244, 155624

    2026

  46. [46]

    Jiménez-Redondo, E

    M. Jiménez-Redondo, E. Carrasco, V. J. Herrero, I. Tanarro, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2015, 24, 015029

    2015

  47. [47]

    Seo, M.-C

    J.-M. Seo, M.-C. Jeong, J.-M. Myoung, J. Cryst. Growth 2006, 295, 119

    2006

  48. [48]

    Khojasteh, V

    M. Khojasteh, V. V. Kresin, Appl. Nanosci. 2017, 7, 875

    2017

  49. [49]

    Nikitin, J

    D. Nikitin, J. Hanuš, S. Ali-Ogly, O. Polonskyi, J. Drewes, F. Faupel, H. Biederman, A. Choukourov, Plasma Process. Polym. 2019, 16, 1900079

    2019

  50. [50]

    S. Berg, T. Nyberg, Thin Solid Films 2005, 476, 215

    2005

  51. [51]

    Murri, G

    M. Murri, G. Capitani, M. Fasoli, A. Monguzzi, A. Calloni, G. Bussetti, N. Malaspina, M. Campione, ACS Earth Space Chem. 2022, 6, 197

    2022

  52. [52]

    W. Tang, J. J. Eilers, M. A. van Huis, D. Wang, R. E. I. Schropp, M. Di Vece, J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 11042

    2015

  53. [53]

    D. J. Morgan, Surf. Interface Anal. 2025, 57, 28

    2025

  54. [54]

    S. Gota, E. Guiot, M. Henriot, M. Gautier-Soyer, n.d

  55. [55]

    M. C. Biesinger, B. P. Payne, A. P. Grosvenor, L. W. M. Lau, A. R. Gerson, R. St. C. Smart, Appl. Surf. Sci. 2011, 257, 2717

    2011

  56. [56]

    C. D. Wagner, NIST X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Database, National Bureau Of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1990

    1990

  57. [57]

    R. K. Schulze, M. A. Hill, R. D. Field, P. A. Papin, R. J. Hanrahan, D. D. Byler, Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 3169

    2004

  58. [58]

    N. T. Luong, N. Veyret, J.-F. Boily, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 45055

    2023

  59. [59]

    Dufourny, C

    A. Dufourny, C. Julcour, J. Esvan, L. Cassayre, P. Laniesse, F. Bourgeois, Front. Clim. 2022, 4, 946735

    2022

  60. [60]

    M. L. Iozzia, F. Goto, A. Podestà, R. Vecchi, A. Calloni, C. Lenardi, G. Bussetti, M. Di Vece, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2025, 42, 2400063

    2025

  61. [61]

    Shchukarev, D

    A. Shchukarev, D. Korolkov, Open Chem. 2004, 2, 347. 12

    2004

  62. [62]

    V. P. Zakaznova-Herzog, H. W. Nesbitt, G. M. Bancroft, J. S. Tse, X. Gao, W. Skinner, Phys. Rev. B 2005, 72, 205113

    2005

  63. [63]

    M. W. Wegner, J. M. Christie, Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 1974, 43, 195

    1974

  64. [64]

    Shelemin, P

    A. Shelemin, P. Pleskunov, J. Kousal, J. Drewes, J. Hanuš, S. Ali-Ogly, D. Nikitin, P. Solař, J. Kratochvíl, M. Vaidulych, M. Schwartzkopf, O. Kylián, O. Polonskyi, T. Strunskus, F. Faupel, S. V. Roth, H. Biederman, A. Choukourov, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2020, 37, 1900436

    2020

  65. [65]

    S. M. Rossnagel, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1988, 6, 3049

    1988

  66. [66]

    Strijckmans, D

    K. Strijckmans, D. Depla, Appl. Surf. Sci. 2015, 331, 185

    2015

  67. [67]

    D. E. Newbury, Scanning 2004, 26, 103

    2004

  68. [68]

    R. Popa, A. Smith, R. Popa, J. Boone, M. Fisk, Astrobiology 2011, 12, 9

    2011

  69. [69]

    Q. S. Yu, C. Huang, F.-H. Hsieh, H. Huff, Y. Duan, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2007, 80B, 211

    2007

  70. [70]

    D. S. Ebel, M. K. Weisberg, J. R. Beckett, Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2012, 47, 585

    2012

  71. [71]

    E. Grün, H. Krüger, R. Srama, Space Sci. Rev. 2019, 215, 46

    2019

  72. [72]

    J. A. Sanchez, V. Reddy, M. S. Kelley, E. A. Cloutis, W. F. Bottke, D. Nesvorný, M. P. Lucas, P. S. Hardersen, M. J. Gaffey, P. A. Abell, L. L. Corre, Icarus 2014, 228, 288. 13 Figures Kittelfjäll MgO 52.43 Al2O3 0.47 SiO2 37.07 K2O 0.28 CaO 0.05 Cr2O3 0.56 MnO 0.12 Fe2O3 8.55 NiO 0.43 ZrO2 0.03 100.00 FIGURE 1 MetamorphicmapoftheSeve–KöliNappeComplexinno...

    2014