• Program

    The Goldschmidt2020 program

  • Venue

    All about the venue and city

  • Registration

    Details of how to register to attend the conference and/or submit an abstract

  • Exhibition

    Information for and about exhibitors and sponsors

  • My Goldschmidt

    My program, purchases, connections, etc.




  • Sponsor Seminars

  • Training Events

    These are scheduled events to help delegates test out the tools and platform we will be using for the Q&A and other events at the conference.

  • Workshops

    Our workshop program provides training and teaching in topics across geochemistry and related fields. We are currently liaising with the workshop organisers to ascertain if any workshops can become virtual. Any updates will be added to this page.


  • Conference Locations

    Location of the convention center and social events

  • Hotels

    The hotels are no longer available to book at the special rates agreed by the conference. Should you wish to cancel or change your hotel reservation please see the details below.


Present your work




My Goldschmidt

Role functions

Abstract Details

Reconstructing Global Ocean Redox Conditions by Coupling the Mo and U Isotope Systems of Euxinic Organic-Rich Mudrocks

Lyu X, Dahl TW, Zheng W, Wang S & Kendall B

Lyu X, Dahl TW, Zheng W, Wang S & Kendall B (2020) Goldschmidt Abstracts, 2020 1671

Sorry, the PDF cannot be displayed on your browser.

Download abstract

The author has not provided any additional details.

12g: Room 4, View in program

Listed below are questions that have been submitted by the community that the author will try and cover in their presentation. To submit a question, ensure you are signed in to the website. Authors or session conveners approve questions before they are displayed here.

Submitted by Elizabeth King on
From Conveners: 1) Looking forward to summary of right panel (positive correlation, no correlation, negative correlation) -- how do you resolve varying degrees of correlation (e.g. slightly positive versus acutely positive)? 2) Building off previous question, still focused on the rightmost panel: what is going on in the Doushantuo Formation to make it look so distinct from other units (particularly with very light Mo isotopes)? 3) What trajectory would diagenetic, metamorphic, or recent oxidative alteration impart in d98Mo vs. d238U space? In other words, could these model outputs help to identify situations where the isotopic data are better interpreted as secondary alterations artifacts than primary signatures?
Thank you for the questions. 1) The correlations were determined based on observations. We will examine the correlation coefficients between d98Mo and d238U for each formation. Thank you for pointing this out. 2) We hypothesized that the low d98Mo of group 1 was mainly caused by the local depositional environment (e.g., the particulate Fe-Mn shuttle, bottom water redox conditions, basin restrictions) because of similar d238U but distinct d98Mo between group 1 and 2. Particularly, the Fe-Mn oxides shuttle could influence sedimentary d98Mo record (cause lower values) but not d238U. Ostrander et al. (2019) reported similar low d98Mo values for the Member II, III, IV of the Doushantuo Formation and local depositional environment were suggested to cause these low d98Mo values. 3) It is a good question. Post-depositional alterations could influence the primary signatures of rocks. However, it is not known how these processes could influence d98Mo and d238U values. As far as I know, only the ca. 1730Ma Wollogorang Formation, which was affected by the post-depositional hydrothermal fluids, have d98Mo (Kendall et al., 2009) and d238U (Yang et al., 2017) data reported. Most studies focused on using rocks that were less altered. Therefore, there are still a lot of unknowns regarding how these secondary alterations influence the d98Mo and d238U of rocks.

Sign in to ask a question.