Journal Pre-proof

Ore-forming fluid source of the orogenic gold deposit:

Implications from a combined pyrite texture and geochemistry
study

Rucao Li, Huayong Chen, Ross R. Large, Liandang Zhao, Yunhua

Liu, Jiangang Jiao, Xiao-Ping Xia, Qing Yang

PII: S0009-2541(20)30320-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119781
Reference: CHEMGE 119781

To appear in: Chemical Geology

Received date: 17 November 2019

Revised date: 1 July 2020
Accepted date: 7 July 2020

Please cite this article as: R. Li, H. Chen, R.R. Large, et al., Ore-forming fluid source of
the orogenic gold deposit: Implications from a combined pyrite texture and geochemistry
study, Chemical Geology (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119781

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Ore-forming fluid source of the orogenic gold deposit: implications from a

combined pyrite texture and geochemistry study

Rucao Lia,b, Huayong Chena,c*, Ross R. Larged, Liandang Zhaoe, Yunhua Liue, Jiangang Jiaoe,

Xiao-Ping Xiaf, Qing Yangf

a
Key Laboratory of Mineralogy and Metallogeny, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese

of
Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510604, China

ro
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China

c
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mineral Physics and Materials, Guangzhou 510640,
-p
China
re
d
Centre for Ore Deposit and Exploration Science (CODES), University of Tasmania, Private Bag
lP

126, Hobart, Tasmania7001, Australia

na

e
School of Earth Science and Resources, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710054, China

f
State Key Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese
ur

Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510604, China

Jo

*
Corresponding Author: Huayong Chen

Address: Key Laboratory of Mineralogy and Metallogeny, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry,

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China

Email: huayongchen@gig.ac.cn

Abstract

Interpretation of bulk sulfur isotope data of the orogenic gold deposit is frequently hampered by
 Journal Pre-proof

complex zoning in pyrite, which calls for in-situ determination of sulfur isotope composition of sulfide

minerals. The Qiuling gold deposit, located in Qinling orogen, is representative of orogenic type and

selected here to further constrain the source of sulfur (and Au) and test the current popular ore genesis

models for deposits of this type. Detailed backscattered electron imaging (BSE) study is applied to

characterize intragrain texture, and subsequently in-situ sulfur isotope and trace element determination

using secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) and laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass

of
spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) are used to reveal sulfur and metal source and evolution of the ore-forming

ro
fluid.

Two generations of pyrite, i.e., pre-ore stage (Py1) and ore stage pyrite (Py2), were investigated in
-p
this study. In most cases, Py1 occurs as pyrite framboids, while Py2 as euhedral grains, in which Py2a
re
as anhedral core, Py2b and Py2c as euhedral inner and outer rim, respectively. The δ 34S values of both
lP

Py1 and Py2 have unusual wide ranges, i.e., a δ34S variation from -31.1 to +106.7‰ for Py1 (average
na

+0.8‰) and from -2.7 to +24.1‰ for Py2 (average +13.2). The distribution pattern of δ 34S values in

Py1 is accommodated with Rayleigh fractionation in sulfate-restricted pore water. Modeling results
ur

show that neither temperature nor oxygen fugacity change could result the variations in δ 34S values of
Jo

Py2, and contribution of both preexisting pyrite and a pulse of ore-forming fluid with δ34S about +14.2‰

may be responsible for the observed variation in Py2. Such fluid may have been sourced from

metamorphism of old strata such as the Neoproterozoic basement. Furthermore, Py2a shows an

intimate relationship with Py1 in its δ34S values, indicating Py1 may have acted as part of sulfur source

in the formation of Py2a.

Py1 is rich in a suit of element such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni, Tl and has the lowest As and Au. Py2a is

similar with Py1 but with elevated As and Au. Py2b contains more abundant As and Au compared to
 Journal Pre-proof

Py2a. Py2c is rich in As and especially Au, but depleted in other elements compared to Py2a. The

distribution pattern, coupled with sulfur isotope composition, indicates that Py2a was likely formed

with a contribution of trace elements and sulfur from Py1 at the start of hydrothermal process. Py2b

was formed with elevated proportion of contribution from the ore-forming hydrothermal fluid, while

Py2c was formed solely by the ore-forming fluid without a contribution from previous pyrite.

Consequently, the ore-forming fluid in the Qiuling gold deposit was rich in As, Au, Cu and Sb while

of
depleted in other metals such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and Tl, indicating that the pre-ore framboid pyrite may

ro
have not contributed any Au and As during mineralization.

This study highlights the importance of detailed texture characterization coupled with relatively
-p
large data set of in-situ sulfur isotope and trace elements for orogenic gold deposit research, and further
re
proves that metamorphic fluids may have significant contribution for Au mineralization in orogenic
lP

gold deposits.
na

Keywords: Orogenic gold deposits; Qiuling; Pyrite; Sulfur isotope; SIMS; Trace element

1. INTRODUCTION
ur
Jo

Orogenic gold deposits are one of the most important Au-bearing deposit types. Although with a

long research history, there has been increased controversy over genesis of these deposits recently

(Goldfarb and Groves, 2015). Even though many parameters of the ore-forming fluid reported to date

are largely consistent with the metamorphic crustal fluid source model, a magmatic-hydrothermal

model is recently coming back into favor (Bath et al., 2013; Lawrence et al., 2013; Spence-Jones et al.,

2018). Magmatic sulfur usually has a δ34S around 0‰ (Seal, 2006) and sulfur derived from

metamorphism of older strata usually have relatively wide range (Goldfarb and Groves, 2015), which

offers a promising tool to test these two models. Besides, sulfur is the complexing agent for Au, thus
 Journal Pre-proof

understanding sulfur source may be critical in defining the gold source region(s) (Goldfarb and Groves,

2015; Saunders et al., 2014; Tomkins, 2013). However, interpretation of sulfur isotope data is far from

straightforward because in many orogenic gold deposits, ore stage sulfide grains usually contain

multiple stages of overgrowths, and sulfur isotope data derived using bulk analysis represents a mixed

signal, from which no definite conclusion could be draw. In-situ determination of sulfur isotope

composition, combined with trace element analysis, has been frequently reported recently, and the high

of
spatial resolution offers a promising tool to reveal the complex overgrowth history in single grains and

ro
to trace their sulfur sources in orogenic gold deposit (Large et al., 2009; Li et al., 2014; Sung et al.,

2009; Wu et al., 2018).

-p
The Qinling orogen has become one of the most important gold provinces in China over the last
re
decades, with gold endowment over 2,000 metric tonnes (Chen and Santosh, 2014). There are more
lP

than 100 sediment-hosted gold deposits, in which more than 10 deposits are world-class (Chen and
na

Santosh, 2014; Goldfarb et al., 2005; Mao et al., 2002; Zhou et al., 2002). Recently, some deposits

previously thought to be Carlin-type (Zhang et al., 2002) were re-evaluated and suggested to be
ur

orogenic-type, such as Qiuling gold deposit in the East Qinling orogen (Chen et al., 2015).
Jo

The Qiuling epizonal orogenic deposit (Fig. 1a), located in the East Qinling Orogen (Zhang and

Shen, 1996), is an important gold deposit in this area (Chen et al., 2015). Even though with a long

research history, some key points remain unresolved (Chen et al., 2015; Shen, 1996; Zhang and Shen,

1996). Chen et al. (2015) reported in-situ sulfur isotope of ore stage pyrite, which clusters around

+12.8‰, and claimed that the sulfur should be sourced from the Upper Devonian sub-greenschist

34
facies clastic rocks. However, no existing data shows such an S-enriched average sulfur isotope

composition of the Upper Devonian strata in the Qinling orogen. Besides, the sub-greenschist facies
 Journal Pre-proof

metamorphism is generally too low to generate metamorphic fluids related to breakdown of pyrite

(Tomkins, 2010). Another aspect remain controversy is the source of gold, with some researchers claim

that gold was sourced from pre-ore stage pyrite (Shen, 1996; Zhang and Shen, 1996) while others claim

that Au (and sulfur) came from ore-forming fluid (Chen et al., 2015). The key to solve this problem

may lie in determination of the Au concentration of the pre-ore stage pyrite, which has failed to do so

in previous research. To illustrate these problems, we applied detailed BSE imaging, EPMA major

of
element, SIMS sulfur isotope and LA-ICP-MS trace element analyses on pre-ore stage pyrite (Py1) and

ro
ore stage pyrite (Py2). Combining all the results, we have shown the As and Au in Py1 is neglectable,

and the S, As, Au, Cu and Sb in ore-forming fluid are mainly sourced from metamorphic fluid released
-p
from sedimentary pyrite in the Neoproterozoic basement during its transition to pyrrhotite.
re
lP

2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
na

2.1. Regional geology

ur

The roughly NWW-striking Triassic Qinling orogen extends for about 2,500 km across central
Jo

China (Fig. 1a), and was formed by continental collision of the Yangtze and North China cratons in the

Middle-Late Triassic (Dong et al., 2011). The Qinling orogen records a complex, multistage orogenic

history involving prolonged subduction and closure of the Shangdan and Mianlue oceans from middle

Paleozoic to early Mesozoic (Dong et al., 2013; Dong et al., 2011; Meng and Zhang, 1999).

Traditionally, the Qinling orogen was divided into the North Qinling and South Qinling belts (Fig. 1a),

which are separated by the Paleozoic Shangdan suture (Dong et al., 2011; Ratschbacher et al., 2003).

The northern domain is characterized by extensive exposures of Devonian flysch sequences that

have been subjected to greenschist facies metamorphism (Mao et al., 2002; Mattauer et al., 1985), and
 Journal Pre-proof

the southern domain is bounded by the Triassic Songpan-Ganzi basin to the southwest and separated

lengthwise by the Zhouqu-Chengxian-Huixian fault (Fig. 1a). The South Qinling belt is underlain by

Paleo- to Mesoproterozoic basement metamorphic complex, composed of paragneiss and marble that

were overlain by low-K tholeiite to calc-alkaline and alkaline basalts with arc signatures (Chen et al.,

2015). Neoproterozoic basement presents both in the west and east domain of the Qinling orogen, and

in the east domain is represented by Yaolinghe Group (Dong and Santosh, 2016; Ling et al., 2008).

of
Neoproterozoic basement in the Qinling orogen is generally metamorphosed to greenschist facies, but

ro
amphibolite facies metamorphism is also reported in Yaolinghe Group (east Qinling orogen) (Zhang et

al., 1995). Above the metamorphic complex are the Cambrian to Triassic marine sedimentary rocks (up
-p
to 12,000 km in thickness). The Cambrian rocks contain a distinctive sequence of sediments composed
re
of pyritic black shale, black chert and carbonate rock with a maximum thickness of 1000 m (Chen et al.,
lP

2015; Wang and Li, 1991). Silurian to Devonian rocks are dominated by a flysch sequence consisting
na

of meta-graywacke, slate, phyllite, and carbonate which is indicative of significant subsidence and

rapid sedimentation (Zhang et al., 1997b). There are many gold deposits present in the South Qinling
ur

belt (Fig. 1a), and most of which are hosted in Devonian rocks composed of carbonate, siliciclastic and
Jo

argillaceous rocks with a total thickness of ca. 3000 ~ 8000 m that were deposited in several growth

fault-bounded basins (Liu et al., 1990). The Devonian sequence is conformably overlain by

Carboniferous to Triassic rocks consisting of shallow marine limestone with minor amounts of

siliciclastic sedimentary rocks and, locally, coal (Ma et al., 2004; Ma et al., 2007).

The Paleozoic and Triassic sedimentary rocks were intensely deformed during the Qinling

orogeny, and along with this, numerous regional northwestern striking folds and thrust faults were also

produced (Fig. 1a). These faults are the first control on the distribution of the gold deposits in this area
 Journal Pre-proof

(Chen and Santosh, 2014; Mao et al., 2002). The Qinling orogen has been broadly divided into the East

and West Qinling orogens by the Baocheng railway (Zhang et al., 1995) and the Qiuling gold deposit is

located in the East Qinling orogen.

A large number of granitoid intrusions are present to the south of the Shangdan suture, which were

emplaced during closure of the Mianlue Ocean and subsequent collision of the Yangtze and North

China cratons (Qin et al., 2009). The emplacement ages range from 239 ~ 200 Ma, which indicates

of
emplacement of the granitoid intrusions in both syn-collision and post-collision environments (Dong et

ro
al., 2011; Qin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2008). Syn-collisional intrusions were

emplaced at about 239 ~ 217 Ma, while post-collisional intrusions were mostly emplaced at about 217
-p
~ 200 Ma (Dong et al., 2011; Qin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2008).
re
2.2. Geology of the Qiuling gold deposit
lP

The Qiuling deposit, which is assigned to be an epizonal orogenic gold deposit (Chen et al., 2015),
na

is located in the south belt of the East Qinling orogen (Fig. 1a). The strata present at Qiuling are, from

old to young, the Upper Devonian Lengshuihe and Nanyangshan formations, the Lower Carboniferous
ur

Yuanjiagou Formation of and Middle Carboniferous Sixiakou Formation (Zhao and Feng, 2002). Gold
Jo

ore bodies are hosted in the Upper Devonian Nanyangshan and Lower Carboniferous Yuanjiagou

formations (Fig. 1b, Shen, 1996; Zhang and Shen, 1996). The Nanyangshan formation consists of

micrite, clastic limestone, silty limestone and calcareous siltstone, while the Yuanjiagou formation

consists of micrite, bioclastic limestone, sandy limestone with argillaceous clastic rock interlayers

(Zhao and Feng, 2002). Thin chert beds increase when approaching the Yuanjiagou formation, which is

usually used as boundary line between the two formations. No or very low-grade metamorphism is

observed in both formations. The Devonian and Carboniferous sedimentary rocks were deformed
 Journal Pre-proof

during formation of the Qinling orogen, which resulted in the formation of a number of faults and folds

involving the Paleozoic sequence (Zhang et al., 2000; Zhang and Shen, 1996; Zhang et al., 2002). The

faults occur mostly along a northwestern or nearly east-western strike and were overprinted by NE- to

NNE-striking faults (Fig. 1b). The NWW-striking Qiuling anticline is the principle structural feature in

this deposit (Fig. 1b). Gold ore bodies are mainly controlled by the NWW-striking transpressional

faults. No igneous rocks are present in the deposit area (Shen, 1996).

of
Five ore bodies were identified at the Qiuling gold deposit, i.e., 301, 302, 303, 304 and 308 (Fig.

ro
1b), in which 301 and 304 are the two main ore bodies. The ore bodies have a proven reserve of 50 t Au

at an average grade of 3 ~ 4 g/t. Gold mineralization is dominated by disseminations of fine-grained

-p
auriferous pyrite and arsenopyrite. Following gold mineralization, antimony mineralization,
re
represented by quartz-stibnite veins, was also reported at the Qiuling deposit (Zhang et al., 2000;
lP

Zhang and Shen, 1996). Other minor sulfides are sphalerite, chalcopyrite and galena (Zhang and Shen,
na

1996). Gangue minerals associated with ore minerals mainly include quartz, calcite and sericite. The

alteration and mineralization paragenesis at Qiuling is given in Appendix S1. No obvious

ur

decarbonation is observed. Researchers reported clastic hosts to gold mineralization in local parts of
Jo

40
this deposit (Zhang et al., 1997a). The age of Qiuling deposit, determined using Ar/39Ar

geochronology of ore stage sericite, is suggested to be 232.7 ± 6.9 Ma (Zhao et al., 2001), synchronous

with formation of the Qinling orogen (Dong and Santosh, 2016; Dong et al., 2011) and similar to other

orogenic gold deposit in this region (Mao et al., 2002; Zeng et al., 2013).

3. SAMPLING AND METHODS

3.1. Sampling procedure

 Journal Pre-proof

A total of 22 samples, 19 from 301 and 304 ore bodies and 3 from host rocks, were collected in

this study, whose lithologies are mainly micrite and clastic limestone and silty limestone. The thick

sections of the samples were first examined using microscope, and then BSE imaging to characterize

internal textures and discriminate different stages of pyrite, i.e. pre-ore stage (Py1) and ore stage Py2.

Of all the samples, 7 of them have Py2, 20 have Py1, and 5 of them contain both Py1 and Py2. The

areas of interest were cut off using a microdrill and mounted into epoxy of 25.4 mm in diameter. The

mounts were carefully polished with a 1 μm diamond paste, and then washed several times using

of
ethanol and de-ionized water. All mounts were heated in an oven for 3 h at 40oC. Before SIMS analysis,

ro
all mounts were coated by a gold layer with a thickness of 30 nm. Representative samples with
-p
relatively large grain size and wide zonation were selected for LA-ICP-MS analysis.
re
3.2. In-situ SIMS sulfur isotope analysis
lP

The SIMS analysis was conducted on a Cameca IMS1280-HR at the Guangzhou Institute of
na

Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences (GIG-CAS). Analytical parameters were summarized as

follows: Selected sulfide samples were mounted onto 25 mm diameter epoxy and polished. A primary
ur

133
Cs+ ion beam (~2.0 nA current and 20 keV total impact energy) was focused at the sample surface
Jo

with a spot diameter of 15 μm. 20 s pre-sputtering was applied to remove the Au coating, and a

normal-incidence electron gun used for charge compensation. The mass resolving power was set at

~5000 to avoid isobaric interferences. NMR field sensor was applied to stabilize the magnetic field. 32S,

33
S and 34S were measured simultaneously by the multi-collection system and the total analysis time for

one spot is about 4 minutes. More details can be found in (Li et al., 2019).

Data reduction was similar to that described in (Li et al., 2019), and the primary pyrite standards

used in this study is UWPy-1 (Ushikubo et al., 2014). The isotope ratio is expressed in relation to the
 Journal Pre-proof

Vienna Canyon Diablo Troilite (V-CDT) standard: δ34S(‰) = 1000×[(34S/32S)sample/(34S/32S)V-CDT - 1]

(Seal, 2006). At the SIMS laboratory at GIG-CAS, we adopt the protocol that reproducibility is

calculated as the standard deviation (SD) of the entirety of analyses on the reference material over the

course of an analytical session. The reproducibility of δ34S was better than 0.2‰ in most cases and 0.8‰

(2SD) was also observed occasionally.

3.3. EMPA and LA-ICP-MS element analyses

of
BSE imaging, major element determination and elemental mapping were applied to reveal internal

ro
texture and chemistry variation of the pyrite grain. All analyses were performed using a JEOL

JXA-8230 electron probe micro-analyzer (EPMA) at the Shandong Analysis Center of China
-p
Metallurgical Geology Bureau. The parameters were an accelerating voltage of 15 kV for BSE imaging
re
and changed to 20 kV for quantitative determination and elemental mapping of major elements. Other
lP

parameters include a probe current of 20 nA and a beam size of 1 μm. The step size for elemental
na

mapping was 1 μm, and the dwell time was set to be 100 ms for each point.

Elemental mapping and quantitative determination by LA-ICP-MS was conducted at the Tuoyan
ur

in-situ Analysis Lab (Guangzhou, China), using a 193 nm ArF Excimer Laser Ablation system (NWR
Jo

193) coupled with a Thermal Fisher iCAP RQ, a dual concentric injector (DCI) plasma torch integrated

with the two-volume ablation cell for the LA-ICP-MS mapping. Detailed analytical procedures were

described as follows: the ablation site is determined using spot and line scanning pattern for

quantitative determination and mapping respectively. The raster image is made up of evenly-spaced

individual line stack together in time order. The laser log which including the laser on and off, the line

spatial location and the sample information is suggested to preserve for further data reduction. The

external element standard of NIST 610, MASS-1 and GE8 was suggested to add in beginning and end
 Journal Pre-proof

of the total scan line matrix of samples. In this study, the laser frequency set to 100 Hz, and the laser

scan speed was 6 µm/s, the scan speed should be larger than the d𝑥/duty time, which is 2 µm/0.354 s =

5.64 µm/s, the laser spot sets as 5 µm with no space between lines.

The ICP-MS was set to time-resolved method and automatically triggered by laser, the elements

of Ag, As, Au, Bi, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb and Tl were collected at each duty cycle, with the dwell time

set to be 6 ms for each element. This gave a duty time of 0.354 second. The estimated time taken for

of
sample mapping and standards were automatically calculated in the laser software, and set a longer

ro
time than the calculation time as collection time in the ICP-MS.

After the data acquisition, data reduction was performed using the software Iolite (version 3.73)
-p
(Hellstrom et al., 2008; Paton et al., 2011), an add-in run within Igor Pro (version 6.37, WaveMetrics).
re
Mass bias and instrument drift were carefully corrected by setting a linear fit with a selected standard
lP

calibrating of mapping run, and NIST 610 was used as the standard. Subsequently, the raw data were
na

calibrated with the internal standard the average Fe value of the whole map. After crunching the data,

the Iolite software can perform quantitative mapping by stacking the continuous line in time order, and
ur

then the maps are visualized as individual element images.

Jo

4. RESULTS

4.1. Texture of pyrite

Three major generations of pyrite were identified at the Qiuling gold deposit, i.e., pre-ore stage,

ore stage and post-ore stage pyrite (Chen et al., 2015). Since, no post-ore stage quartz-pyrite vein is

observed in this study, and the aim of this study is to illustrate the relationship between Py1 and Py2

and ore-forming fluid evolution, so only Py1 and Py2 were carefully studied.
 Journal Pre-proof

Py1 is randomly distributed in the sedimentary rocks of the Nanyangshan and Yuanjiagou

formations. Py1 mainly occurs as pyrite framboids (Fig. 2a) and locally as euhedral pyrite crystal (Fig.

2b). The pyrite framboids are mostly < 10 μm in diameter, with rare cases can be as large as 50 μm or

larger (Fig. 2a). The pyrite framboids in pre-ore stage generally occur as cluster of dark individual

euhedral crystal in BSE images (Fig. 2a). These small individual crystals usually have a size less than 2

μm and are frequently observed to be surrounded by bright overgrowth (Fig. 2a), which could belong to

of
late Py2 (see below). Euhedral pyrite of pre-ore stage usually has a size similar with pyrite framboids

(Fig. 2b), and in rare cases can be larger than 100 μm.

ro
Py2 was formed in the main mineralization stage, in which gold was introduced. Py2 mainly has a
-p
size of 100 ~ 200 μm, usually associated with arsenopyrite (Fig. 2c). According to BSE imaging results,
re
Py2 was divided into three sub-stages in this study, i.e., Py2a, Py2b and Py2c (Fig. 2c). Py2a occurs as
lP

dark anhedral core; Py2b as bright euhedral overgrowth on Py2a and Py2c as clear euhedral
na

overgrowth on Py2b with brightness between Py2a and Py2b in BSE images (Figs. 2c, d). It is obvious

that Py2a has been partially replaced by Py2b, which is not observed between Py2b and Py2c (Figs. 2c,
ur

d). In most cases, Py2 is associated with arsenopyrite (Fig. 2c), but in samples distal to the main ore
Jo

body, little or no arsenopyrite observed (Fig. 2d). In most of our samples, Py2a act as core of zoned

pyrite in ore stage (Fig. 2c), and in rare cases Py1 can also act as core of zoned Py2 (Fig. 2d). Py1

usually has the darkest brightness in BSE images, and has much more voids when there are Py2

overgrowths (Fig. 2d), which can be used as a criterion to distinguish Py2a from Py1.

4.2 In-situ SIMS sulfur isotopes

δ34S values of Py1 has a range > 130‰ (-31.1 ~ 106.7‰, average at +0.8‰, Fig. 3). The δ34S
 Journal Pre-proof

values of Py2 has a range of 26.8‰ (-2.7 ~ 24.1‰, average at +13.2‰, Fig. 3). The average δ34S

values for Py2a, Py2b and Py2c are +11.4‰, +13.4‰ and +14.9‰, respectively. Substantial variation

is observed from Py2a to Py2c (Figs. 4a-g), and both decreasing and increasing trends in δ34S values

are observed from Py2a to Py2c (Figs. 4a, d). The variation of δ34S in a single grain is as high as 10.6‰

(Fig. 4a). Such variation is large between Py2a and Py2b (Figs. 4a-b) and small between Py2b and P2c

(Figs. 4d-e), however, most variations of δ34S from Py2a to Py2c tend to focus in the range of +9 ~ +15‰

(Fig. 5). In addition, δ34S values of Py2a show an intimate relationship with Py1 (Fig. 6a) from the

of
ro
same sample, but less so between Py2b and Py1 (Fig. 6b). More details can be found in Appendix S2.

4.3 Major and trace elements

-p
In most cases, As concentration in Py1 is under detection limit of EMPA (0.12 wt%), with only
re
one exception that it can has As concentration around 0.17 wt%. In contrast, As in Py2 is much higher
lP

than that of Py1, which can be as high as 8.31 wt% (Table. 1). Sulfur concentration in Py1 is
na

considerably higher than that in Py2, reversed with As, indicating possible substitution between As and

S in pyrite (Figs. 7a-c). Arsenic concentration in Py2a varies widely, with some analysis below
ur

detection limit of EMPA (Table.1, Figs. 7d-f), and others as high as 7.67 wt% (Table. 1). Arsenic
Jo

concentration in Py2b and Py2c varies from 4.02 to 8.31wt% and 2.43 to 5.67 wt%, respectively. Co

and Ni concentrations in Py1 are slightly higher than that of Py2, but no significant difference was

observed in Co/Ni ratios between Py1 and Py2, both of which have consistent Co/Ni ratios mostly <2

(Table. 1).

The pyrite grains with obvious texture and major element zonation were further characterized in

their trace element by LA-ICP-MS. Some spots of Py1 have very high As concentration, which is in

sharp contrast with EMPA results. The high As concentration in Py1 detected by LA-ICP-MS should
 Journal Pre-proof

result from contamination by As-rich pyrite of Py2 (Fig. 7a). Therefore, we suggest the spots with As

concentration higher than 1700 ppm (the highest As concentration determined by EMPA, Tab. 1) is not

suitable to evaluate trace element concentration of Py1.

Trace element concentration in Py1 and Py2 are highly variable (Fig. 8). Generally, Py1 is rich in

a suit of trace elements such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and Tl, which is also observed in Py2a (Fig. 8). Trace

element concentrations decrease from Py2a to Py2c in Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and Tl, and vice versa in As, Au

Cu and Sb (Fig. 8). Co/Ni ratios in both Py1 and Py2 are all ≤1 (Fig. 9), which is consistent with EMPA

of
ro
results (Tab. 1). LA-ICP-MS mapping results show that Py2a is rich in a suit of trace elements, such as

Ag, Bi, Pb, Sb and Tl, and depleted in As and Au comparing with Py2b and Py2c (Figs. 10a-m). Py2b
-p
has similar element assemblage with Py2a, but higher As (Figs. 10b, e), while Py2c is depleted in all
re
trace elements presented in Py2a but rich in As and Au (Figs. 10e-f). Similar distribution pattern of the
lP

elements is also observed in Figure. 11.

na

5. DISCUSSION
ur
Jo

5.1. Source of sulfur

Source of sulfur and formation of Py1

Pyrite formed in the ocean is one of the most important sinks for sulfur and arsenic in the sulfur

cycle (Canfield, 2001; Large et al., 2014), and the sulfur of sedimentary pyrite mainly comes from

reduction of seawater sulfate by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB, Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997; Rickard

et al., 2017; Seal, 2006; Wu et al., 2014).

Theoretically, pyrite framboids can be formed both in the water column (syngenetic) and pore

water (diagenetic) (Raiswell and Berner, 1985). Syngenetic framboids usually have smaller size
 Journal Pre-proof

compared with diagenetic ones, which may result from limited growth time within the water column

(Rickard, 2019). According to statistical investigation (Rickard, 2019), framboids with diameter > 11

µm are more likely to be diagenetic. Besides, euhedral pyrite is generally accepted to have formed in

sediments (diagenetic) (Lin et al., 2016; Taylor and Macquaker, 2011). To meet the analytical

requirements during SIMS analysis in this study, only framboids > 20 µm were selected. So, both the

framboids and euhedral pyrite in this study should mainly be diagenetic, in which sulfate-limited

of
condition could happen.

The fractionation in sulfur isotopes between sulfate and pyrite is usually thought to be about 45‰

ro
when the system is open with respect to seawater sulfate (Canfield, 2001; Ohmoto and Goldhaber,
-p
1997; Seal, 2006). But recent research has revealed that a sulfur isotope fractionation as high as 66‰
re
between seawater sulfate and product pyrite can be achieved by sulfate-reducing bacteria without
lP

disproportionation process (Sim et al., 2011). According to the carbonate associated sulfate study, the
na

average δ34S value of the global seawater at Devonian-Carboniferous boundary is around +23‰ (Wu et

al., 2014). If the fractionation between starting seawater sulfate and product pyrite is in a range of 45‰
ur

~ 66‰, the product pyrite should have δ34S value as low as -43‰ ~ -22‰, which is generally
Jo

consistent with the most negative δ34S value of Qiuling Py1 (-31.1‰, Fig. 3), which indicates a

sulfate-unlimited open system (e.g., shallow sediments). The less negative δ34S values (-19.3‰ in

Appendix S2) may have formed in partially closed system (e.g., deep sediments) which is slightly

sulfate-limited. The most positive δ34S value of Py1 is +106.7‰, much higher than coeval seawater

sulfate (Wu et al., 2014), indicating a sulfate-limited system in which Rayleigh fractionation would

happen (Canfield, 2001; Canfield et al., 2010; Luo et al., 2010; Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997).

Modeling result indicates that consumption of seawater sulfate in confined pore water over 90% could
 Journal Pre-proof

result in pyrite with δ34S value up to +106.7‰ (Fig. 12a). The skewed δ34S distribution pattern in

which the frequency decreases when approaching higher δ 34S values is also perfectly consistent with

Rayleigh fractionation (Fig. 3, Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997).

Source of sulfur for Py2

Actually, it is not easy to discriminate Py1 and Py2a when they occur in different grains. But two

criteria can be used to discriminate them occurring in one grain, i.e., Py1 is darker and contains much

of
more voids in BSE image than Py2a (Figs. 4b, c). The systematic changes of trace elements (As, Bi, Co,

ro
Mn, Ni and Tl) also support the existence of Py2a (Fig. 8). Moreover, the sulfur isotope composition of

Py2a is similar to that of Py2b and Py2c, only with wider range. If Py2a is sedimentary pyrite same as
-p
Py1, the average sulfur isotope of Py2a should be ~0‰ (similar to Py1) and much lower than we
re
observed here. Besides, the distribution of sulfur isotope of Py2a tends to be normal (Fig. 3), not like
lP

Py1, which shows more depleted δ34S values- and a skew distribution to the negative side. Although
na

the limited analysis of Py2a could obscure the difference between Py2a and Py1, given the evidences

above, we tend to favor the independent existence of Py2a in our samples.

ur

Sulfur is the complexing agent for gold (Goldfarb and Groves, 2015; Saunders et al., 2014;
Jo

Tomkins, 2013), sulfur isotope compositions of sulfide minerals can, therefore, provide information on

the source, transport, and precipitation of gold and genesis of sediment-hosted gold deposits. Besides,

previous research has shown that aside from sulfur, pre-ore stage pyrite could possibly offer Au for

ore-forming fluid (Large et al., 2009; Large et al., 2007). So, the potential contribution of sulfur, and

even gold, from Py1 during ore formation is very important and need to be illustrated at Qiuling.

Since gold is most abundant in Py2b and Py2c (Figs. 8, 10f), the ore-forming fluid should best be

represented by Py2b and Py2c. Since the main metallic mineral phases during gold mineralization are
 Journal Pre-proof

pyrite, arsenopyrite, tetrahedrite, sphalerite and stibnite that mainly formed in reduced fluid (Fig. 2) (no

magnetite or hematite present) (Zhang and Shen, 1996), the oxygen fugacity should be relatively low,

and the difference between pyrite and ore-forming fluid should be minimal (< 3.4‰, Fig. 12b)

(Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997). A pH vs logfO2 diagram (Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997) is adapted to

further constrain possible fractionation of sulfur isotope between pyrite and ore-forming fluid (Fig.

12c). The diagram modeled sulfur isotope fractionation at 250oC, which we think is appropriate for

Qiuling at which the temperature of the ore-forming fluid was determined to be around 182 ~ 300oC

of
ro
based on fluid inclusion study (Zhang and Shen, 1996). Petrologic investigation in this study (Fig. 2e)

and previous study (Appendix S1) (Zhang et al., 2000) shows that carbonate minerals (e.g., calcite and
-p
ankerite) is a stable phase in ore stage, indicating that the pH of the ore-forming fluid should be around
re
7 or higher. Given that no magnetite, sulfate or pyrrhotite is present, the oxygen fugacity of the
lP

ore-forming should be best represented by the gray area in figure 12c. In this case, the difference
na

between ore-forming fluid and pyrite should be < 4‰, consistent with modeling result in figure 12b. So,

the δ34S value of ore-forming fluid should be similar to the average δ34S value of Py2b and Py2c
ur

(+14.2‰). A δ34S value of +14.2‰ is not consistent with magmatic sulfur, which clusters around 0‰
Jo

(Ohmoto and Goldhaber, 1997; Seal, 2006). The absence of igneous rocks in and around deposit area

(Shen, 1996; Zhang et al., 2000; Zhang and Shen, 1996) does not support a magmatic contribution of

sulfur. This is also not consistent with sulfur from seawater sulfate whose sulfur isotope composition is

estimated to be around +23‰ (Wu et al., 2014).

The most reasonable source with such δ34S value in this area is probably metamorphic sulfur

which eventually sourced from metamorphism of sedimentary strata formed before gold mineralization

(Chen et al., 2015; Goldfarb et al., 2005; Goldfarb et al., 1991; Wu et al., 2018). The sulfur released
 Journal Pre-proof

from metamorphized sedimentary rocks are mainly sourced from breakdown of pyrite during its

transition to pyrrhotite (Large et al., 2009; Tomkins, 2010; Tomkins and Evans, 2015). Buffered by

pyrrhotite and at relatively high temperature (Tomkins, 2010), the sulfur isotope composition of the

S-bearing species released during breakdown of pyrite should be similar with parent pyrite (Fig.3 in

Chang et al., 2008), which enables us to compare the deduced ore-forming fluid at Qiuling with pyrite

in older sedimentary rocks. Sulfur isotope data of diagenetic pyrite in the underlying Paleozoic

of
sedimentary sequences of the Qinling orogen has been sporadically reported (Liu et al., 2000; Luo et al.,

2004; Nan et al., 2012; Qi et al., 2003). The δ34S values in Devonian phyllite and metagraywacke has

ro
been reported to be in the range of -29.0 ~ +17.5‰ with an average value of -0.9‰ (Qi et al. 2003; Luo
-p
et al. 2004; Nan et al. 2012), similar with the average value of pyrite in the ore-hosted wall rocks
re
determined in this study (+0.8‰, Fig. 3). This is too low to be the sulfur source for the ore-forming
lP

fluid at Qiuling. The δ34S values reported in Cambrian black shale in western part of the Qinling
na

orogen seems to be more positive and clusters in the range of -10.0 ~ 46.9‰, with an average of +13.1‰

(Liu et al. 2000). This value approximates the deduced value of the ore-forming fluid, but the Cambrian
ur

black shales in Qinling orogen only experienced sub-greenschist to greenschist metamorphism, which
Jo

may be too low to result in breakdown of pyrite. A more plausible source would be the Neoproterozoic

basement in Qinling orogen, which is widespread in studied region and metamorphosed to greenschist

to amphibolite facies (Zhang et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2014), which generally meets the condition for

pyrite-pyrrhotite transition (Tomkins, 2010). The sulfur isotope composition of pyrite in

Neoproterozoic strata of South China has long been reported to be 34S-rich (Cui et al., 2018), consistent

with global record which has an average δ34S value around +10‰ (Canfield and Farquhar, 2009).

The variation in sulfur isotope of ore stage pyrite is large (26.8‰, Fig. 3), which could possibly
 Journal Pre-proof

result from change in temperature, oxygen fugacity and sulfur composition of the ore-forming fluid or

Rayleigh fractionation process. The variation in sulfur isotope of ore stage pyrite is hard to be

explained only by temperature change even we assume a fully oxidized system (Fig. 12b) given the

temperature range (182 ~ 300oC) (Zhang and Shen, 1996). The change of oxygen fugacity is not likely

to account for the sulfur isotope change either, supported by the presence of sulfide phase that mainly

formed in relatively reduced fluid (e.g., pyrite, arsenopyrite, tetrahedrite, sphalerite and stibnite).

Besides, if there do exist change in oxygen fugacity, a systematic change in δ 34S would be expected.

of
Imagine a system rise in oxygen fugacity of the ore-forming fluid, 34S would preferentially enter sulfate

ro
(solid or dissolved), leaving sulfide rich in 32S, and a systematic decrease of δ34S would be expected in
-p
sulfide minerals but not with a wide range of variation (a reverse trend would be expected if there is a
re
decrease in oxygen fugacity). This process is thought to have happened in Daqiao deposit in west
lP

Qinling because of the systematic decrease in δ34S of sulfide minerals (Wu et al., 2019), but no such
na

systematic decrease or increase trend is observed at Qiuling (Fig. 5), indicating that oxygen fugacity

variation in ore-forming fluid is negligible. Rayleigh fractionation would allow early pyrite
ur

preferentially take 32S from the fluid, resulting in a systematic increase in sulfur isotope of the residual
Jo

fluid and later pyrite, which is not observed in our samples (Fig. 5).

The discussion above leaves a change in sulfur isotope of the ore-forming fluid the only possible

cause for variation in sulfur isotope of the ore stage pyrite, which is different from a single sulfur

source model. Actually there is a long history of controversy referring to whether or not Py1 has

offered sulfur (and more importantly gold) during formation of Py2 (Chen et al., 2015; Zhang and Shen,

1996). Previous sulfur isotope results in Chen et al. (2015) observed δ34S values clustering around

-20‰, in dramatic contrast with ore stage pyrite (>10‰), by which the authors claimed that Py1
 Journal Pre-proof

couldn’t contribute sulfur during formation of Py2. However, our results show that 1) the range of δ34S

value of Py1 is very wide, completely covered the range of Py2 (and Py2a) (Fig. 3), indicating that Py1

has the potential to offer sulfur for Py2a; 2) δ34S values show a more intimate relationship between Py1

and Py2a than that of Py1 and Py2b (Fig. 6); 3) Py2a and Py1 are similar in trace element concentration

(Figs. 7e-f, 8) and BSE images (Fig. 7d), but in clear contrast with that of Py2b and Py2c. All these

lines indicate that Py1 may have contributed sulfur and some related metals into early ore stage pyrite

of
(i.e., Py2a). But the contribution of Py1 during formation of Py2a should be less important compared

ro
with the ore-forming fluid given the large difference between Py1 and Py2a (Fig. 3).

5.2. Source of As, Au and other metals

-p
Source of arsenic and gold
re
EMPA has a much higher space resolution than LA-ICP-MS, so EMPA is more reliable to
lP

characterize As concentration in pyrite when As concentration is much higher than the detection limit
na

of the EMPA. According to the As mapping (Figs. 7a-f) and quantitative determination result (Tab. 1),

it is clear that the As concentration in Py1 is very low (< 1700ppm), and couldn’t be a candidate source
ur

for As in Py2. So, the most plausible source for As at Qiuling should be the ore-forming fluid. The
Jo

increasing As concentration from Py1 to Py2c (Fig. 8) derived from LA-ICP-MS also support this

hypothesis.

It has been reported that sedimentary pyrite could act as Au source during Au mineralization (Large

et al., 2007), so it is important whether or not Py1 has offered Au at Qiuling. Actually, it has been

debated in previous studies referring to the source of Au at Qiuling, with some researchers claim that

Py1 offered the Au (Shen, 1996; Zhang and Shen, 1996) and others claim that Au (and sulfur) came

from ore-forming fluid (Chen et al., 2015). The key to resolve this problem is to know the Au
 Journal Pre-proof

concentration of Py1, which has not been achieved in previous research because of the small size of the

Py1. We obtained 33 spots of Py1 using LA-ICP-MS, and the results vary from below detection limit to

34.7 ppm (Tab. 2). However, the very high As concentrations in Py1 indicate contamination of As and

possibly Au from Py2 (Tab. 2, Fig. 7a). As discussed in Section 4.3, the spots of Py1 with As

concentration higher than 1700 ppm are not suitable to evaluate Au of Py1 and have been ruled out

accordingly. Using this as a screening criterion, the Au concentration in Py1 is lower than 9.4 ppm

of
(average 1.6 ppm), which is much lower than that in Py2 (Fig. 8). Based on the discussion above, the

ro
Au concentration in Py1 is very low and the Au at Qiuling should be largely sourced from ore-forming

fluid. Similar with As, the increasing trend of Au concentration from Py2a to Py2c supports this
-p
hypothesis.
re
According to the deduced sulfur source for ore-forming fluid, the As and Au in Py2 at Qiuling
lP

deposit is most likely introduced along with sulfur from the metamorphic fluid. Unlike sulfur isotopes,
na

Au concentration of pyrite in sedimentary rocks of Qinling orogen has not been reported, but there are

reports about Au concentration derived from sedimentary rocks with age ranging from Neoproterozoic
ur

to Neogene (Appendix S3) (Guo et al., 2006 and references therein). The Au concentration of
Jo

sedimentary rocks in Qinling orogen shows a decrease trend from Neoproterozoic to Neogene, and this

trend is also observed in west Qinling (Li, 2013 and references therein). With the published results in

the studied region, we think that the Neoproterozoic sedimentary rocks, which contains the highest Au

concentration, may have the potential to contribute Au (and possibly As) for Qiuling deposit during

regional metamorphism. This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that the Neoproterozoic strata in

this area has been metamorphosed to greenschist to lower amphibolite facies during the Triassic

orogeny (Zhang et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2014), which generally meets the condition for breakdown of
 Journal Pre-proof

pyrite to pyrrhotite (Large et al., 2011; Tomkins, 2010).

Source of other metals

To evaluate the possible contribution of metal from Py1 during formation of the Qiuling deposit, it

is important to know the trace element concentration in Py1. Similar with As and Au, Py1 spots with

As concentration higher than 1700 ppm are dismissed because of possible contamination from Py2.

Co/Ni ratios have long been used to determine the origin of pyrite (hydrothermal vs.

of
syngenetic/diagenetic; Bajwah et al., 1987; Bralia et al., 1979; Gregory et al., 2015; Large et al., 2014;

ro
Loftus-Hills and Solomon, 1967), and a Co/Ni < 2 is generally thought to be of sedimentary origin

(Large et al., 2014). The Co/Ni ratios of both Py1 and Py2 are ≤ 1, indicating that Py2 has a major
-p
contribution of sedimentary metal. This does not rule out the potential contribution from the
re
ore-forming fluid, because metamorphic fluid derived from metamorphism of old sedimentary strata
lP

could possibly maintain its original nature (Co/Ni < 2). However, Py1 has higher concentrations in Co
na

and Ni than Py2 (Fig. 8), and it is obvious that there is a decreasing trend from Py2a to Py2c in Co and

Ni. This makes it less possible that Co and Ni were sourced from the ore-forming fluid, and Py1 or the
ur

deep sedimentary strata is the most optimizing source for Co and Ni. Similar with Co and Ni, a
Jo

decreasing trend from Py2a to Py2c is also observed in Bi, Mn and Tl, which support that they might

be also sourced from Py1. However, Cu and Sb concentration increase from Py1 to Py2c, indicating

that Cu and Sb may have source from the ore-forming fluid.

Based on the discussion above, the ore-forming fluid should be rich in As, Au, Cu and Sb, while

depleted in other metals such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and Tl. Recent experiment study shows that, the pyrite

in pelite, which was possibly set to represent average composition of sediment rocks, could be

transformed to pyrrhotite at temperature down to 350~400 oC (Zhong et al., 2015). In the experiment,
 Journal Pre-proof

530oC is the watershed, before which (< 530oC) Au is released first, with other base metals (e.g., Cu,

Pb and Zn) tend to be maintained in the pelite, and after which (> 530oC) both Au and other base

metals (e.g., Cu, Pb and Zn) can be released. So, the As-, Au-, Cu- and Sb-rich nature of the

ore-forming fluid at Qiuling may indicate that the metamorphism temperature of the Neoproterozoic

basement had exceed 530oC, which is consistent with the observation that the Neoproterozoic basement

was generally metamorphosed to greenschist to lower amphibolite facies (Zhang et al., 1995; Zhu et al.,

of
2014). Arsenic is not fully investigated in Zhong et al. (2015), but given their similar geochemical

ro
behavior (Deditius et al., 2014) and common presence of both elements in gold deposits (Xing et al.,

2019), it is possible that both As and Au would enter ore-forming fluid during breakdown of pyrite to
-p
pyrrhotite (Kusebauch et al., 2019). The conclusion above is in agreement with data collected from
re
porphyry copper and geothermal system (Reich et al., 2013; Román et al., 2019; Tardani et al., 2017),
lP

in which elements including As, Au, Cu and, to a minor case, Sb are geochemically coupled at
na

relatively high temperature. Besides, phase separation, which is thought to be able to alter fluid

composition and trace element partitioning into pyrite (Román et al., 2019), is unlikely at Qiuling
ur

because of the scarce of voids and mineral inclusion in Au-rich Py2b and Py2c.
Jo

5.3. Ore-forming fluid evolution and implications for orogenic gold deposit modelling

Py1 was formed during diagenesis process, during which trace elements such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and

Tl were incorporated into the pyrite lattice. Py2 formed mainly from the ore-forming fluid with some

contribution of sulfur and trace element from Py1 during interaction of the ore-forming fluid with Py1.

The most convincing evidence supporting the interaction between Py1 and ore-forming fluid comes

from the texture. Two different types of pyrite were observed in the sedimentary host rocks, i.e.,

framboidal and euhedral pyrite (Figs. 2a-b). If there is no interaction between Py1 and the ore-forming
 Journal Pre-proof

fluid, the morphology of both types of pyrite should not change, which is hard to explain the ragged

rims of Py1 in many grains (Figs. 4b, 5g, 11a). Two additional evidences also support this hypothesis:

1) The intimate relationship of Py2a and Py1 in their sulfur isotope (Fig. 6a) indicates that Py1 may

have contributed some sulfur to Py2a; 2) The decreasing trend in the concentration of Co, Mn and Ni

(and maybe Bi and Tl) from Py1 to Py2c (Fig. 8) indicates that Py1 may have contributed some of

these trace elements to Py2. The contribution of sulfur and trace element could not happen if there is no

of
interaction between Py1 and the ore-forming fluid. Py2a formed at the first introduction of the

ro
ore-forming fluid and may have leached some of the trace elements and sulfur from Py1 into the

ore-forming fluid (Fig. 13), which resulted in ubiquitous voids in Py1 (Fig. 2d). Euhedral Py2b may
-p
have formed in a situation similar to that of Py2a but with more contribution from the ore-forming fluid.
re
The ore-forming fluids may have reacted with preexisting Py2a, leaching part of the trace elements
lP

(Fig. 10) from Py2a and resulting some voids in Py2a (Figs. 4d, 13). Py2c may have formed in a
na

water-dominate environment, with no detectable contribution of base and precious trace elements and

sulfur from sedimentary pyrite. Since no replacement texture is observed between Py2b and Py2c,
ur

deposition of both sub-stages of pyrite were likely continuous (Fig. 13).

Jo

The deposition mechanism of Au is a complicated process that may relate to phase separation,

water-rock reaction, cooling, etc. (Goldfarb et al., 2005; Saunders et al., 2014). Based on the texture

observed in this study, water-rock reaction (Fig. 11) is possible. At the same time, the increasing

concentration of Au and As from Py2a to Py2c (Fig. 8) may suggest decreasing temperature because of

their retrograde solubility in pyrite (Deditius et al., 2014). Except for the mechanisms mentioned above,

carbonaceous matter in the host sedimentary rocks, which is suggested to have played a role during Au

deposition at Daqiao epizonal orogenic gold deposit in West Qinling orogen (Wu et al., 2020), also
 Journal Pre-proof

need investigation. The evidence present here is preliminary, and further studies are needed to fully

resolve this question.

There are some debate on the genesis of Qiuling deposit, with previous research favoring it a

Carlin-like deposit in view the disseminated, low-temperature alteration assemblages and the Au-As-Sb

elemental association (Zhang et al., 2000). But there are a few characteristics at Qiuling that suggest

similarities with unequivocal orogenic gold deposits: 1) The Qiuling deposit is primarily controlled by

of
NE-trend fault and its conjunction with NWW-trend faults (Fig. 1b). 2) Suggested formation age of this

ro
deposit is 232.7 ± 6.9 Ma (Zhao et al., 2001), synchronous with formation of the Qinling orogen (Dong

and Santosh, 2016; Dong et al., 2011) and other orogenic gold deposit in this region (Mao et al., 2002;
-p
Zeng et al., 2013). 3) The presence of visible gold (Liu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2012). 4) Lack of
re
decarbonatization. 5) The metamorphic ore-forming fluid identified in this study. We think that Qiuling
lP

deposit may share some characteristics with Carlin-like deposit, but given the evidences above we
na

prefer it to be an epizonal manifestation of an orogenic gold system in the East Qinling orogen, which

has also been found in West Qinling orogen (e.g., Daqiao, Pangjiahe and Yangshan deposits) (Li et al.,
ur

2014; Ma et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018).

Jo

The dispute rages regarding the genesis of the orogenic gold deposits at both Qiuling and many

other deposits of this type (Chang et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2015; Goldfarb and Groves, 2015; Large et

al., 2009; Large et al., 2007; Shen, 1996; Tomkins, 2013; Zhang et al., 2000; Zhang and Shen, 1996;

Zhang et al., 2002). Of all the models for orogenic gold formation, sources of fluid and metal have

been highly debated. Based mostly on limited bulk S and Pb isotope research, ore-forming fluid and

metal sourced from formation water and pyrite hosted in sedimentary wall rocks have long been

proposed at Qiuling (Shen, 1996; Zhang et al., 2000; Zhang and Shen, 1996; Zhang et al., 2002).
 Journal Pre-proof

However, as shown in this study, the δ34S range of pyrite hosted in sedimentary rocks can be over 135‰

(Fig. 3), which could be easily overlooked by bulk analysis and sampling bias and result in

misinterpretation of the data. In-situ sulfur isotope research by Chen et al. (2015) is the first attempt at

Qinling orogen to reveal the possible contribution of sulfur and Au from pre-ore pyrite hosted in

sedimentary wall rocks. But due to limited sulfur isotope data and failure to find large pyrite grain to

apply trace element analysis on pre-ore stage pyrite (Chen et al., 2015), concerns remain to the

of
problems mentioned above. With a relatively large in-situ sulfur isotope data set on both pre-ore and

ro
multiple zonation of ore stage pyrite, coupled with trace element analysis of both stages, it is now

relatively sound to draw the conclusion here that the S-, As- and Au-bearing ore-forming fluid of the
-p
main Au mineralization is sourced from metamorphism of older strata at depth, with minor contribution
re
of S, As and base metals from pre-ore stage pyrite in host rocks at the start of ore stage. Given the
lP

ubiquitous presence of complex zonation in pyrite hosted in orogenic gold deposits (Hazarika et al.,
na

2017; Large et al., 2009; Large et al., 2007; Lawrence et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2019;

Thomas et al., 2011), we suggest that in-situ sulfur isotope and trace element analysis based on detailed
ur

texture characterization is a powerful tool to reveal ore-fluid source and genesis of deposits of this type.
Jo

6. CONCLUSION

Pre-ore stage pyrite (Py1) and three sub-stages of ore stage pyrite (Py2a, Py2b and Py2c) were

recognized at Qiuling deposit. Detailed in-situ sulfur isotope study has revealed that Py1 analyzed in

this study was formed by diagenesis process. The sulfur during formation of Py2 has contribution from

both Py1 and the ore-forming fluid, which has δ34S around +14.2‰. The ore-forming fluid eventually

came from sulfur released from pyrite possibly in Neoproterozoic basement during transition of pyrite

to pyrrhotite in regional metamorphism. Sulfur isotope suggest Py1 has contributed some sulfur during
 Journal Pre-proof

formation of Py2a. Py2b formed with elevated contribution from the ore-forming fluid, while

Au-bearing Py2c solely formed from the ore-forming fluid with no detectable contribution from

previous pyrite. Trace elements in Py2 such as Bi, Co, Mn, Ni and Tl are largely sourced from Py1.

Gold and As are sourced from the ore-forming fluid, which was eventually released from pyrite along

with sulfur from the Neoproterozoic basement during regional metamorphism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

of
This research was jointly supported by the Chinese National Science Fund for Distinguished Young

ro
Scholars (41725009) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41921003, U1603244,
-p
41903010). Comments from the editor, two anonymous reviewers and Prof. Martin Reich (Universidad
re
de Chile, Santiago) significantly enhanced the manuscript, which is appreciated very much by the
lP

authors. Drs. Haoran Dou and Yang Xiao are thanked for helping with the EPMA and LA-ICP-MS

analysis, respectively.
na

REFERENCES

Bajwah, Z.U., Seccombe, P.K., Offler, R., 1987. Trace element distribution, Co:Ni ratios and genesis of
ur

the big cadia iron-copper deposit, new south wales, australia. Mineralium Deposita, 22(4):
292-300.
Jo

Bath, A.B. et al., 2013. Biotite and Apatite as Tools for Tracking Pathways of Oxidized Fluids in the
Archean East Repulse Gold Deposit, Australia. Economic Geology, 108(4): 667-690.
Bralia, A., Sabatini, G., Troja, F., 1979. A revaluation of the Co/Ni ratio in pyrite as geochemical tool in
ore genesis problems. Mineralium Deposita, 14(3): 353-374.
Canfield, D.E., 2001. Biogeochemistry of Sulfur Isotopes. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry,
43(1): 607-636.
Canfield, D.E., Farquhar, J., 2009. Animal evolution, bioturbation, and the sulfate concentration of the
oceans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(20): 8123-8127.
Canfield, D.E., Farquhar, J., Zerkle, A.L., 2010. High isotope fractionations during sulfate reduction in
a low-sulfate euxinic ocean analog. Geology, 38(5): 415-418.
Chang, Z., Large, R.R., Maslennikov, V., 2008. Sulfur isotopes in sediment-hosted orogenic gold
deposits: Evidence for an early timing and a seawater sulfur source. Geology, 36(12):
971-974.
Chen, L. et al., 2015. Extreme variation of sulfur isotopic compositions in pyrite from the Qiuling
sediment-hosted gold deposit, West Qinling orogen, central China: an in situ SIMS study with
 Journal Pre-proof

implications for the source of sulfur. Mineralium Deposita, 50(6): 643-656.

Chen, Y.J., Santosh, M., 2014. Triassic tectonics and mineral systems in the Qinling Orogen, central
China. Geological Journal, 4(49): 338-358.
Cui, H. et al., 2018. Questioning the biogenicity of Neoproterozoic superheavy pyrite by SIMS.
American Mineralogist, 103(9): 1362-1400.
Deditius, A.P. et al., 2014. The coupled geochemistry of Au and As in pyrite from hydrothermal ore
deposits. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 140: 644-670.
Dong, Y. et al., 2013. Timing of Paleozoic amalgamation between the North China and South China
Blocks: evidence from detrital zircon U–Pb ages. Tectonophysics, 586: 173-191.
Dong, Y., Santosh, M., 2016. Tectonic architecture and multiple orogeny of the Qinling Orogenic Belt,
Central China. Gondwana Research, 29(1): 1-40.
Dong, Y. et al., 2011. Tectonic evolution of the Qinling orogen, China: review and synthesis. Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences, 41(3): 213-237.

of
Goldfarb, R. et al., 2005. Distribution, character and genesis of gold deposits in metamorphic terranes.
Society of Economic Geologists.

ro
Goldfarb, R.J., Groves, D.I., 2015. Orogenic gold: Common or evolving fluid and metal sources
through time. Lithos, 233: 2-26. -p
Goldfarb, R.J., Newberry, R.J., Pickthorn, W.J., Gent, C.A., 1991. Oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur
isotope studies in the Juneau gold belt, southeastern Alaska; constraints on the origin of
re
hydrothermal fluids. Economic geology, 86(1): 66-80.
Gregory, D.D. et al., 2015. Trace Element Content of Sedimentary Pyrite in Black Shales*. Economic
Geology, 110(6): 1389-1410.
lP

Guo, J., Sun, B., Yang, F., Wang, J., 2006. Ore-controlling features and prospecting criteria of
Songpan-Motianling mineralizing belt. Geology and Prospecting, 42(05): 28-33.
Hazarika, P., Mishra, B., Pruseth, K.L., 2017. Trace-element geochemistry of pyrite and arsenopyrite:
na

ore genetic implications for late Archean orogenic gold deposits in southern India.
Mineralogical Magazine, 81(3): 661-678.
ur

Hellstrom, J., Paton, C., Woodhead, J., Hergt, J., 2008. Iolite: software for spatially resolved LA-(quad
and MC) ICPMS analysis. Mineralogical Association of Canada short course series, 40:
343-348.
Jo

Kusebauch, C., Gleeson, S., Oelze, M., 2019. Coupled partitioning of Au and As into pyrite controls
formation of giant Au deposits. Science advances, 5(5): eaav5891.
Large, R.R., Bull, S.W., Maslennikov, V.V., 2011. A Carbonaceous Sedimentary Source-Rock Model
for Carlin-Type and Orogenic Gold Deposits. Economic Geology, 106(3): 331-358.
Large, R.R. et al., 2009. Gold and trace element zonation in pyrite using a laser imaging technique:
Implications for the timing of gold in orogenic and Carlin-style sediment-hosted deposits.
Economic Geology, 104(5): 635-668.
Large, R.R. et al., 2014. Trace element content of sedimentary pyrite as a new proxy for deep-time
ocean–atmosphere evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 389: 209-220.
Large, R.R., Maslennikov, V.V., Robert, F.o., Danyushevsky, L.V., Chang, Z., 2007. Multistage
Sedimentary and Metamorphic Origin of Pyrite and Gold in the Giant Sukhoi Log Deposit,
Lena Gold Province, Russia. Economic Geology, 102(7): 1233-1267.
Lawrence, D.M., Treloar, P.J., Rankin, A.H., Harbidge, P., Holliday, J., 2013. The Geology and
Mineralogy of the Loulo Mining District, Mali, West Africa: Evidence for Two Distinct Styles
 Journal Pre-proof

of Orogenic Gold Mineralization. Economic Geology, 108(2): 199-227.

Li, N., 2013. Geochemistry of ore-forming processes in the Yangshan gold belt, West Qinling, central
China. 博士 Thesis, China University of Geosciences (Beijing).
Li, N. et al., 2014. Paragenesis and geochemistry of ore minerals in the epizonal gold deposits of the
Yangshan gold belt, West Qinling, China. Mineralium Deposita, 49(4): 427-449.
Li, R., Xia, X., Yang, S., Chen, H., Yang, Q., 2019. Off‐ Mount Calibration and One New Potential
Pyrrhotite Reference Material for Sulfur Isotope Measurement by Secondary Ion Mass
Spectrometry. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 43(1): 177-187.
Lin, Z. et al., 2016. How sulfate-driven anaerobic oxidation of methane affects the sulfur isotopic
composition of pyrite: A SIMS study from the South China Sea. Chemical Geology, 440:
26-41.
Ling, W. et al., 2008. Timing of the Wudangshan, Yaolinghe volcanic sequences and mafic sills in
South Qinling: U-Pb zircon geochronology and tectonic implication. Chinese Science Bulletin,

of
53(14): 2192-2199.
Liu, B., Xu, X., Xu, Q., Yang, Z., 1990. Devonian sedimentary environments and basin evolution in

ro
Zhashui-Zhen'an district, Eastern Qinling, China. Acta Sedimentologica Sinca, 8(4): 3-12.
Liu, J. et al., 2019. Classification and mineralization of the gold deposits in the western Qinling region,
-p
China. Earth Science Frontiers, 26(5): 1-16.
Liu, J., Zheng, M., Liu, J., Zhou, D.a., 2000. Sulfur isotopic composition and its geological significance
re
of the Cambrian gold deposits in western Qinling. Journal of Changchun University of
Science and Technology, 30: 150-156.
Loftus-Hills, G., Solomon, M., 1967. Cobalt, nickel and selenium in sulphides as indicators of ore
lP

genesis. Mineralium Deposita, 2(3): 228-242.

Luo, G. et al., 2010. Isotopic evidence for an anomalously low oceanic sulfate concentration following
end-Permian mass extinction. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 300(1-2): 101-111.
na

Luo, X., Qi, J., Yuan, S., Li, Z., 2004. Geological and microelement geochemical study of Yangshan
gold deposit, Gansu Province. Geoscience, 18(2): 203-209.
ur

Ma, G., Beaudoin, G., Qi, S., Li, Y., 2004. Geology and geochemistry of the Changba SEDEX Pb-Zn
deposit, Qinling orogenic belt, China. Mineralium Deposita, 39(3): 380-395.
Ma, G., Beaudoin, G., Zhong, S., Li, Y., Zeng, Z., 2007. Geology and geochemistry of the Dengjiashan
Jo

Zn–Pb SEDEX deposit, Qinling Belt, China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 44(4):
479-492.
Ma, J. et al., 2018. In-situ sulfur isotope analysis of pyrite from the Pangjiahe gold deposit:
Implications for variable sulfur sources in the north and south gold belt of the South Qinling
orogen. Ore Geology Reviews, 98: 38-61.
Mao, J. et al., 2002. Geology, distribution, and classification of gold deposits in the western Qinling
belt, central China. Mineralium Deposita, 37(3-4): 352-377.
Mattauer, M. et al., 1985. Tectonics of the Qinling belt: build-up and evolution of eastern Asia. Nature,
317(6037): 496.
Meng, Q.-R., Zhang, G.-W., 1999. Timing of collision of the North and South China blocks:
Controversy and reconciliation. Geology, 27(2): 123-126.
Nan, L. et al., 2012. Sulfur isotope characteristics of the Yangshan gold belt, West Qinling: Constraints
on ore-forming environment and material source. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 28(5): 1577-1587.
Ohmoto, H., 1972. Systematics of Sulfur and Carbon Isotopes in Hydrothermal Ore-Deposits.
 Journal Pre-proof

Economic Geology, 67(5): 551-&.

Ohmoto, H., Goldhaber, M.B., 1997. Sulfur and carbon isotopes. In: Barnes, H.L. (Ed.), Geochemistry
of Hydrothermal Ore Deposits. J Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 517-611.
Paton, C., Hellstrom, J., Paul, B., Woodhead, J., Hergt, J., 2011. Iolite: Freeware for the visualisation
and processing of mass spectrometric data. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 26(12):
2508-2518.
Qi, J. et al., 2003. Geological and geochemical studies of Yangshan gold deposit, Gansu Province.
Mineral Deposits, 1.
Qin, J. et al., 2009. Geochemical evidence for origin of magma mixing for the Triassic monzonitic
granite and its enclaves at Mishuling in the Qinling orogen (central China). Lithos, 112(3-4):
259-276.
Raiswell, R., Berner, R.A., 1985. Pyrite formation in euxinic and semi-euxinic sediments. American
Journal of Science, 285(8): 710-724.

of
Ratschbacher, L. et al., 2003. Tectonics of the Qinling (Central China): tectonostratigraphy,
geochronology, and deformation history. Tectonophysics, 366(1): 1-53.

ro
Reich, M. et al., 2013. Pyrite as a record of hydrothermal fluid evolution in a porphyry copper system:
A SIMS/EMPA trace element study. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 104: 42-62.
-p
Rickard, D., 2019. Sedimentary pyrite framboid size-frequency distributions: A meta-analysis.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 522: 62-75.
re
Rickard, D., Mussmann, M., Steadman, J.A., 2017. Sedimentary Sulfides. Elements, 13(2): 117-122.
Román, N. et al., 2019. Geochemical and micro-textural fingerprints of boiling in pyrite. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 246: 60-85.
lP

Sakai, H., 1968. Isotopic properties of sulfur compounds in hydrothermal processes. Geochemical
Journal, 2(1): 29-49.
Saunders, J., Hofstra, A., Goldfarb, R., Reed, M., 2014. Geochemistry of hydrothermal gold deposits.
na

Seal, R.R., 2006. Sulfur isotope geochemistry of sulfide minerals. Sulfide Mineralolgy and
Geochemistry, 61: 633-677.
ur

Shen, P., 1996. Isotopic compositions in the Qiuling micro-disseminated gold deposit, Zhen'an country,
Shanxi province, and their genetic implications. Contributions To Geology and Mineral
Resources Research, 11: 27-34.
Jo

Sim, M.S., Bosak, T., Ono, S., 2011. Large Sulfur Isotope Fractionation Does Not Require
Disproportionation. Science, 333(6038): 74-77.
Spence-Jones, C.P., Jenkin, G.R.T., Boyce, A.J., Hill, N.J., Sangster, C.J.S., 2018. Tellurium, magmatic
fluids and orogenic gold: An early magmatic fluid pulse at Cononish gold deposit, Scotland.
Ore Geology Reviews, 102: 894-905.
Sung, Y.-H. et al., 2009. Invisible gold in arsenian pyrite and arsenopyrite from a multistage Archaean
gold deposit: Sunrise Dam, Eastern Goldfields Province, Western Australia. Mineralium
Deposita, 44(7): 765.
Tang, L. et al., 2019. Multistage processes linked to tectonic transition in the genesis of orogenic gold
deposit: A case study from the Shanggong lode deposit, East Qinling, China. Ore Geology
Reviews, 111: 102998.
Tardani, D. et al., 2017. Copper–arsenic decoupling in an active geothermal system: A link between
pyrite and fluid composition. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 204: 179-204.
Taylor, K.G., Macquaker, J.H.S., 2011. Iron Minerals in Marine Sediments Record Chemical
 Journal Pre-proof

Environments. Elements, 7(2): 113-118.

Thomas, H.V. et al., 2011. Pyrite and Pyrrhotite Textures and Composition in Sediments, Laminated
Quartz Veins, and Reefs at Bendigo Gold Mine, Australia: Insights for Ore Genesis. Economic
Geology, 106(1): 1-31.
Tomkins, A.G., 2010. Windows of metamorphic sulfur liberation in the crust: Implications for gold
deposit genesis. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 74(11): 3246-3259.
Tomkins, A.G., 2013. On the source of orogenic gold. Geology, 41(12): 1255-1256.
Tomkins, A.G., Evans, K.A., 2015. Separate zones of sulfate and sulfide release from subducted mafic
oceanic crust. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 428: 73-83.
Ushikubo, T. et al., 2014. Development of in situ sulfur four-isotope analysis with multiple Faraday cup
detectors by SIMS and application to pyrite grains in a Paleoproterozoic glaciogenic
sandstone. Chemical Geology, 383: 86-99.
Wang, X. et al., 2011. Triassic granitoids of the Qinling orogen, central China: Genetic relationship of

of
enclaves and rapakivi-textured rocks. Lithos, 126(3): 369-387.
Wang, Z., Li, G., 1991. Barite and witherite deposits in Lower Cambrian shales of South China;

ro
stratigraphic distribution and geochemical characterization. Economic Geology, 86(2):
354-363. -p
Wu, N., Farquhar, J., Strauss, H., 2014. δ34S and Δ33S records of Paleozoic seawater sulfate based on
the analysis of carbonate associated sulfate. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 399: 44-51.
re
Wu, Y.-F. et al., 2020. Distribution of trace elements between carbonaceous matter and sulfides in a
sediment-hosted orogenic gold system. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 276: 345-362.
Wu, Y.-F. et al., 2019. Metal remobilization and ore-fluid perturbation during episodic replacement of
lP

auriferous pyrite from an epizonal orogenic gold deposit. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
245: 98-117.
Wu, Y.-F. et al., 2018. Ore-Forming Processes of the Daqiao Epizonal Orogenic Gold Deposit, West
na

Qinling Orogen, China: Constraints from Textures, Trace Elements, and Sulfur Isotopes of
Pyrite and Marcasite, and Raman Spectroscopy of Carbonaceous Material. Economic Geology,
ur

113(5): 1093-1132.
Xing, Y., Brugger, J., Tomkins, A., Shvarov, Y., 2019. Arsenic evolution as a tool for understanding
formation of pyritic gold ores. Geology, 47(4): 335-338.
Jo

Yang, T. et al., 2012. A study on geology, geochemistry and genesis of the Jinlongshan Carlin-type gold
deposit in Western Qinling Orogen. Acata Mineralogica Sinica, 32(1): 115-130.
Zeng, Q. et al., 2013. Geological and thermochronological studies of the Dashui gold deposit, West
Qinling Orogen, Central China. Mineralium Deposita, 48(3): 397-412.
Zhang, C., Wang, T., Wang, X., 2008. Origin and tectonic setting of the Early Mesozoic granitoids in
Qinling orogenic belt. Geological Journal of China Universities, 14(3): 304-316.
Zhang, F. et al., 2000. Features of geologic-geochemistry of Jinlongshan-Qiuling gold deposit and its
genesis in Qinling belt: Dynamics on mineralizing process of Carlin type gold deposits of
Qinling type. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 30 (suppl.): 73-81.
Zhang, F., Shen, P., 1996. Study on metallogenic physicochemical conditions and metallogenic
mechanism of the Qiuling micro-disseminated gold deposit in Zhen'An country, Shanxi
province. Geology and Prosecting, 32(5): 8-15.
Zhang, F., Wei, K., Wu, Y., Liu, S., 1997a. New prospecting development of Jinlongshan-Qiuling
Carlin-type gold deposit in Shaanxi province. Journal of Northwest University (Natural
 Journal Pre-proof

Science Edition), 27(04): 53-57.

Zhang, G., Dong, Y., Yao, P., 1997b. The crustal compositions, structures and tectonic evolution of the
Qinling Orogenic Belt. Geology of Shanxi, 15(2): 1-14.
Zhang, G., Zhang, Z., Dong, Y., 1995. Nature of Main Tectono-Lithostratigraphic Units of the Qinling
Orogen: Implications for the Tectonic Evolution [J]. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 11(2): 101-114.
Zhang, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, F., Li, C., 2002. Geochemical study of ore fluid in Jinlongshan Carlin-type
gold ore belt in southwestern Shanxi province. Mineral Deposits, 21(3): 283-291.
Zhao, L., Chen, X., Zhou, H., Li, X., 2001. Metallogenic epoch of Jinlongshan micro-fine disseminated
gold deposit, South Qinling mountains. Chinese Journal of Geology, 36(04): 489.
Zhao, L., Feng, Z., 2002. Control of favorable lithology on Jinlongshan micro-fine disseminated gold
deposits, southern Qinling Mountains. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences, 45(2):
123-132.
Zhong, R., Brugger, J., Tomkins, A.G., Chen, Y., Li, W., 2015. Fate of gold and base metals during

of
metamorphic devolatilization of a pelite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 171: 338-352.
Zhou, T., Goldfarb, R.J., Phillips, N.G., 2002. Tectonics and distribution of gold deposits in China–an

ro
overview. Mineralium Deposita, 37(3-4): 249-282.
Zhu, X. et al., 2014. Neoproterozoic tectonic evolution of South Qinling, China: Evidence from zircon
-p
ages and geochemistry of the Yaolinghe volcanic rocks. Precambrian Research, 245: 115-130.
re
FIGURE CAPTIONS
lP

Fig. 1. (a) Simplified map showing tectonic division of the Qinling orogen. Also shown are the major

faults, gold deposits, and the location of Qiuling (adaped from Wu et al., 2018). The insert indicates the
na

location of the West Qinling orogen in China. (b) Geology of the Qiuling gold deposit (dapted from
ur

Chen et al., 2015).

Jo

Fig. 2. Different generations of pyrite and ore-stage mineral assemblages at Qiuling deposit. (a) Pre-ore

stage pyrite framboids (BSE image). Note the overprint of Py1 by ore stage Py2b (also shown in Fig.

3a). (b) Pre-ore stage euhedral pyrite (BSE image). (c) Typical mineral assemblage in ore stage. Note

that ore stage pyrite (Py2) is subdivided into Py2a, Py2b and Py2c (BSE image). Py2a is characterized

by dark BSE core and ubiquitous voids, Py2b by bright BSE bands and Py2c by BSE bands between

Py2a and Py2b. (d) Another ore stage pyrite grain (BSE image). Note euhedral Py2b and Py2c. (e)

Transmitted- and reflected-light photomicrographs of pyrite-chalcopyrite-tetrahedrite-calcite

 Journal Pre-proof

assemblage at Qiuling deposit. (f) Transmitted- and reflected-light photomicrograph of

quartz-sericite-pyrite-arsenopyrite assemblage at Qiuling deposit. Py: pyrite; Apy: arsenopyrite; Cpy:

chalcopyrite; Tet: etrahedrite; Cal: calcite; Ser: sercite; Q: quartz.

Fig. 3. δ34S histogram of Py1 and Py2 at Qiuling deposit. Also shown are the average δ 34S values

(dashed lines).

Fig. 4. BSE images and δ34S values of Py2a, Py2b and Py2 at Qiuling deposit. The spots indicate

location of SIMS analysis spot and the number near them are δ34S values. The spots in white are Py1,

of
ro
spots in pink are Py2a, spots in yellow are Py2b and spots in blue are Py2c. Note the coexistence of

Py1 and Py2 in panels b and c. Py: pyrite; Apy: arsenopyrite.

-p
Fig. 5. δ34S variation trend (indicated by arrows) from Py2a to Py2 in individual grains at Qiuling
re
deposit.
lP

Fig. 6. δ34S relationship between pre-ore stage and ore stage pyrite. (a) Pre-ore stage vs Py2a. (b)
na

Pre-ore stage vs Py2b.

Fig. 7. BSE images and coupled EPMA As and S mapping of different generations of pyrite at Qiuling
ur

deposit. (a)-(c) Pre-ore stage pyrite overprinted by Py2b. (d)-(f) Coexistence of Py1 and Py2 in a single
Jo

grain. (g)-(i) Typical ore stage pyrite grain showing different BSE bands and element concentration

zonation.

Fig. 8. Box plot of trace element concentration of Py1, Py2a, Py2b and Py2c.

Fig. 9. Co vs Ni plot of in-situ LA-ICP-MS analysis of Py1, Py2a, Py2b and Py2c. All analyses have a

Co/Ni ratio ≤1.

Fig. 10. BSE image and coupled elemental mapping of major and trace elements in typical grain of Py2.

(a) BSE image. (b)-(c) Elemental mapping of As and S by EPMA. (d)-(m) Trace element mapping by
 Journal Pre-proof

LA-ICP-MS. Py2a is rich in Ag, Bi, Pb, Sb and Tl, Py2b is rich in Ag, Bi, Pb, Sb, Tl and As, while

Py2c is only rich in As and Au. The scale bar is in ppm.

Fig. 11. BSE image and coupled elemental mapping of trace elements in another grain of Py2. The

scale bar is in ppm.

Fig. 12. Modeled δ34S values of (a) sedimentary pyrite and (b-c) the ore-forming fluid at Qiuling

deposit. The fractionation between seawater sulfate (+23‰) and pyrite (as low as -31.1‰) in panel a is

set at 54.1‰. The fractionation coefficient between SO42- and pyrite at different temperatures in panel

of
ro
b is taken from Sakai (1968). The diagram in panel c is modified from Ohmoto (1972). The diagram

denotes the fractionation of sulfur isotope at 250 oC, and more details please see text. Py: pyrite.
-p
Fig. 13. Schematic diagram showing formation of zonation in Py2 at Qiuling deposit.
re
lP

Table. 1 EMPA major element (wt%) and SIMS sulfur isotopic compositions (‰) of pyrite from
the Qiuling gold deposit
Sample ID Stage δ34 Fe S Ni As Co Zn Pb Cu Co/
na

S Total Ni
18QL04-18QL00 Py1 -31 45. 52. bdl bdl 0.2 bdl 0.0 bdl 98.6 --
ur

9@1 .1 94 32 1 9 9
18QL04-18QL00 Py1 -19 46. 53. 0.2 bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. 0.40
9@2 .2 39 62 1 8 30
Jo

18QL03-18QL00 Py1 -30 45. 52. 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 98.8 1.80
9@1 .4 90 64 5 0 0
18QL03-18QL00 Py1 -25 46. 53. 0.0 bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. 1.34
9@3 .2 11 68 6 9 06
18QL03-18QL03 Py1 31. 46. 52. bdl bdl 0.1 bdl bdl 0.0 99.1 --
9@10 5 34 55 3 6 6
18QL03-18QL00 Py1 -30 46. 52. 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.1 1.89
9@1 .4 04 90 6 1 1
18QL03-18QL00 Py1 -25 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl 100. --
9@3 .2 10 84 8 0 15
18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -22 45. 53. 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.0 2.10
1@2 .1 30 44 5 1 1
18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -21 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.5 --
1@3 .6 65 72 9 4
 Journal Pre-proof

18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -34 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl 0.0 bdl 98.9 --
1@4 .2 75 01 7 5 5
18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -21 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.6 --
7@1 .7 11 42 7 6
18QL02-18QL02 Py1 58. 45. 53. 0.1 bdl 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.5 0.75
0@1 0 96 32 1 8 6 3
18QL02-18QL02 Py1 63. 45. 53. 0.2 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.2 0.50
0@2 8 56 31 3 1 7
18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -0. 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.5 --
7@6 5 75 61 9 6
18QL01-18QL03 Py1 3.8 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.4 --
8@2 16 05 1 0
18QL05-18QL00 Py1 2.1 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.2 --

of
1@1 53 54 7 7 4
18QL05-18QL02 Py1 19. 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. --

ro
9@1 4 46 97 7 53
18QL05-18QL02 Py1 15. 46. 53. bdl
-p bdl 0.0 bdl 0.0 bdl 100. --
9@2 1 36 74 9 6 34
18QL05-18QL02 Py1 -5. 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.0 --
re
4@1 0 82 07 9 8
18QL05-18QL02 Py1 6.5 45. 52. 0.1 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.0 0.89
4@2 90 81 4 2 9
lP

18QL05-18QL01 Py1 0.2 46. 54. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. --
1@1 15 00 8 23
18QL05-18QL01 Py1 0.8 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.8 --
na

1@2 17 49 6 2
18QL05-18QL01 Py1 0.2 47. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
ur

1@3 05 80 7 5 99
18QL06-18QL00 Py1 4.8 46. 52. 0.0 bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.3 1.18
5@1 14 98 6 7 3
Jo

18QL06-18QL00 Py1 6.1 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.4 --
5@2 16 22 8 7
18QL08-18QL02 Py1 -10 46. 52. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.1 --
8@2 .4 03 92 8 1
18QL09-18QL03 Py1 -18 46. 53. 0.1 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 99.9 1.50
7@1 .3 20 48 1 6 7
18QL09-18QL04 Py1 -26 45. 53. 0.1 bdl 0.1 bdl 0.1 0.2 99.1 1.42
0@1 .7 21 23 1 6 1 2 6
18QL01-18QL03 Py1 -22 45. 53. 0.1 bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.5 0.50
4@1 .8 91 38 6 8 6
18QL01-18QL03 Py1 -25 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 98.9 --
4@2 .4 76 09 1 8
18QL01-18QL02 Py1 -24 45. 53. 0.1 bdl 0.0 0.0 bdl bdl 99.1 0.78
7@1 .7 70 03 1 8 6 3
 Journal Pre-proof

18QL06-18QL01 Py1 -29 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl 0.0 bdl 99.9 --
8@2 .9 00 72 9 5 0
18QL06-18QL00 Py1 -18 46. 53. bdl 0.1 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.8 --
4@6 .3 29 21 7 9 3
18QL06-18QL01 Py1 -31 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 99.1 --
8@1 .1 95 05 8 3
18QL02-18QL04 Py1 -17 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl 100. --
1@5 .6 20 87 8 3 35
18QL09-18QL03 Py1 -30 45. 52. 0.0 bdl 0.1 bdl bdl bdl 98.9 1.24
7@2 .4 91 74 8 0 7
18QL03-18QL03 Py1+P -18 45. 48. 0.0 4.2 0.1 bdl 0.0 bdl 98.5 1.30
9@1 y2b .1 04 96 8 5 0 6 0
18QL03-18QL03 Py1+P -19 45. 50. bdl 3.4 0.1 bdl bdl 0.0 99.7 --

of
9@1 y2b .3 51 57 6 1 6 6
18QL07-18QL01 Py1+P 11. 44. 48. 0.0 5.4 0.1 bdl bdl 0.0 99.1 2.31

ro
7@3 y2b 4 44 99 5 5 3 7 9
18QL07-18QL01 Py1+P 12. 44. 50. 0.0
-p 3.0 0.1 bdl bdl 0.0 98.8 2.21
7@4 y2b 0 91 56 6 4 4 5 2
18QL03-18QL00 Py2a -2. 46. 53. 0.0 0.1 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. 0.89
re
9@2 7 40 77 8 6 7 54
18QL03-18QL03 Py2a 11. 45. 52. bdl 1.0 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.8 --
9@3 8 81 74 4 9 9 2
lP

18QL03-18QL03 Py2a 10. 46. 53. bdl 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100. --
9@6 9 13 05 9 6 7 5 6 41
18QL06-18QL00 Py2a 13. 46. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
na

7@1 7 44 37 7 8 10
18QL07-18QL01 Py2a 15. 45. 52. 0.0 0.2 0.0 bdl 0.1 0.0 99.0 1.56
ur

7@5 4 73 72 5 0 8 1 6 0
18QL07-18QL01 Py2a 4.6 45. 54. bdl 0.1 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
0@1 93 66 8 8 6 95
Jo

18QL08-18QL01 Py2a 33. 45. 53. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 98.9 --
9@1 7 77 05 7 3
18QL08-18QL01 Py2a 31. 45. 52. bdl bdl 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 98.7 --
9@4 4 78 89 7 9
18QL01-18QL03 Py2a 13. 43. 47. bdl 7.6 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.7 --
8@4 3 93 96 7 7 6 3
18QL03-18QL03 Py2b 12. 44. 49. bdl 7.1 0.0 bdl bdl 0.1 101. --
9@4 0 88 06 3 7 5 30
18QL03-18QL03 Py2b 12. 44. 48. bdl 7.6 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
9@7 3 62 46 0 8 6 83
18QL06-18QL00 Py2b 13. 44. 50. bdl 4.2 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.4 --
7@2 7 95 13 5 8 6 9
18QL07-18QL01 Py2b -- 44. 48. bdl 6.7 0.0 bdl bdl 0.1 99.9 --
7@1 47 58 0 7 1 5
 Journal Pre-proof

18QL07-18QL01 Py2b 13. 44. 49. bdl 6.1 0.0 bdl bdl 0.1 100. --
7@6 6 47 15 6 8 3 00
18QL07-18QL01 Py2b -- 44. 48. bdl 7.0 0.0 bdl bdl 0.1 99.8 --
7@8 18 43 1 6 2 5
18QL07-18QL01 Py2b -- 44. 48. bdl 7.2 0.0 bdl bdl bdl 100. --
0@2 45 38 0 8 18
18QL07-18QL01 Py2b 9.7 43. 47. bdl 8.3 0.0 bdl bdl 0.1 99.7 --
0@3 72 49 1 5 4 4
18QL08-18QL01 Py2b 19. 45. 50. bdl 4.5 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
9@5 4 24 34 5 5 8 27
18QL01-18QL03 Py2b 9.2 44. 50. bdl 4.0 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.5 --
8@5 96 40 2 6 7 1
18QL07-18QL01 Py2b -- 44. 48. bdl 7.1 0.0 bdl 0.0 0.1 100. --

of
7@2 39 50 1 9 6 4 31
18QL03-18QL03 Py2c 13. 46. 50. bdl 4.3 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 101. --

ro
9@5 0 01 85 5 9 8 40
18QL03-18QL03 Py2c 12. 45. 49. bdl
-p 5.6 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
9@8 6 04 73 7 7 5 58
18QL01-18QL03 Py2c 12. 45. 50. bdl 4.7 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
re
8@6 1 07 43 2 6 8 39
18QL07-18QL01 Py2c 13. 44. 50. bdl 4.9 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
7@7 1 99 05 5 9 5 15
lP

18QL08-18QL01 Py2c 16. 44. 51. 0.0 2.9 0.0 bdl bdl 0.2 99.7 0.87
9@2 5 98 46 8 2 7 0 1
18QL08-18QL01 Py2c 21. 45. 51. bdl 3.1 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 100. --
na

9@3 7 19 56 4 7 8 06
18QL08-18QL01 Py2c 17. 45. 51. bdl 2.4 0.0 bdl bdl 0.0 99.1 --
ur

9@6 0 11 42 3 8 8 5
bdl: below detection limit.
--: no data.
Jo

Table. 2 LA-ICP-MS trace element (ppm) in pyrite from the Qiuling gold deposit
Stage Mn Co Ni Cu As Ag Sb Au Tl Pb Bi
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm (ppm) (ppm (ppm (ppm
) ) ) ) )
Py1@ 6.9 850.0 273.0 684.0 4630 4.8 670.0 1.5 1.1 1619. 34.8
1* 0.0 0
Py1@ 3.0 696.0 237.0 552.0 4060 3.7 546.0 0.6 1.0 1403. 26.1
2* 0.0 0
Py1@ 6.2 588.0 762.0 4300. 1268. 4.0 247.6 bdl 2.0 796.0 24.3
3 0 0
Py1@ 5.1 489.0 854.0 350.0 764.0 4.7 116.6 bdl 1.6 1193. 32.9
4 0
 Journal Pre-proof

Py1@ 114.1 396.0 385.0 330.0 3062 0.6 183.0 0.4 0.8 851.0 8.3
5* 0.0
Py1@ 251.1 164.5 302.0 74.3 501.0 0.5 117.2 bdl 0.6 240.7 5.1
6
Py1@ 203.0 118.6 258.0 63.4 426.0 0.5 58.4 bdl 0.5 240.0 5.5
7
Py1@ 174.3 107.5 236.0 58.7 403.0 0.5 74.2 bdl 0.5 216.0 5.4
8
Py1@ 3.8 1559. 870.0 411.0 3500 30.7 378.0 23.1 3.3 503.0 23.1
9* 0 0.0
Py1@ 3.5 1245. 493.0 394.0 3690 25.4 396.0 26.8 3.0 510.0 17.7
10* 0 0.0
Py1@ 26.2 1229. 512.0 428.0 4210 25.7 639.0 34.7 2.2 789.0 22.3

of
11* 0 0.0
Py1@ 1.7 0.5 14.7 41.8 8.8 0.6 0.6 bdl 0.2 3.5 bdl

ro
12
Py1@ 4.8 0.3 9.2 28.7 6.7 0.4
-p 0.1 bdl 0.2 6.0 bdl
13
Py1@ 1.9 5.1 41.8 46.3 10.4 0.8 0.9 bdl 0.3 9.6 bdl
re
14
Py1@ 106.6 28.4 189.5 146.7 119.6 1.2 31.3 0.4 4.1 404.7 bdl
15
lP

Py1@ 0.8 1.4 19.1 38.7 8.9 0.5 1.6 bdl 1.8 42.8 bdl
16
Py1@ 4.8 208.6 1128. 170.8 432.9 4.7 57.1 0.8 0.4 140.3 0.5
na

17 1
Py1@ 13.9 246.3 1079. 184.1 523.5 5.0 69.7 0.8 0.6 219.3 0.6
ur

18 9
Py1@ 81.2 36.1 167.6 133.6 43.7 0.4 4.2 0.9 3.0 425.9 0.2
19
Jo

Py1@ 7.9 7.5 41.9 55.7 81.0 0.2 1.2 bdl 0.3 61.6 bdl
20
Py1@ 64.7 1.3 39.4 96.9 22.8 2.2 2.6 9.4 0.5 26.6 0.4
21
Py1@ 18.2 107.2 492.9 545.9 80.3 2.2 15.8 4.3 0.3 214.0 2.1
22
Py1@ 3.7 1.2 19.0 54.8 9.0 0.9 0.5 bdl 0.2 5.1 bdl
23
Py1@ 70.1 21.3 156.2 155.0 181.7 0.9 46.1 0.7 2.3 509.3 bdl
24
Py1@ 37.6 64.8 208.1 106.2 137.3 1.0 38.3 0.4 2.2 361.6 bdl
25
Py1@ 71.9 55.0 226.2 143.3 117.8 1.3 32.1 0.4 2.9 467.9 bdl
26
 Journal Pre-proof

Py1@ 43.7 18.7 91.4 124.2 27.6 1.7 7.9 bdl 4.6 182.3 bdl
27
Py1@ 49.2 49.2 208.8 108.3 63.8 0.7 13.7 bdl 2.3 547.8 bdl
28
Py1@ 1.3 4.3 114.0 41.9 133.7 0.4 24.2 0.2 2.3 119.4 bdl
29
Py1@ 0.9 1.9 40.0 31.8 13.7 0.4 3.0 bdl 1.9 60.4 bdl
30
Py1@ 82.2 3.3 104.4 130.4 42.2 0.6 1.9 0.5 0.6 76.6 bdl
31
Py1@ 15.0 11.6 94.5 42.8 28.4 1.1 12.8 bdl 0.4 81.1 bdl
32
Py1@ 2.4 1.4 15.9 35.1 7.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 8.2 bdl

of
33
256. 202. 246.

ro
Ave
49.0 86.8 1 270.7 3 1.4 36.3 1.6 1.4 7 7.7
Py2a 4.5 13.7 183.0 780.0 3970 3.9
-p 795.0 1.2 0.8 1784. 21.4
@1 0.0 0
Py2a 1.0 4.2 81.2 802.0 7220 1.4 324.0 2.8 0.6 482.0 8.6
re
@2 0.0
Py2a 2.0 5.2 50.0 891.0 7040 2.5 340.0 2.3 0.7 561.0 11.1
@3 0.0
lP

Py2a 82.6 12.5 273.0 759.0 4590 3.2 734.0 1.3 1.5 1270. 23.3
@4 0.0 0
Py2a 29.1 176.0 170.0 429.0 2940 3.0 418.0 0.8 2.3 880.0 16.0
na

@5 0.0
Py2a 7.8 4.7 40.2 706.0 4700 3.4 511.0 0.9 1.8 877.0 9.7
ur

@6 0.0
Py2a 1.0 2.6 75.6 644.0 7200 1.6 251.0 8.5 0.6 521.0 7.1
@7 0.0
Jo

Py2a 1.4 1.4 39.1 577.0 3730 2.0 287.0 31.6 0.8 527.0 4.8
@8 0.0
Py2a 0.8 1.6 36.4 850.0 5760 1.4 279.0 5.5 0.4 425.0 4.5
@9 0.0
Py2a 0.9 5.9 63.0 735.0 5450 1.7 346.0 0.6 1.0 562.0 9.0
@10 0.0
Py2a 1.9 18.3 190.0 663.0 3940 2.6 416.0 3.5 0.5 2150. 10.4
@11 0.0 0
Py2a 8.9 6.6 147.0 903.0 3670 5.0 831.0 4.6 2.5 1228. 11.9
@12 0.0 0
Py2a 2.4 285.0 335.0 216.0 6800. 0.9 160.4 10.8 2.1 433.0 5.9
@13 0
Py2a 3.2 15.5 71.2 717.0 5380 14.6 767.0 9.9 1.5 1276. 3.1
@14 0.0 0
 Journal Pre-proof

Py2a 1.7 22.4 45.3 795.0 4720 24.5 1280. 81.0 2.4 1870. 21.3
@15 0.0 0 0
Py2a bdl 11.0 37.0 722.0 2850 27.0 1730. 38.5 2.5 2869. 11.4
@16 0.0 0 0
Py2a 2.4 9.4 39.9 864.0 5720 23.1 863.0 11.7 2.1 995.0 7.8
@17 0.0
Py2a 6.6 16.2 68.2 726.0 4020 22.2 865.0 54.7 2.1 1029. 7.2
@18 0.0 0
Py2a 2.4 9.3 78.5 1420. 2990 25.2 859.0 8.5 2.1 1425. 4.9
@19 0 0.0 0
Py2a 2.0 6.6 81.3 645.0 9580. 21.8 938.0 0.5 1.5 1605. 2.1
@20 0 0
8.6 31.4 105.2 742.2 4376 9.5 649.7 14.0 1.5 1138. 10.1

of
Ave
4.0 5
Py2b 1.2 1.1 27.2 788.0 7370 1.2 175.0 15.3 0.3 370.0 4.8

ro
@1 0.0
Py2b bdl 5.4 165.0 881.0 7580 0.6
-p 122.7 5.9 0.6 186.7 8.6
@2 0.0
Py2b bdl 2.6 48.0 867.0 7730 1.2 286.0 3.7 0.7 435.0 10.6
re
@3 0.0
Py2b 0.9 16.8 128.0 736.0 6020 1.1 145.2 15.9 0.8 250.0 9.5
@4 0.0
lP

Py2b bdl 5.7 74.1 781.0 7670 0.3 100.1 40.2 0.4 148.2 5.2
@5 0.0
Py2b bdl 0.9 24.4 872.0 7340 0.2 87.1 39.6 0.2 190.0 4.1
na

@6 0.0
Py2b 1.6 3.3 58.2 817.0 6900 0.6 163.0 52.0 0.5 316.0 4.8
ur

@7 0.0
Py2b 2.3 15.0 85.5 864.0 7050 2.2 373.0 50.6 1.1 584.0 9.9
@8 0.0
Jo

Py2b bdl bdl 40.7 1136. 8460 1.5 202.0 13.5 0.6 312.0 4.5
@9 0 0.0
Py2b 9.3 3.8 71.0 1094. 8920 0.3 40.9 77.3 0.1 87.9 2.3
@10 0 0.0
Py2b bdl 5.7 22.3 1182. 8720 19.3 394.0 31.8 1.0 377.0 4.9
@11 0 0.0
Py2b 4.8 9.7 88.0 1038. 7480 16.3 522.0 101.2 2.1 552.0 9.7
@12 0 0.0
Py2b 1.8 12.4 28.0 1490. 6850 49.6 920.0 22.2 1.9 572.0 8.8
@13 0 0.0
Py2b 0.9 3.3 30.7 776.0 7090 1.0 161.0 19.8 0.5 362.0 6.4
@14 0.0
Py2b bdl 2.8 17.8 946.0 7540 1.0 150.0 18.1 0.3 145.2 2.6
@15 0.0
 Journal Pre-proof

Py2b 1.2 1.0 17.4 670.0 6990 0.6 105.0 7.9 0.3 180.0 3.3
@16 0.0
Py2b bdl 5.5 46.1 738.0 6030 1.0 165.0 5.3 0.4 320.0 8.4
@17 0.0
Py2b 1.0 0.9 23.7 683.0 7210 0.5 76.0 24.8 0.2 119.0 3.4
@18 0.0
2.5 5.6 55.3 908.8 7386 5.5 232.7 30.3 0.7 305.9 6.2
Ave
1.1
Py2c 2.2 2.7 40.1 867.0 7920 0.4 99.0 41.5 0.2 204.0 3.8
@1 0.0
Py2c 1.1 2.0 10.6 665.0 6630 0.5 55.8 49.5 0.1 93.0 2.7
@2 0.0
Py2c 1.6 bdl 34.2 747.0 7910 0.8 98.7 51.2 0.3 172.0 4.3

of
@3 0.0
Py2c 3.7 11.9 58.0 684.0 6060 0.6 58.0 70.5 0.3 123.5 3.0

ro
@4 0.0
Py2c 1.2 37.0 91.0 711.0 6760 1.9
-p 256.0 17.2 0.6 413.0 9.7
@5 0.0
Py2c 2.6 7.8 78.0 516.0 5340 0.5 73.9 52.3 0.5 98.8 3.1
re
@6 0.0
Py2c 5.3 4.1 49.0 919.0 7520 4.8 358.0 71.6 1.1 528.0 10.5
@7 0.0
lP

Py2c 4.9 7.1 23.4 523.0 5630 2.0 73.6 68.5 0.3 130.3 1.3
@8 0.0
Py2c 1.2 14.7 24.6 1020. 1019 20.9 433.0 38.0 1.2 255.0 4.9
na

@9 0 00.0
Ave 2.6 10.9 45.4 739.1 7106 3.6 167.3 51.1 0.5 224.2 4.8
ur

6.7
bdl: below detection limit. Py1@1*: rejected data. The average values for Py1 do not include the
rejected points.
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of competing interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Graphical abstract

Highlights
1. This study highlights the importance of detailed texture characterization coupled with
relatively large data set of in-situ sulfur isotope and trace elements for orogenic gold
deposit research.
2. The ore-forming fluid at Qiuling deposit may have sourced from metamorphism of the
regional Neoproterozoic basement, with no detectable contribution from magmatic
hydrothermal fluids.
3. Sedimentary pyrite in the wall rocks contributed negligible Au and As for mineralization

of
at the Qiuling orogenic gold deposit.

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13