Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Magmatic origin of geothermal fluids constrained by geochemical evidence:

Implications for the heat source in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau
Sheng Pan a, b, c, Yanlong Kong a, b, c, *, Ke Wang a, b, c, Yaqian Ren a, b, c, Zhonghe Pang a, b, c,
Chao Zhang d, Dongguang Wen e, Linyou Zhang e, Qingda Feng e, Guilin Zhu e, Jiyang Wang a, b, c
a
State Key Laboratory of Shale Gas and Geoengineering, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
b
Innovation Academy for Earth Science, CAS, Beijing 100029, China
c
College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
d
College of Energy, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan 610059, China
e
Center for Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology Survey, China Geological Survey, Baoding 071051, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Huaming Guo, The northeastern Tibetan Plateau (NETP) represents the growth front of the Tibetan Plateau (TP) system. This
Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of Jiin-Shuh region has long been recognized as a key in understanding the topographic response and crustal thickening of the
Jean, Associate Editor entire TP. A heat flow anomaly (Gonghe Basin, 102 mW/m2) was found in the NETP. However, the heat-
generation mechanism and the heat source of the Gonghe Basin are still debated as it is unclear whether they
Keywords:
are related to magmatic melting activities. Herein, we provide systematic hydrogeochemical data of two types of
Northeastern Tibetan Plateau
geothermal waters (type I and II: geothermal waters sampled from within the basin and the mountainous regions,
Geothermal energy
Gonghe basin respectively) found in the region. Type I high δD (− 85.0‰ to − 59.0‰), δ18O (− 11.1‰ to − 8.0‰), Cl− (mostly
Parent geothermal fluids range from 300 to 900 mg/L), and trace element, whereas type II has low δD (− 97.1‰ to − 89‰), δ18O (− 13.0‰
Hydro-geochemistry to − 11.8‰), Cl− (30 to 180 mg/L) and trace elements. Furthermore, we identified the existence of a high-
Partial melt zone temperature parent geothermal fluid based on the chloride – enthalpy model, it was estimated to possess a
temperature of 310 ◦ C and a circulation depth of 6.8–7.8 km. The parent geothermal fluid originated from
snowmelt water, which later mixed with a magmatic fluid. The helium (He) ratios of geothermal gas ranged from
0.01 Ra to 0.18 Ra and indicated that the source of He was primarily from a crustal source. In addition to the heat
flow analysis and magnetotelluric (MT) data, we suggested that the magmatic nature of the geothermal fluid is
caused by a partial melt zone, which is ubiquitous in the middle to lower crust and serves as the heat source in
the NETP. Finally, a conceptual model was built to illustrate the occurrence of magmatic fluid and its genesis.
The findings will help to improve the understanding of the uplift of the TP and reveals the important role of deep
groundwater circulation in the formation of high-temperature geothermal resources.

1. Introduction in the first collection of published heat-flow values (Shen, 1991).

The Indian Plate started colliding with the Eurasian Plate from ca. 55
Ma (Tapponnier et al., 2001). Since the onset of the Cenozoic, the
collision between the Indian and Eurasian continents has led to the
formation of the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen, one of the largest orogens
worldwide (Yin and Harrison, 2000; Tapponnier et al., 2001). As a
result, the Tibetan Plateau (TP) is one of the most active geothermal
areas in the Mediterranean-Himalayan Geothermal belt (Yokoyama
et al., 1999). Geothermal studies on the TP began in the 1990s, resulting
However, the heat flow pattern and heat generation mechanism across
the entire TP, specifically the northeastern section, is still uncertain
because previous geothermal research primarily focused on southern
Tibetan region (Yokoyama et al., 1999; Hoke et al., 2000; Zhang et al.,
2017; Guo et al., 2019). The northeastern Tibetan Plateau (NETP) rep­
resents the growth front of the plateau system (Huang et al., 2020).
Therefore, a better understanding of its heat generation mechanism is
essential for studying the uplift mechanism of the TP and for exploiting
geothermal resources. Hence, a detailed study on the heat generation

* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Shale Gas and Geoengineering, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
100029, China.
E-mail address: ylkong@mail.iggcas.ac.cn (Y. Kong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126985
Received 5 July 2021; Received in revised form 3 September 2021; Accepted 19 September 2021
Available online 24 September 2021
0022-1694/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Fig. 1. Geological setting and stratigraphic map of the Gonghe Basin on the NETP (insets A and B are modified after Zhang et al., 2020a). Inset D is a borehole
lithology profile in Qiabuqia (QBQ) geothermal area (modified after Zhang et al., 2018b). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

mechanism in the NETP is crucial.
With increasing demand for the exploration of a high-temperature
enhanced geothermal system, the China Geological Survey has been
conducting a long-term geological survey of geothermal resources since
2013 and had identified a heat flow anomaly (102 mW/m2) in the NETP
region (Zhang et al., 2018a). The heat flow anomaly within the NETP is
located in the Gonghe Basin and is characterized by high heat flow and a
geothermal gradient of up to 6.8 ◦ C/100 m (Zhang et al., 2018a). Some
studies have attempted to explain the heat flow anomaly, including (i)
the non-magmatic heat source and the presence of a high concentration
of heat-producing elements in the basal granite (Sun et al., 2011; Liu
et al., 2016) and (ii) the duplicate effect of radiogenic heat in the
thickened crust and cooling of the shallow magma chamber beneath the
Gonghe Basin (Zhang et al. 2018a). Overall, there is great debate
regarding the presence of partial melting zone in the crust (Kong et al.,
2020a). Fortunately, recent geophysical observations have revealed
pervasive zones of materials with high electrical conductivities (Gao
et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2020) and anomalously low shear wave velocities
(less than 3.3 km/s, Zhang et al., 2020b) in the upper to middle crust
beneath the Gonghe Basin. However, uncertainty still exists whether the
geophysical anomaly is related to partial melting. Moreover, the heat
source attributes of the low resistivity and low-velocity zone (LRLVZ)
beneath the Gonghe Basin could not be distinguished.
In the Gonghe Basin, there are strong surface manifestations of

2
S. Pan et al.
Fig. 2. Geological cross-sections across the Qiabuqia (QBQ), Qunaihai (QNH), Zhacangsi (ZCS), and Zhihai (ZH) geothermal areas (A–A’ and B–B’; modified after
Zhang et al., 2020c; Le, 2019). Fig. 1 illustrates the traces of these cross-sections in the study area. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
geothermal systems, including boiling spring, fumarole, and sinters (Liu
et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2018). Geothermal systems are the near-surface
expressions of the heat transfer from the Earth’s core to the surface
(Jolie et al., 2021). Fluids play a key role in the transportation of heat
and mass (Bickle and McKenzie, 1987; Menzies et al., 2014) as they can
penetrate into large parts of the crust via permeable faults (Menzies
et al., 2014; Luijendijk et al., 2020). Fluid geochemical data can provide
vital information regarding the source of geothermal fluids, geochemical
processes occurring in a reservoir, and the genesis of geothermal systems
(Guo et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2020;
Barberio et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2021). Based on this, the heat source
attributes of the LRLVZ beneath the Gonghe Basin can be constrained by
geochemical tools. The isotopic composition of water could be used to
determine the origin of geothermal fluids (Pang, 2006; Clark, 2015;
Barbieri, 2019; Bowen et al., 2019; Kong et al., 2020b) and provide
additional information than those obtained from geophysical or solute
concentration data alone (Jasechko, 2019). Major and trace elements
could also provide constraints for delineating hydrological processes
(Clark, 2015) and estimating the reservoir temperature (Reed and
Spycher, 1984; Pang and Reed, 1998). In addition, gas isotopic com­
positions (e.g., 3He/ 4He) respond quickly to tectonic and magmatic
processes (Sano et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2021). Moreover, hydro­
geochemical data could provide information about the structure, status,
and processes of the groundwater system and interpretations from
hydrogeochemical data aid in water resource management (Barbieri,
2019). In recent years, several studies were carried out to investigate the
hydrochemistry (Liu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016), reservoir
3
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
temperature (Hou et al., 2019), and stable isotopic compositions of
geothermal fluids (Dai et al., 2021) in the Gonghe Basin. However, these
studies did not incorporate the geochemical evidence, regional
geophysical interpretation results, and terrestrial heat flow data to
investigate the genesis of high-temperature geothermal systems in the
region. The heat source predominantly arises from residual mantle heat
and the radiogenic heat in the crust (Wang, 2015); however, the most
common heat source for high-temperature geothermal systems is the
magmatic heat source, especially in the southern TP (Duo and Zhao,
2000; Guo et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020a). A
high-temperature geothermal system with a magmatic heat source
usually hosts a deep parent geothermal fluid (Shoedarto et al., 2020).
The parent geothermal fluid evolves to a high enthalpy fluid owing to
the additional heating from the magmatic heat source. The
high-temperature parent geothermal fluid is the deepest, original
geothermal fluid that remains in equilibrium with the surrounding rocks
(Shoedarto et al., 2020).
Cl− is one of the conservative elements that can be employed to trace
the origin of geothermal fluids (Truesdell et al., 1989; Guo et al., 2012;
Shoedarto et al., 2020). Chloride is a highly soluble ion found in crustal
fluids, salt formations, and seawater (Clark, 2015). Chloride in high-
temperature geothermal system with a magmatic heat source (e.g.,
Yangbajing, Tengchong Rehai and Yellowstone National Park) origi­
nates primarily from the mixing of meteoric waters with the magmatic
fluid (Guo, 2012; Guo and Wang, 2012; Truesdell and Fournier, 1976).
Hence, the parent geothermal fluid is usually enriched in Cl− concen­
trations due to the effects of incorporating magmatic fluids (Nicholson,
S. Pan et al.
1993). Along with enthalpy, Cl− is useful for estimating the temperature
of the parent geothermal fluid (Fournier, 1977; Guo and Wang, 2012).
Combining geochemical, geological, and geophysical evidence we can
confirm whether there is a magmatic heat source in the region.
Herein, we perform a detailed geochemical analysis of geothermal
waters and gases collected from the Gonghe Basin. We also incorporate
regional geophysical interpretation and terrestrial heat flow analysis
results to investigate the heat source and heat generation mechanism in
the region. This research is valuable for understanding the heat gener­
ation and uplifting mechanism of the NETP and will help explore the
high-temperature geothermal energy resources in the TP.
2. Geological setting
The TP is bounded by the Indian Plate in the south, the North China
craton in the north, the Tarim Basin in the west, and the Sichuan Basin in
the east (Fig. 1A; Gao et al., 2013). The collision between the Indian and
Eurasian plates uplifted the TP and caused thickening of the crust
(Molnar and Tapponnier, 1978; Yin and Harrison, 2000). As a result of
the ongoing collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates, the NETP
extrudes laterally during the Cenozoic (Lease et al., 2011; Wang et al.,
2012). Cenozoic deformation of the NETP is associated with the local­
ized growth of the associated basins (Fig. 1B; Craddock et al., 2014). The
Gonghe Basin is a Cenozoic diamond-shaped intermontane basin
controlled by the Kunlun Fault and Altyn Tagh Fault (Fig. 1; Zhang et al.,
2012; Gao et al., 2020). The Gonghe Basin is located in the junction and
transformation zone of the Qilian, Kunlun, and Qinling orogenic belts
(the so-called Central Chinese orogenic belt, Fig. 1A and B) (Wang et al.,
2011; Zhang et al., 2018a; Zhang et al., 2020a). The Cenozoic defor­
mation of the Gonghe Basin is associated with two primary fault sys­
tems, the Qinghai Nan Shan and the Gonghe Nan Shan (Craddock et al.,
2014). The Qinghainanshan fault (QHNSF) and the Gonghenanshan
fault (GHNSF) are the northern and southern margins of the Gonghe
Basin (Fig. 1B and C). The deformation of the QHNSF and GHNSF began
ca. 6–10 Ma and ca. 7–10 Ma, respectively (Craddock et al., 2014). Since
the late Miocene, the QHNSF and GHNSF have accommodated 0.8–2.2
km and 5.1–6.9 km of shortening, respectively (Craddock et al., 2014).
In addition, geologic data indicate that the QHNSF and GHNSF sole into
decollements in the upper or middle crust (Craddock et al., 2014). The
Walihong-Wenquan fault (WLH-WQF) and the Duohemao fault (DHMF)
are found at the western and eastern margins of the Gonghe Basin. In the
early Miocene, the NNW strike faults (QHNSF and GHNSF) and right-
lateral faults (WLH-WQF and DHMF) controlled the deformation of
the Gonghe Basin (Wang et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2020). The marginal
fault extended rapidly to the basin, transforming the basin into an
intermontane basin (Wang et al., 2011). Approximately during Ca. 3.6
Ma, the deposition rate rapidly increased (Wang et al., 2011), covering
the Gonghe Basin in thick Cenozoic sedimentary strata (such as the
Xining, Xianshuihe, Linxia, and Gonghe formations) (Zhang et al.,
2018a). Moreover, the shortening rates across the QHNSF and GHNSF
(0.10 ± 0.04 mm/yr) imply slow and steady deformation of the basin
since the late Miocene (Craddock et al., 2014). Geologic evidence sug­
gests that the rapid uplift with the mountain’s fracturing strongly
extended to the basin (Sun, 2004; Gao et al., 2020).
Fig. 1C shows the locations of the samples in the basin. There are
several typical geothermal water groups in the Gonghe Basin, including
the Qiabuqia (QBQ), the Qunaihai (QNH), the Zhacangsi (ZCS), the
Zhihai (ZH), the Lancai (LC), and the Xinghai (XH) groups along the Ela
fault zone (Fig. 1C; Xu et al., 2018). The basement rock in the basin is
composed of Triassic sandy slate and Indosinian acidic volcanic rock­
s—granite and granodiorite (Zhang et al., 2018a). The sedimentary cap
layers are composed of primarily sandstone of the Paleogene, Neogene
and Quaternary lacustrine strata (Zhang et al., 2020b). Fig. 1D shows the
borehole lithology profile in the QBQ geothermal area (Zhang et al.,
2018b). Two geological cross-sections (A - A’ and B - B’) across QBQ,
QNH, ZCS and ZH geothermal areas are illustrated in Fig. 2 to provide
4
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
information on the path of fluid circulation.
3. Methods
In this section, initially we discuss the sampling and analysis
methods employed. Further, we detail the procedure for using Cl−
concentration, enthalpy, and δD and δ18O data to identify the origin of
the parent geothermal fluid.
3.1. Sampling and analysis
In 2019 and 2020, we collected 26 water samples (11 thermal water,
5 cold groundwater, and 10 surface water) and five gas samples from the
Gonghe Basin to obtain comprehensive chemical and isotopic data. The
annual average air temperature of the Gonghe Basin was 10 ◦ C (Dai
et al., 2021). In this study, the groundwater temperature higher than
20 ◦ C was considered to represent thermal water (Liao, 2018). We also
collected data of 48 water samples from published studies (Liu, 2015;
Liu et al., 2016; Li, 2016; Hou et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2021). Fig. 1C
shows the sampling locations. At each sampling site, we measured the
temperature, pH, and electrical conductivity of groundwater with
handled meters (HQ40D, Hach). Water samples were filtered through a
0.45 μm filter and collected in pre rinsed polyethylene bottles. Samples
for cation analysis and trace elements were preserved by the dropwise
addition of high-purity nitric acid to a pH of less than 2. Untreated
samples were collected for anion, oxygen, and hydrogen analyses. The
samples for SiO2 analysis were diluted with deionized water to prevent
SiO2 precipitation. Chemical and isotopic analyses were completed
within two weeks of sampling. Trace elements were analyzed at the
Analytical Laboratory of the Beijing Research Institute of Uranium
Geology.
The concentrations of major cations and trace elements were
detected by ICP-AES (ICAP6000, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and ICPMS
(7500C, Agilent), respectively. Multielement standard solutions (90243
and 51844, Fluka) used for quality control indicated that the analytical
error margin of major cations and trace elements was less than 0.5%.
Anions, including F− , Cl− , and SO42− , were determined using ion
chromatography (Dionex ICS600, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Ion charge
imbalances were calculated from the analyses, and they are less than
10% for most of the samples. Oxygen and hydrogen isotope analyses
were performed using a laser absorption water isotope spectrometer
analyzer (L1102-I, Picarro). The isotopic ratios of D/H and 18O/16O are
referenced with the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) in­
ternational standard. The analytical precisions of δD and δ18O were 0.5
and 0.1‰, respectively.
Samples for He and Ne isotopes analysis were collected from the
bubbling pools. We collected samples using the drainage method and
cooper tubes. For the drainage method, we filled a 50 mL glass bottle
with geothermal waters and submerged it underwater. The bottle was
connected by a tube to an inverted Teflon funnel. We then sampled the
geothermal gases after the water was entirely displaced. Finally, we
sealed the bottle with a rubber stopper and crimped with an aluminum
cap. Sampling bottles were then sealed in 500 mL brown polyethylene
bottles full of in situ geothermal water. Copper tubes were used at
springs to collect water samples. Water was pumped through submerged
copper tubes attached to Tygon tubing until no air bubbles were visible.
The copper tubes were closed by clenching. The He and Ne isotopes were
determined using a sector mass spectrometer at the Beijing Research
Institute of Uranium Geology and Laboratory of Gas Geochemistry
(Lanzhou, Gansu), Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Re­
sources, Chinese Academy of Sciences. All the 3He/4He ratios are
expressed as R/Ra where Ra (1.4 × 10− 6) is the 3He/4He ratio of air
(Sano and Wakita, 1985).
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Table 1
Physical properties and stable isotopic compositions of water samples from Gonghe Basin.
Sites No Type Depth (m) pH T (◦ C) EC (μS/cm) TDS δ18O (‰) δ2H (‰)
a
QBQ G01 Geothermal well 300 8.20 25.0 3226 710 − 10.5 − 74.5
G02a Geothermal well 200 8.04 27.5 – 681 − 10.9 − 76.6
G03a Geothermal well 100 8.42 29.3 – 779 − 10.6 − 74.6
G04 Geothermal well 80 7.88 30.9 3060 – − 10.3 − 77.2
G05a Geothermal well 100 8.01 30.9 – 866 − 10.7 − 74.3
G06a Geothermal well 180 8.07 37.2 – 1734 − 10.5 − 73.3
G07a Geothermal well 2927 8.22 43.1 – 1581 − 10.1 − 81.5
G08b Geothermal well 2645 8.20 50.1 2645 1297 − 9.7 − 79.4
G09b Geothermal well 1485 8.20 62.0 2575 1262 − 9.3 − 79.2
G10c Geothermal well – 8.20 65.0 – 2001 − 8.8 − 79.0
G11d Geothermal well 2950 7.80 65.5 2935 1440 – –
G12d Geothermal well 1852 7.80 67.0 3807 1921 − 8.0 − 61.0
G13 Geothermal well 850 7.94 67.0 2535 1318 − 9.0 − 80.1
G14a Geothermal well 3102 7.91 78.0 – 1651 − 8.7 − 77.8
G15c Geothermal well – 8.17 77.0 – 1662 − 8.2 − 80.0
G16c Geothermal well – 8.80 80.0 – 1914 − 8.9 − 78.0
G17a Hot spring 8.32 23.4 – 972 − 11.0 − 79.7
G18b Hot spring – 7.90 27.8 1331 652 − 10.7 − 73.3
G19 Hot spring – 8.00 30.0 3630 1808 − 10.3 − 71.0
G20b Hot spring – 7.90 37.5 2956 1449 − 10.6 − 72.7
G21 Hot spring – 8.20 34.6 3510 1494 − 9.3 − 71.0
G22 Hot spring – 7.70 37.4 4450 1839 − 10.1 − 68.4
G23a Hot spring – 8.40 37.1 1747 – − 10.4 − 78.8
ZCS G24a Geothermal well 16 7.81 26.0 – 816 − 8.7 − 59.0
G25a Geothermal well – 8.36 66.2 – 1489 − 10.8 − 82.0
G26a Geothermal well 100 7.99 78.3 – 1391 − 10.9 − 84.0
G27a Geothermal well 100 8.40 80.0 – 1481 − 11.1 − 84.0
G28a Geothermal well 3051 8.33 90.0 – 1244 − 11.1 − 85.0
G29 Hot spring – 8.45 87.0 3177 1596 − 10.4 − 84.6
G30e Hot spring – 8.10 81.9 – 1488 − 9.7 − 81.0
QNH G31 Hot spring – 7.55 21.9 2105 1046 − 9.8 − 74.9
G32e Hot spring – 8.30 54.0 – 1899 − 9.1 − 78.0
G33d Hot spring – 8.10 64.0 2804 1405 – –
G34d Hot spring – 8.10 84.0 3241 1620 − 9.0 − 64.0
G35d Hot spring – 8.10 86.0 3299 1653 − 8.7 − 65.0
G36 Hot spring – 8.20 87.0 3870 1730 − 9.5 − 81.7
ZH G37b Hot spring – 8.30 48.9 995 488 − 12.3 − 93.2
G38b Hot spring – 8.30 52.5 981 481 − 12.1 − 90.6
G39 Hot spring – 8.48 67.0 1327 473 − 11.8 − 91.0
XH G40 Hot spring – 8.24 60.0 1345 602 − 12.2 − 93.8
G41 Hot spring – 8.11 60.0 2310 867 − 13.0 − 97.1
LC G42e Hot spring – 8.70 87.0 – 406 − 12.3 − 90.0
G43e Hot spring – 8.80 46.6 – 361 − 12.4 − 89.0
Entire Gonghe Basin G44 Cold well 4 8.15 11.4 1613 809 − 10.0 − 73.2
G45 Cold well 4 8.23 16.8 600 302 − 9.7 − 68.8
G46 Cold well 3 8.40 11.2 953 475 − 9.8 − 67.7
G47a Cold well 15 8.07 18.7 – 447 − 8.5 − 56.3
G48a Cold well 14 7.82 19.9 – 1145 − 9.2 − 66.0
G49a Cold spring – 8.48 19.8 – 819 − 10.0 − 72.6
G50a Cold spring – 7.91 12.0 – 1693 − 10.3 − 74.1
G51a Cold spring – 8.16 12.7 – 607 − 10.4 − 70.4
G52a Cold spring – 7.99 10.5 – 715 − 8.6 − 57.5
G53a Cold spring – 8.06 13.4 – 676 − 8.7 − 58.0
G54 Cold spring – 8.00 8.9 669 335 − 7.8 − 56.8
G55 Cold spring – 7.86 13.5 1837 900 − 8.5 − 67.9
G56b Cold spring – 7.90 11.4 388 191 − 6.4 − 39.7
G57b Cold spring – 7.60 13.9 764 375 − 8.1 − 57.4
S01a Surface water – 8.21 16.8 – 421 − 8.5 − 56.0
S02a Surface water – 8.31 21.0 – 1031 − 10.2 − 71.6
S03 Surface water – 8.94 21.2 1332 766 − 9.1 − 68.0
S04 Surface water – 9.02 21.9 417 209 − 10.2 − 77.7
S05 Surface water – 8.89 22.1 534 318 4.7 11.0
S06 Surface water – 8.76 19.2 605 303 − 9.3 − 64.4
S07 Surface water – 9.50 24.5 440 221 − 6.6 − 52.8
S08 Surface water – 8.25 12.4 944 470 − 9.7 − 67.4
S09 Surface water – 8.73 13.6 548 270 − 7.2 − 48.9
S10 Surface water – 9.00 23.2 1987 982 − 6.5 − 52.0
S11 Surface water – 8.75 16.9 408 200 − 9.5 − 66.4
S12 Surface water – 8.11 60.0 453 321 − 11.5 − 81.9
S13a Surface water – 7.96 20.4 – 1335 − 78.0 − 57.0
S14a Surface water – 8.39 12.5 – 804 – –
S15a Surface water – 8.35 20.4 – 1199 − 9.1 − 66.0
R1a Rain water – – – – − 6.6 − 42.0
R2a Rain water – – – – – − 7.5 − 49.0

5
S. Pan et al.
Note: - = not detected; a = data from Hou et al. (2019); b = data from Liu et al. (2016); c = data from Li. (2016); d = data from Liu. (2015); e = data from Dai et al.
(2021).
3.2. Procedures for identifying the parent geothermal fluid
The presence of parent geothermal fluid and its accompanying pro­
cesses can be estimated from chloride–enthalpy and chloride–deuterium
diagrams (Fournier, 1977; Shoedarto et al., 2020). Chloride–enthalpy
and chloride-deuterium diagrams have been widely used to estimate the
temperature of parent geothermal fluid and to understand their cooling
and mixing mechanisms (Truesdell and Fournier, 1976; Fournier, 1977;
Fournier, 1979; Guo and Wang, 2012; Shoedarto et al., 2020). To obtain
the enthalpy of each sample, we first evaluated the reservoir tempera­
ture. Previous studies have proved that the quartz geothermometer is
suitable for obtaining reservoir temperatures of geothermal waters in
Gonghe Basin. The reservoir temperatures estimated by the quartz
geothermometer were approximately similar to that estimated by the
integrated multicomponent geothermometry approach (GeoT) (Hou
et al., 2019). Therefore, we estimated the reservoir temperatures of
different hydrothermal areas in the Gonghe Basin using the quartz
geothermometer proposed by Verma and Santoyo (1997). The enthalpy
of each sample was obtained from the International Steam
Tables (Kretzschmar and Wagner, 2019). In the chloride-enthalpy dia­
gram, two types of lines (cooling and mixing lines) were drawn to
interpret the cooling and mixing mechanisms of the parent geothermal
fluid. The cooling line connects the sample points to S (steam point with
enthalpy value of 2779.4 J/g and chloride concentration of 0 mg/L). The
mixing line connects the sample points to cold groundwater. Then, the
intersection of these two lines represents the parent geothermal fluid
(Truesdell and Fournier, 1976; Fournier, 1979; Guo and Wang, 2012).
We also used the chloride–deuterium model proposed by Truesdell et al.
(1977) to investigate the mixing and cooling processes that have influ­
enced the composition of the geothermal fluids in the region. Similar to
the chloride–enthalpy diagram, two lines were drawn to identify the
parent geothermal fluid and investigate its mixing and cooling pro­
cesses. We applied snowmelt water as another endmember in addition to
the cold groundwater and parent geothermal fluid endmembers. The
isotopic compositions of the parent geothermal fluid could be calculated
for single steam separation at a given temperature (Truesdell et al.,
1977; Shoedarto et al., 2020). The proportion of vapor phase fv after
boiling can be calculated by the following equation:
(H0 − Hl )
fv =
(Hv − Hl )
where Hl and Hv are the enthalpies of liquid (l) and vapor (v) phases at a
given temperature after boiling, respectively; H0 is the initial enthalpy of
the parent geothermal fluid before boiling.
The residual fluid holds isotopic equilibrium in the reservoir at the
surface temperature, assuming that rapid isotopic equilibration occurs
between the liquid and vapor phases in the upflows towards the surface
after boiling (Giggenbach, 1992a; Ghomshei and Clark, 1993). Thus, the
mass conservation of an isotope is given by:
δv fv + δl (1 − fv ) = δ0
where δ0 is the δ value of the isotope in the parent geothermal fluid; δl
and δv are the δ values in the liquid and vapor phases, respectively. The
difference between δl and δv can be approximated by the fractionation
factor of the isotope at a specific temperature between the liquid and
vapor phases α (Bottinga and Craig, 1968):
δl − δv = 1000lnαl− v (3)
Consequently, the δ value of the isotope in the parent geothermal
fluid can be determined by the following equation (D’Amore et al.,
1993):
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
δ0 = δl − fv *1000lnαl− v (4)
In the temperature range from 0 C to 374.1 C, ln α values for δD and
◦ ◦
δ18O can be calculated by the following equations (Horita et al., 1995):
( 3) ( 6)
( )
1000lnαl− v δ18 O = − 7.685 + 6.71123
10
− 1.6664
10
T T2
( 9)
10
+ 0.35041 (5)
T3
( ) ( 2) ( )
T3 T T
1000lnαl− v (δD) = 1158.8 − 1620.1 + 794.84
109 106 103
( 9)
10
− 161.04 + 2.9992 (6)
T3
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Hydrochemistry of geothermal waters
Physical properties, stable isotopic compositions, and major and
trace elements of the water samples analyzed are shown in Tables 1 and
2. The pH values of the geothermal waters varied from 7.2 to 8.56,
which indicates neutral to alkaline conditions. In this study, we divided
geothermal waters into two categories. Type I geothermal waters are
situated in the basin (QBQ, QNH and ZCS sites), and type II geothermal
waters are situated in the mountain areas (ZH, LC and XH sites). Fig. 3
presents the composition of Gonghe groundwater in a trilinear Piper
plot. It showed that some geothermal waters were compositionally
similar to cold waters and plotted under the same area (the blue shadow
area) in the plot. Hence, it was suggested that the waters might have
been mixed with cold groundwater during up-flow. Fig. 3 also demon­
strates that the geothermal waters in the basin are distinct from the
geothermal waters in the mountain areas. The type I geothermal waters
were of the Na-Cl, Na-Cl⋅SO4, and Na-SO4⋅Cl types. The type II
geothermal waters were of Na-SO4 and Na-SO4⋅Cl types. The type I
geothermal waters have elevated concentrations of Cl− (mostly range
from 300 to 900 mg/L, Table 2), whereas the type II geothermal waters
have low Cl− concentrations (range from 30 to 180 mg/L, Table 2). The
high concentrations of Cl− in high-temperature geothermal waters
(1)
mainly originated from the mixing with magmatic fluid (Lowenstern
et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2014; Tian et al., 2018). In addition, the elevated
concentration of Cl− could not be caused by brine because the reservoir
formation in the Gonghe Basin was of granitic composition. Thus, it
seems that certain geothermal waters in the basin mixed with magmatic
fluid, and there is a parent geothermal fluid in the Gonghe Basin.
4.2. Chloride-enthalpy constraints on the presence of the parent
geothermal fluid
(2) We applied the Cl− –enthalpy model to investigate the hydro­
geochemical processes of all geothermal waters and to constraint the
presence of the parent geothermal fluid, as shown in Fig. 4. Applying this
in Section 4.2, we successfully identified the presence of a parent
geothermal fluid. Fig. 4 suggests that the enthalpy of the parent
geothermal fluid is 1410 J/g (310 ◦ C from the International Steam Ta­
bles), and the Cl− concentration of the parent geothermal fluid is 600
mg/L. Accordingly, the type I geothermal waters were derived from the
parent geothermal fluid. However, the type II geothermal waters did not
originate from the parent geothermal fluid, which indicated that these
geothermal waters may have derived from meteoric water or snowmelt
water that were not affected by the parent geothermal fluid. Overall,
these results indicate the possible presence of a parent geothermal fluid
6
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Table 2
Hydrogeochemistry of water samples from the Gonghe Basin (in mg/L).
Sites No Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ SiO2 B F− Cl− SO42− HCO3− Li Rb (μg/ Cs (μg/ 14
C Age (yr
L) L) BP)

QBQ G01a 157.89 2.50 31.90 20.04 15.20 – – 119.46 151.29 226.90 – – – 15,830
G02a 165.38 2.21 30.77 12.30 16.32 – – 123.29 128.90 217.69 – – – 21,520
G03a 203.85 2.14 37.72 11.40 17.05 – – 182.20 150.75 184.06 – – – 21,010
G04 645.0 3.3 21.5 7.00 16.9 1.29 3.65 755.5 194.7 266.3 0.17 2.15 0.085 –
G05a 215.38 2.36 42.73 19.96 17.39 – – 208.23 165.50 211.21 – – – 22,530
G06a 568.00 3.64 23.93 5.39 19.69 – – 665.77 173.14 294.40 – – – 31,870
G07a 507.81 3.12 10.22 1.59 27.16 – – 352.48 289.49 415.70 – – – 42,430
G08b 584.0 7.2 15.7 2.6 29.9 8.73 2.01 425.2 450.7 415.9 0.92 – – –
G09b 700.00 8.6 15.1 1.9 35.1 8.00 3.55 307.4 255.2 508.0 0.81 – – –
G10c 686.9 5.8 13.6 1.0 60.1 13.47 3.7 329.4 513.5 649.6 0.94 – – –
G11d 588.5 20.2 23.3 1.3 86.4 18.04 4.3 541.8 374.9 409.7 5.7 – – –
G12d 576.5 12.1 45.7 1.8 58.2 26.42 3.6 678.4 135.6 603.8 9.06 120 690 –
G13 504.81 4.86 9.97 1.74 – – – 439.97 222.14 482.51 – – – >43500
G14a 519.53 9.06 14.81 1.18 76.11 – – 403.03 303.14 400.26 – – – 38,210
G15c 543.1 9.5 12.6 0.8 99.0 15.28 5.8 378.8 294.9 485.7 2.03 – – –
G16c 697.5 5.4 12.7 1.1 43.3 12.21 4.2 306.4 314.5 851.5 0.70 – – –
G17a 215.38 2.50 51.73 24.25 18.06 – – 192.47 167.41 310.34 – – – 9900
G18b 225.8 3.5 41.9 14.4 16.2 0.26 0.14 240.3 184.0 189.4 0.08 – – –
G19 659.0 4.4 45.1 9.1 16.9 0.61 5.58 858.7 299.8 152.2 0.17 3.73 2.91 –
G20b 612.5 5.8 24.4 6.9 19.1 1.35 0.93 920.4 190.7 280.5 0.29 – – –
G21 602.0 2.2 9.1 2.7 17.4 5.87 4.29 648.6 237.5 124.8 0.42 1.82 0.069 –
G22 642.0 4.9 57.9 11.1 19.2 0.47 2.65 859.7 317.5 127.7 0.13 3.26 0.51 –
G23a 608.00 2.50 10.03 2.35 19.02 – – 542.48 226.67 341.23 – – – >43500
ZCS G24a 124.00 4.97 77.6 32.4 5.28 – – 109.00 118.00 345.00 – – – –
G25a 429.00 15.9 72.8 3.92 76.35 – – 351.00 538.00 73.30 – – – –
G26a 389.82 19.18 59.14 0.55 87.79 – – 334.26 533.09 53.80 – – – –
G27a 448.00 19.90 58.20 0.98 56.69 – – 334.00 562.00 39.70 – – – –
G28a 369.23 23.44 55.26 1.59 125.61 – – 359.76 383.43 39.92 – – – –
G29 390.0 18.70 60.7 0.5 104.4 7.87 9.48 325.5 485.2 66.3 5.66 297 721 9080
G30e 430.00 17.60 75.80 0.60 102.4 – – 464.70 465.40 65.30 – – –
QNH G31 349.80 6.48 83.86 38.58 – – – 311.02 350.41 461.98 – – – –
G32e 621.0 48.0 38.3 0.5 169.5 – – 916.3 222.2 91.4 – – – –
G34d 434.8 38.9 32.1 1.1 203.7 6.3 9.2 745.2 232.0 76.8 9.47 910 2220 –
G35d 484.6 43.7 35.9 1.1 229.7 7.2 8.8 686.5 216.2 74.1 8.89 840 2080 –
G36d 425.8 38.6 31.2 0.9 209.7 6.3 9 715.3 221.3 76.5 9.42 920 2370 –
G36 583.0 48.6 38.1 0.4 163.5 5.98 10.47 787.2 250.7 92.1 7.9 967 2721 33,490
ZH G37b 235.0 12.4 12.8 0.3 71.0 5.94 19.51 43.8 257.9 116.2 4.30 – – –
G38b 220.8 10.6 19.5 0.8 75.3 5.69 18.46 41.6 240.6 131.0 4.06 – – –
G39 193.0 6.5 14.0 0.5 71.9 5.43 19.78 56.6 301.0 147.3 1.88 123 663 7890
XH G40 190.0 15.0 34.1 2.7 100.5 0.92 7.78 146.6 202.1 147.3 1.43 280 559 –
G41 291.0 20.0 37.0 3.6 68.2 1.75 8.37 178.4 374.0 158.3 1.00 209 306 –
LC G42e 138.0 4.0 5.2 0.5 110.7 – – 42.5 148.9 73.2 – – – 23,790
G43e 118.0 2.0 5.2 0.5 65.5 – – 31.9 158.5 48.8 – – – –
Entire Gonghe G44 164.08 6.09 81.37 32.17 – – – 299.60 147.84 179.66 – – – –
Basin G45 48.07 1.72 46.59 9.04 – – – 57.54 58.20 169.66 – – – –
G46 47.68 3.86 87.49 22.46 – – – 87.51 213.49 189.93 – – – –
G47a 27.75 3.75 62.1 17.62 8.01 – – 28.08 54.62 245.34 – – – –
G48a 233.0 8.34 90.6 29.40 14.7 – – 227.0 287.0 266.0 – – – –
G49a 180.77 3.43 45.01 16.58 9.14 – – 77.40 290.03 198.76 – – – –
G50a 242.65 5.00 178.33 65.16 11.89 – – 143.84 737.37 305.36 – – – –
G51a 142.31 2.86 29.85 12.44 8.58 – – 101.10 82.48 235.62 – – – –
G52a 104.00 6.25 69.51 27.78 9.59 – – 104.11 89.58 295.40 – – – –
G53a 85.94 6.25 70.65 26.26 9.42 – – 93.43 83.57 294.40 – – – –
G54 32.69 2.66 22.46 20.18 – – – 33.07 30.99 185.32 – – – –
G55 161.91 1.93 58.87 38.30 – – – 259.00 188.71 181.37 – – – –
G56b 19.1 1.7 59.1 7.6 6.3 0.09 0.17 22.7 34.1 128.8 – – – –
G57b 64.7 4.9 90.4 18.1 9.8 0.16 0.66 48.4 52.0 307.9 0.1 – – –
S01a 26.25 3.75 61.53 15.62 8.29 – – 28.77 29.77 246.58 – – – –
S02a 234.85 4.25 59.25 22.46 16.72 – – 206.85 199.36 296.40 – – – –
S03 238.50 5.41 52.41 20.97 – – – 243.63 173.68 313.12 – – – –
S04 11.81 1.36 38.92 13.37 – – – 14.98 42.22 160.79 – – – –
S05 44.34 14.85 52.45 21.07 – – – 70.01 150.82 130.86 – – – –
S06 13.55 1.54 87.32 10.22 – – – 25.41 159.70 140.99 – – – –
S07 38.47 3.74 25.57 9.05 – – – 47.20 42.15 113.59 – – – –
S08 43.13 3.33 78.15 20.62 – – – 80.11 195.26 195.06 – – – –
S09 24.41 2.89 46.81 15.46 – – – 27.10 28.34 228.96 – – – –
S10 241.73 7.01 54.18 62.83 – – – 322.13 283.73 264.36 – – – –
S11 8.63 1.24 46.48 6.56 – – – 7.61 21.51 172.76 – – – –
S12 69.6 4.4 54.7 11.8 17.6 0.35 1.28 91.7 102.0 142.4 0.28 39.9 58.2 –
S13a 224.15 9.17 88.20 66.06 9.87 – – 273.43 281.29 391.79 – – – –
S14a 138.46 8.04 67.69 34.62 7.05 – – 188.25 161.95 192.67 – – – –
S15a 271.0 10.5 87.4 25.0 20.54 – – 246.0 368.0 183.0 – – – –

Note: - = not detected; a = data from Hou et al. (2019), the relative standard deviation (RSD) of major ions is less 2%; b = data from Liu et al. (2016), the RSD of major
ions is less 2%, and the RSD of trace elements is less 5%; c = data from Li. (2016), the RSD of major ions is less 3%, and the RSD of trace elements is less 5%; d = data

7
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

from Liu. (2015), the RSD of major ions is less 2%, and the RSD of trace elements is less 5%; e = data from Dai et al. (2021), the RSD of major ions is less 2%. The RSD of
major ions of samples in this study is less 3%. The RSD of trace elements of samples in this study is less 6%.

Fig. 3. Piper plot of sampled water in Gonghe Basin. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

which led to the formation of the type I geothermal waters. The
composition of the parent geothermal fluid is crucial for investigating
deep fluid origin. Hence, we analyzed the Li, B, and F concentrations of
the parent geothermal fluid by applying the method proposed by
Aguilera et al. (2005). The Li, B, and F concentrations were regressed
against Cl− , excluding the samples that affected other secondary pro­
cesses (high Cl− and low trace elements concentrations), as shown in
Fig. S1. Samples with high Cl− and low trace elements concentrations
were the low enthalpy springs (G04, G06, G19, G20, and G22) in the
QBQ geothermal area. Low trace element concentrations of these sam­
ples were attributed due to the mixing with cold groundwater. The high
Cl− concentration may be because of the unconsolidated sediments
containing salts covering the reservoir rock. The Li, B, and F concen­
trations were obtained by using the Cl concentration of the parent
geothermal fluid, 600 mg/L. Fig. S1 also illustrates the regression
equations describing mixing processes. The calculated Li, B, and F
concentrations of the parent geothermal fluid were 7.71, 24.57, 7.91
mg/L, respectively. The characteristic of trace elements will be dis­
cussed in the following Section 4.5.
4.3. Chloride-deuterium constraints on the presence of the parent
geothermal fluid
We applied the Cl− –δD model proposed by Truesdell et al. (1977) to
constrain the presence of the parent geothermal fluid and verify the
results obtained from the Cl− –enthalpy model. With the assumption that
the steam separates at a given temperature in a single process, we
calculated the isotopic compositions of the parent geothermal fluid
using Equations. 1–6. The δD value and Cl− concentration of the parent
geothermal fluid were –97 ‰ and 600 mg/L. Fig. 5 shows a deuter­
ium–chloride diagram. The results indicated that the type I geothermal
waters derived from the parent geothermal fluid, whereas the type II
geothermal waters did not. Therefore, the mixing and cooling processes
of geothermal fluids illustrated from the two models were consistent.
The δD values and Cl− concentrations of the type II geothermal waters
were lower than those type I geothermal waters. There might be another
recharge source for the type II geothermal waters. Considering that the
mountains are covered by snow in August, we also included the δD and
δ18O value of the snowmelt water in the NETP (δ18O = − 17 ‰, δD =
− 123 ‰) as an end member (Fan et al., 2015). Fig. 5 indicates that the
type II geothermal waters originate from the snowmelt water and are not
affected by the parent geothermal fluid. In addition, Fig. 5 also suggests
that the parent geothermal fluid is also rooted in snowmelt water.

8
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Fig. 4. Enthalpy and Cl− concentration diagram for identifying the parent geothermal fluid in the Gonghe Basin. The red dotted lines represent the mixing process.
The black dotted lines represent the adiabatic cooling process. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

Fig. 5. Plot of δD relative to chloride for geothermal waters obtained from the Gonghe Basin. The red dotted lines represent the mixing process. The black dotted
lines represent the adiabatic cooling process. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

9
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Fig. 6. δD and δ18O (‰VSMOW) values for water samples collected from the Gonghe Basin. The GMWL represents the global meteoric water line (Craig, 1961). The
LMWL represents the local meteoric water line. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Intriguingly, Fig. 5 illustrates that several samples have an increasing Cl
concentration along with the cooling trend. In other words, several
samples have higher Cl concentrations than the parent geothermal fluid.
Notably, these samples were obtained from mainly low enthalpy springs
(G04, G06, G19, G20, and G22) in the QBQ geothermal area except for
five high enthalpy springs (G32, G33, G34, G35, and G36) in the QNH
geothermal area (Fig. 5 and Table 2). The reservoir of these low enthalpy
springs is fine sandstone and mudstone, which are covered by
unconsolidated sediments containing salts (Fig. 1D; Liu et al., 2016; Hou
et al., 2019); this could have contributed to the higher Cl− concentra­
tion. As for the five high enthalpy springs in the QNH geothermal area,
steam could be separated from the parent geothermal fluid and be lost
during an adiabatic cooling process (Truesdell and Fournier, 1976;
Truesdell et al., 1977; Li et al., 2015). The Cl concentration of the five
high enthalpy springs in the QNH geothermal area increased due to the
vapor loss from geothermal fluid.

Fig. 7. Box and whisker plots of trace element concentrations.

10
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Table 3
Comparison of the parent geothermal fluid and magma chamber (or partial melt zone) in typical high-temperature systems. The circulation depths are obtained via
geothermal gradient obtained from temperature log profiles. The depths of the magmatic heat source are the depths to the top of the magma chambers (or partial melt
zone) obtained from geophysical interpretation results..
Geothermal areas Temperature Cl− (mg/ Circulation depth Magma heat source depth References
(oC) L) (km) (km)

Gonghe 310 590 6.8–7.8 15 This study

Bandung 327 12,000 4.4 7 Shoedarto et al (2020); Delinom and Suriadarma (2010);
Jousset et al (2015)
Tengchong Rehai 325 291 1.5–2.0 7 Guo et al. (2012); Liao and Zhao (1999); Bai et al (2001)
Yellowstone National 336–366 300–400 2.0–4.0 5 Truesdell and Fournier (1976); Huang et al (2015)
Park
Gulu 290 845 – – Wang et al (2018)
Kangding 260 1056 8.0 20 Li et al (2018); Tian et al (2021); Ai et al (2021)
Yangbajing 305 767 1.5–3.0 5 Wang et al (2018); Duo (2003)
Gudui 285–335 697 4.6–5.5 15 Wang and Zheng (2019); Wang (2017)

4.4. Isotopic characteristics of the geothermal system
We revealed the relationship between δD and δ18O of all waters by
the δD vs. δ18O plot (Fig. 6). Fig. 6 depicts that all the surface water
samples and some geothermal waters samples plot close to the local
meteoric water line (LMWL) and global meteoric water line (GMWL),
demonstrating their meteoric origin. For the type I geothermal water,
the δ18O values range from − 11.1‰ to − 8.0‰, and the δD values range
from − 85.0‰ to − 59.0‰. The δ18O and δD values of the type II
geothermal water vary from − 13.0‰ to − 11.8‰ and − 97.1‰ to − 89‰,
respectively (Table 1 and Fig. 6). The type II geothermal waters are
depleted in δD and δ18O compared to the type I geothermal waters,
which indicates a different origin. The magmatic fluid distribution
(δ18O = 10 ± 2‰, δD = − 20 ± 10‰; Giggenbach, 1992b) and snowmelt
water isotopes (δ18O = − 17‰, δD = − 123‰; Fan et al., 2015) were
plotted as two end members in Fig. 6. The estimated δD and δ18O values
of the parent geothermal fluid were about − 97‰ and − 12‰, and they
were plotted in the mixing zone of magmatic fluid and snowmelt water
in Fig. 6. This indicated that the parent geothermal fluid originated from
snowmelt water and mixed with the magmatic fluid. In addition, Fig. 6
shows that the type I geothermal waters are derived from the parent
geothermal fluid, and some geothermal waters are mixed with cold
groundwater. The type II geothermal waters originate from the snow­
melt water and are not affected by the parent geothermal fluid. Based on
the above analysis, we suggest that the parent geothermal fluid exists
within the crust of the Gonghe Basin. This result was consistent with the
analyses of the enthalpy–chloride and deuterium–chloride diagrams.
4.5. Trace elements of geothermal fluids
Trace elements also act as conservative elements in geothermal
waters, and are essential for understanding deep geochemical processes
and mass transfer in high-temperature geothermal systems (Kaasalainen
and Stefánsson, 2012; Wang et al., 2020; Barberio et al., 2021). The
trace element compositions of geothermal waters are given in Table 2.
We presented the trace element concentrations of B, Li, Rb, and Cs in
Box-and-whiskers diagram, as shown in Fig. 7. The type I geothermal
waters have high B (0.26–26.42 mg/L), Li (0.10–9.47 mg/L), Rb

Fig. 8. Two-dimensional inversion result of the MT exploration (modified from Zhang et al. (2020b)). The red and red dotted lines are the main faults. The low
resistivity zone is interpreted as a partial melt zone. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

11
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Table 4
Measured chemical parameters of hot spring gases in the Gonghe Basin. Xm
represents the percentage of mantle-derived He.
3
Sample Sites He/4He 4
He/20Ne R/Ra Xm

QBQ 2.22e-08 2.66 0.016 0

QNH 5.70e-08 29 0.041 0.2%
ZCS 2.50e-07 2.34 0.180 0.4%
ZH 2.50e-08 449.91 0.018 0.1%
XH 3.75e-08 103.08 0.027 0.1%

(granodiorite).

4.6. Geophysical interpretation and heat flow analysis results

The parent geothermal fluid we identified below the Gonghe Basin

Fig. 9. Plausible crustal stratigraphic column model of the Gonghe Basin and
the contributions of heat production (mW/m2) from individual layers to the
terrestrial heat flow (modified after Zhang et al. (2020a)). (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
(0.12–967 μg/L), and Cs (0.07–2721 μg/L) concentrations, whereas the
type II geothermal waters have lower B (0.92–5.94 mg/L), Li (1.00–4.30
mg/L), Rb (123–280 μg/L), and Cs (306–663 μg/L) concentrations
(Table 2 and Fig. 7). In addition, several samples (G04, G18, G19, G20,
and G22) have low trace element concentrations because of mixing with
cold groundwater. Water-rock reactions are the main enrichment
mechanism of alkali metals in high-temperature geothermal fluids
(Giggenbach and Goguel, 1989; Kaasalainen and Stefánsson, 2012).
Intriguingly, Zhang et al. (2016) calculated the mineral saturation
indices of geothermal water samples in the Gonghe Basin using
PHREEQC code and found no lithium-containing mineral. As we
mentioned before, the type I geothermal waters were derived from the
parent geothermal fluid, which mixed with magmatic fluid. In addition,
a high concentration of these trace elements is also associated with
magmatic volatiles (such as B, As, Li, Rb, and Cs) in a high-temperature
system with a magmatic heat source (Ellis and Mahon, 1964; Liu et al.,
2019; Wang et al., 2020). B can also be released readily from host rocks
(Guo, 2012) and obtained from magmatic fluids (Arnórsson and
Andrésdóttir, 1995; Liu et al., 2019). The highest B concentration in the
sampled geothermal waters is 26.42 mg/L. Compared with geothermal
waters in the Yangbajing and Tengchong Rehai (high-temperature
geothermal systems with magmatic heat sources), it was lower than the
average B concentration of Yangbajing (119 mg/L; Guo et al., 2012), and
is equivalent to the average B concentration of Rehai (20 mg/L; Guo
et al., 2012). Notably, the depths of magmatic heat sources in Yang­
bajing and Tengchong Rehai are much shallower than in Gonghe Basin.
Therefore, the effect of magmatic fluid input is not negligible. In addi­
tion, Lü et al. (2014) analyzed B concentrations and isotope composi­
tions of Yangbajing geothermal waters, and suggested that the source of
B was primarily from B-enriched crustal country-rocks. Therefore, we
suggest that the high concentrations of B, Li, Rb, and Cs are contributed
by the magmatic fluids and from the leaching of host rocks
had a temperature of 310 ◦ C. We compared the characteristic of the
parent geothermal fluid and partial melt zone in the Gonghe Basin to
those of a typical high-temperature system with a magmatic heat source,
as shown in Table 3. Generally, parent geothermal fluids do not exhibit
such a high temperature without the presence of an additional magmatic
heat source. Thus, the deeper LRLVZ observed via geophysical methods
could be a partial melt zone (Fig. 8 and Fig. S2). Based on the average
temperature gradient of the Gonghe Basin (40–45 ◦ C/km; Zhang et al.,
2018a), we estimated the depth of the parent geothermal fluid as
ranging from 6.8 to 7.8 km (Table 3). Table 3 suggests that the circu­
lation depth of the parent geothermal fluid is also controlled by the
depth of the magmatic heat source (magma chamber or partial melt
zone). The shallower the magmatic heat source, the stronger the
magmatic signal in geothermal water (e.g., Yangbajing, Tengchong
Rehai, and Yellowstone National Park). Coincidently, another LRLVZ at
a depth 5–10 km below the Gonghe surface was identified by MT and
seismic inversion (Fig. 8 and Fig. S2). The geophysical interpretations
showed that the parent geothermal fluid exists in the crust of the Gonghe
Basin and could be connected to the partial melt zone via large-scale
faults.
The terrestrial heat flow should be high if there is a magmatic heat
source in the region. A previous heat flow study suggested that the
average heat flow of Gonghe Basin was 102.2 mW/m2 (Zhang et al.,
2018a). Therefore, Gonghe Basin has a high heat flow, and the heat
anomaly is most likely to be influenced by an additional heat source
(such as a magmatic heat source). In addition, the presence of an
additional heat source could be constrained by the heat flow partition
Fig. 10. He isotopic composition versus He/Ne ratios for Gonghe gas samples.
The mixing-boundary lines are built with the following end members: atmo­
sphere R/Ra = 1 and 4He/20Ne = 0.318; mantle R/Ra = 8 and 4He/20Ne =
1000; continental crust R/Ra = 0.02 and 4He/20Ne = 1000 (Sano and
Wakita, 1985).

12
S. Pan et al. Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985

Fig. 11. Heat generation mechanism model of the Gonghe geothermal system. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

analysis (Zhang et al., 2020a). Based on the vertical heat flow distri­
bution calculated by Zhang et al. (2020a), we modified the diagram of
the contributions of heat flow from individual layers of the Gonghe
Basin, as shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 shows that the heat production of crustal
sections was 48.3 mW/m2, which accounted for 47.3% of the terrestrial
heat flow. Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2020a) suggested that the regional
mantle heat flow was 27 mW/m2 by applying terrestrial heat flow
analysis (Fig. 9). Deng et al. (2018) suggested that the velocity of the
mantle beneath the Gonghe Basin was fast, which indicates a relatively
cooler mantle temperature; this was consistent with the low heat flow of
the regional mantle. The sum of the heat production of the crust and the
mantle heat flow was 75.3 mW/m2, which was inconsistent with the
average value of heat flow of the Gonghe Basin (102.2 mW/m2). Thus,
the most likely explanation for this additional heat flow contribution is
the heat contribution from the partial melt zone, which is approximately
27 mW/m2 (Fig. 9; Zhang et al., 2020a).

4.7. Helium isotopes in geothermal gases

According to the analysis above, we authenticated the possibility of a

partial melt zone. However, whether the heat source originates from the
upper mantle or exclusively from melts in the lower crust remains un­
certain. Helium isotopes provide evidence of the influences of mantle-
derived volatiles because 3He is from the mantle and 4He is mainly
from the crust (O’ Nions and Oxburgh, 1988; Tian et al., 2018). The He
isotope data measured for the spring gases in the Gonghe Basin are
shown in Table 4. We used 4He/20Ne ratios to estimate the content of air
contamination. We plotted all gas samples in the 3He/4He vs. 4He/20Ne
diagram (Fig. 10). As shown in Fig. 10 and Table 4, the He ratios of all
samples range from 0.01 Ra to 0.18 Ra, indicating that the He in the
Gonghe Basin primarily has a crustal source. We calculated the per­
centage of mantle-derived He by using He and Ne isotopes (Sano et al.,
Fig. 12. A comprehensive crustal model of Gonghe Basin. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
1982). The contribution of the mantle is 0–0.4% (Table 4). Tectonic
activities, including mantle upwelling and crustal deformation, control
the distribution of geothermal resources and modify the composition of
geothermal fluids (Kong et al., 2020b; Barberio et al., 2021; Jolie et al.,
2021). Yangbajing, a world-famous geothermal system hosts a magmatic
heat source, which was identified as re-melted continental crust (Pham

13
S. Pan et al.
et al., 1986; Zhao et al., 2002; Duo, 2003; Guo et al., 2012). Similarly,
the percentage of mantle-derived He is not higher than 3% (Zhao et al.,
2002). Thus, we suggest that the partial melt zone beneath the Gonghe
Basin promotes melting in the crust instead of mantle upwelling.
Fig. 11 provides the conceptual model of the heat generation
mechanism of the Gonghe Basin. The radiogenic heat flow contribution
of the thickened crust and the cooling of the partial melt zone in the
lower crust are the primary heat sources in the Gonghe Basin. Meteoric
water and snowmelt water infiltrate deeply into the crust through the
regional faults and mix with magmatic fluids to form the parent
geothermal fluid. The parent geothermal fluid is rooted in snowmelt
water and magmatic fluid. Most geothermal waters are derived from the
parent geothermal fluid, while some originate directly from snowmelt
water.
5. Implication for the deformation mechanisms of TP
Based on the previous studies of the lithospheric structure of the
NETP (Gao et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2020, 2021; Ye
et al., 2016), we suggest that the decoupling deformation between the
upper and middle to lower crust promote the partial melt zone, as shown
in Fig. 12. A major detachment fault zone results in a decoupled
deformation between the upper and middle crust. The decoupling be­
tween the upper and middle to lower crust could dominate the litho­
sphere and promote the partial melt zone. Our results indicate that the
LRLVZ in the Gonghe crust is a partial melt zone, which might serve as
an intra-crustal decollement. Combined with the previous findings on
the LVLRZ (usually interpreted as a partial melt zone) distribution in the
NETP (Le Pape et al., 2012; Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2017; Deng et al.,
2018), it seems that the partial melt zone is ubiquitous in the middle to
lower crust of the NETP. This is consistent with the lateral extruding
structure of the NETP caused by the India-Eurasia collision since the
middle Miocene. Furthermore, the regional heat flow distribution (Jiang
et al., 2019) indicated a similar pattern for the partial melt zone dis­
tribution. Therefore, we suggest that the partial melt zone is the primary
heat source of the NETP. Based on previous research, most Cenozoic
tectonic activities were related to the regional structure of local blocks
within the crustal scale (Ye et al., 2016). The widespread intra-crustal
weak layers may also be indicative of partial melt zones. The proposed
seismic profile across the junction of the northern margin of the western
Qilian Mountains and the Hexi Corridor reveals the decoupled crustal
deformation partitioned by the intra-crustal decollement layer at a
depth of 14–24 km (Huang et al., 2021). This potentially plays a role in
the outward growth of the plateau and improves our understanding of
the TP crustal structure.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we performed a systematic hydro-geochemical analysis
of the geothermal fluids in the Gonghe Basin of the NETP and identified
a parent geothermal fluid. By integrating geochemical results,
geophysical observations, and heat flow partition analysis, we suggest
that the LRLVZ beneath the Gonghe Basin is a partial melt zone, which
serves as an additional heat source for the heat anomaly of the Gonghe
Basin. A conceptual model was presented to illustrate the circulation of
deep fluid and its genesis in the Gonghe Basin. The parent geothermal
fluid originates from snowmelt water and mixes with a magmatic fluid
derived from the partial melt zone. The parent geothermal fluid ascends
and mixes with cooler water, initiating the geothermal reservoirs. Our
findings confirm a partial melt zone beneath the Gonghe Basin, implying
that the partial melt zone is ubiquitous in the middle to lower crust of the
NETP. We further point out that the decoupling deformation between
the upper and middle crust might be the dominant force forming the
partial melt zone. The findings reveal the critical role of deep ground­
water circulation with the signature of magmatic fluid and will help
understand the uplift mechanism of the NETP and the aid in the
14
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
exploration of high-temperature geothermal resources.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sheng Pan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Yanlong Kong: Conceptualization, Data curation, Project administra­
tion, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. Ke Wang:
Investigation. Yaqian Ren: Investigation. Zhonghe Pang: Writing –
review & editing. Chao Zhang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis.
Dongguang Wen: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Linyou Zhang: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Qingda Feng:
Investigation. Guilin Zhu: Investigation. Jiyang Wang: Writing – re­
view & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Xiaowei Jiang, Prof. Ping Zhao, Prof. Qinghai Guo,
Dr. Hailong Li, Dr. Tianming Huang, Dr. Jiao Tian, and Dr. Yinlei Hao for
their kindly and helpful discussions. We also thank Prof. Tianfu Xu, Dr.
Bo Feng and Dr. Yilong Yuan for sharing their data. We are grateful for
the constructive comments from three anonymous reviewers that were
very helpful for improving this paper. This work was supported by the
National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.
2018YFB1501801) and the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of
CAS (2020067).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126985.
References
Aguilera, E., Cioni, R., Gherardi, F., Magro, G., Marini, L., Pang, Z.H., 2005. Chemical
and isotope characteristics of the Chachimbiro geothermal fluids (Ecuador).
Geothermics 34 (4), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2005.04.004.
Ai, Y.F., Zhang, J., Dong, M., Wang, B.Y., Fang, G., 2021. Heat generation effects from
shear friction along Xianshui river strike-slip fault in western Sichuan. China.
Geothermics 89, 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101936.
Arnorsson, S., Andresdottir, A., 1995. Processes controlling the distribution of boron and
chlorine in natural waters in Iceland. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 59 (20),
4125–4146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(95)00278-8.
Barbieri, M., 2019. Isotopes in Hydrology and Hydrogeology. Water. 11 (2), 291. https://
doi.org/10.3390/w11020291.
Bai, D.H., Meju, M.A., Liao, Z.J., 2001. Magnetotelluric images of deep crustal structure
of the Rehai geothermal field near Tengchong, southern China. Geophys. J. Int. 147,
677–687. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01568.x.
Barberio, M.D., Gori, F., Barbieri, M., Boschetti, T., Caracausi, A., Cardello, G.L.,
Petitta, M., 2021. Understanding the Origin and Mixing of Deep Fluids in Shallow
Aquifers and Possible Implications for Crustal Deformation Studies: San Vittorino
Plain. Central Apennines. Appl. Sci. 11 (4), 1353. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11041353.
Bickle, M.J., McKenzie, D., 1987. The transport of heat and matter by fluids during
metamorphism. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 95, 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00371852.
Bottinga, Y., Craig, H., 1968. High temperature liquid-vapour fractionation factors for
H2OHDO-H2O18. Trans. AGU 49, 356–357.
Bowen, G.J., Cai, Z., Fiorella, R.P., Putman, A.L., 2019. Isotopes in the water cycle:
regional-to global-scale patterns and applications. Annu. Rev. Earth. Planet. Sci. 47,
453–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060220.
Clark, I., 2015. Groundwater geochemistry and isotopes. CRC Press.
Craddock, W.H., Kirby, E., Zhang, H., Clark, M.K., Champagnac, J.D., Yuan, D., 2014.
Rates and style of Cenozoic deformation around the Gonghe Basin, northeastern
Tibetan Plateau. Geosphere. 10 (6), 1255–1282. https://doi.org/10.1130/
GES01024.1.
Craig, H., 1961. Isotopic variations in meteoric waters. Science. 133 (3465), 1702–1703.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.133.3465.1702.
S. Pan et al.
Dai, W., Jiang, X.W., Luo, Y.F., Zhang, H., Lei, Y.D., Tong, J., 2021. Identification and
quantification of factors controlling hydrogen and oxygen isotopes of geothermal
water: an example from the Guide Basin, Qinghai Province. Earth Sci. Front. 28 (1),
420 (in Chinese with English abstract). 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2020.7.8.
D’ Amore, F.D., Ramos-Candelaria, M., Seastres, J., Ruaya, J., Nuti, S., 1993.
Applications of gas chemistry in evaluating physical processes in the Southern
Negros (Palinpinon) Geothermal Field. Philippines. Geothermics. 22, 535–553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0375-6505(93)90035-L.
Delinom, R.M., Suriadarma, A., 2010. Groundwater flow system of Bandung basin based
on hydraulic head, subsurface temperature, and stable isotopes. RISET Geologi dan
Pertambangan. 20 (1), 55–68.
Deng, Y.F., Li, J.T., Song, X.D., Zhu, L.P., 2018. Joint inversion for lithospheric
structures: implications for the growth and deformation in Northeastern Tibetan
Plateau. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3951–3958. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL077486.
Duo, J., Zhao, P., 2000. Characteristics and genesis of the Yangbajing geothermal field,
Tibet. In: Proc. World Geothermal Congress. Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, May,
pp. 1083–1088.
Duo, J., 2003. The basic characteristics of the Yangbajing geothermal field-a typical high
temperature geothermal system. Eng. Sci. 5 (1), 42–47.
Ellis, A.J., Mahon, W.A.J., 1964. Natural hydrothermal systems and experimental hot
water/rock interactions. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta. 28 (8), 1323–1357. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(64)90132-2.
Fan, Y.T., Chen, Y.N., Li, X.G., Li. W.H., Li, Q.H., 2015. Characteristics of water isotopes
and ice-snowmelt quantification in the Tizinafu River, north Kunlun Mountains,
Central Asia. Quat. Int. 380–381(SEP.4), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2014.05.020.
Fournier, R.O., 1977. Chemical geothermometers and mixing models for geothermal
systems. Geothermics. 5 (1–4), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-6505(77)
90007-4.
Fournier, R.O., 1979. Geochemical and hydrologic considerations and the use of
enthalpy-chloride diagrams in the prediction of underground conditions in hot-
spring systems. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res. 5 (1–2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0377-0273(79)90029-5.
Gao, J., Zhang, H.J., Zhang, S.Q., Chen, X.B., Cheng, Z.P., Jia, X.F., Li, S.T., Fu, L.,
Gao, L., Xin, H.L., 2018. Three-dimensional magnetotelluric imaging of the
geothermal system beneath the Gonghe Basin, Northeast Tibetan Plateau.
Geothermics. 76, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.06.009.
Gao, J., Zhang, H.J., Zhang, H.P., Zhang, S.Q., Cheng, Z.P., 2020. Three-dimensional
magnetotelluric imaging of the SE Gonghe Basin: Implication for the orogenic uplift
in the northeastern margin of the Tibetan plateau. Tectonophysics. 789, 228525
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228525.
Gao, R., Wang, H.Y., Yin, A., Dong, S.W., Kuang, Z.Y., Zuza, A.V., Li, W.H., Xiong, X.S.,
2013. Tectonic development of the northeastern Tibetan Plateau as constrained by
high-resolution deep seismic-reflection data. Lithosphere. 5 (6), 555–574. https://
doi.org/10.1130/L293.1.
Ghomshei, M.M., Clark, I.D., 1993. Oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in deep thermal
waters from the South Meager Creek Geothermal Area, British Columbia. Canada.
Geothermics. 22, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-6505(93)90048-R.
Giggenbach, W.F., Goguel, R.L., 1989. Collection and Analysis of Geothermal and
Volcanic Water and Gas Discharges. Report No. CD 2401. Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research, Chemistry Division. Petone, New Zealand.
Giggenbach, W.F., 1992a. Magma degassing and mineral deposition in hydrothermal
systems along convergent plate boundaries. Econ. Geol. 87.7(1992):1927-1944.
Giggenbach, W.F., 1992b. Isotopic shifts in waters from geothermal and volcanic systems
along convergent plate boundaries and their origin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 113,
495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(92)90127-H.
Guo, Q.H., 2012. Hydrogeochemistry of high-temperature geothermal systems in China:
A review. Appl. Geochem. 27 (10), 1887–1898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeochem.2012.07.006.
Guo, Q.H., Wang, Y.X., 2012. Geochemistry of hot springs in the Tengchong
hydrothermal areas, Southwestern China. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 215, 61–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2011.12.003.
Guo, Q.H., Liu, M.L., Li, J.X., Zhang, X.B., Wang, Y.X., 2014. Acid hot springs discharged
from the Rehai hydrothermal system of the Tengchong volcanic area (China): formed
via magmatic fluid absorption or geothermal steam heating? Bull. Volcanol. 76 (10),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-014-0868-9.
Guo, Q.H., Planer-Friedrich, B., Liu, M.L., Yan, K.T., Wu, G., 2019. Magmatic fluid input
explaining the geochemical anomaly of very high arsenic in some southern Tibetan
geothermal waters. Chem. Geol. 513, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemgeo.2019.03.008.
Guo, Q.H., 2020. Magma-heated geothermal systems and hydrogeochemical evidence of
their occurrence. Acta Geologica Sinica. 94 (12), 3544–3554 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Guo, Q., Pang, Z., Wang, Y., Tian, J., 2017. Fluid geochemistry and geothermometry
applications of the Kangding high-temperature geothermal system in eastern
Himalayas. Appl. Geochem. 81, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeochem.2017.03.007.
Guo, X.Y., Gao, R., Li, S.Z., Xu, X., Huang, X.F., Wang, H.Y., Li, W.H., Zhao, S.J., Li, X.Y.,
2016. Lithospheric architecture and deformation of NE Tibet: New insights on the
interplay of regional tectonic processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 449, 89–95. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.05.045.
Hoke, L., Lamb, S., Hilton, D.R., Poreda, R.J., 2000. Southern limit of mantle-derived
geothermal helium emissions in Tibet: implications for lithospheric structure. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 180 (3–4), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)
00174-6.
15
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
Horita, J., Cole, D.R., Wesolowski, D.J., 1995. The activity-composition relationship of
oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in aqueous salt solutions: III. Vapor-liquid water
equilibration of NaCl solutions to 350◦ C. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 59,
1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(95)00031-T.
Hou, Z.Y., Xu, T.F., Li, S.T., Jiang, Z.J., Feng, B., Cao, Y.Q., Feng, G.H., Yuan, Y.L., Hu, Z.
X., 2019. Reconstruction of different original water chemical compositions and
estimation of reservoir temperature from mixed geothermal water using the method
of integrated multicomponent geothermometry: A case study of the Gonghe Basin,
northeastern Tibetan Plateau. China. Appl. Geochem. 108, 104389 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.104389.
Huang, H.H., Lin, F.C., Schmidt, B., Farrell, J., Smith, R.B., Tsai, V.C., 2015. The
Yellowstone magmatic system from the mantle plume to the upper crust. Science348
(6236), 773–776. 10.1126/science.aaa5648.
Huang, X.F., Gao, R., Li, W.H., Xiong, X.S., 2021. Seismic reflection evidence of crustal
duplexing and lithospheric underthrusting beneath the western Qilian Mountains,
northeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. Sci. China Earth Sci. 64 (1), 96–109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-020-9677-y.
Huang, X.F., Xu, X., Gao, R., Guo, X.Y., Li, W.H., 2020. Shortening of lower crust beneath
the NE Tibetan Plateau. J. Asian Earth Sci. 198, 104313 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jseaes.2020.104313.
Jasechko, S., 2019. Global isotope hydrogeology–Review. Rev. Geophys. 57 (3),
835–965. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000627.
Jiang, G.Z., Hu, S.B., Shi, Y.Z., Zhang, C., Wang, Z.T., Hu, D., 2019. Terrestrial heat flow
of continental China: Updated dataset and tectonic implications. Tectonophysics.
753, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2019.01.006.
Jolie, E., Scott, S., Faulds, J., Chambefort, I., Axelsson, G., Gutiérrez-Negrín, L.C.,
Regenspurg, S., Ziegler, M., Ayling, B., Richter, A., Zemedkun, M.T., 2021.
Geological controls on geothermal resources for power generation. Nat. Rev. Earth.
Environ. 2 (5), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00154-y.
Jousset, P., Sule, R., Diningrat, W., Syahbana, D.K., Gassner, A., Akbar, F., Guichard, S.,
Schuck, N., Ryannugroho, R., Hendryana, A., Kusnadi, Y., Nugraha, A., Muksin, U.,
Jaya, M., Pratomo, B., Erbas, K., Bruhn, D., 2015. Seismic tomography and
monitoring of magmatic geothermal and natural hydrothermal systems in the south
of Bandung. Indonesia, In World Geothermal Congress.
Kaasalainen, H., Stefánsson, A., 2012. The chemistry of trace elements in surface
geothermal waters and steam. Iceland. Chem. Geol. 330, 60–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemgeo.2012.08.019.
Kong, Y.L., Pan, S., Zhang, C., 2020a. Heat sources of hot dry rock in the Gonghe Basin,
Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020,
Reykjavik, Iceland, April 26 – May 2, 2020.
Kong, Y.L., Pang, Z.H., Pang, J.M., Li, J., Lyu, M., Pan, S., 2020b. Fault-Affected Fluid
Circulation Revealed by Hydrochemistry and Isotopes in a Large-Scale Utilized
Geothermal Reservoir. Geofluids 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2604025.
Kretzschmar, H.J., Wagner, W., 2019. International Steam Tables. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53219-5.
Le, H., 2019. Evaluation of Cretaceous Sedimentary Reservoirs and Source Rocks in
Guide Depression of Gonghe Basin. China University of Petroleum (Beijing).
Lease, R.O., Burbank, D.W., Clark, M.K., Farley, K.A., Zheng, D.W., Zhang, H.P., 2011.
Middle Miocene reorganization of deformation along the northeastern Tibetan
Plateau. Geology. 39 (4), 359–362. https://doi.org/10.1130/G31356.1.
Le Pape, F., Jones, A.G., Vozar, J., Wei, W.B., 2012. Penetration of crustal melt beyond
the Kunlun fault into northern Tibet. Nat. Geosci. 5 (5), 330–335. 10. 1038/
ngeo1449.
Li, H.Y., Shen, Y., Huang, Z.X., Li, X.F., Gong, M., Shi, D.N., Sandvol, E., Li, A.B., 2014.
The distribution of the mid-to-lower crustal low-velocity zone beneath the
northeastern Tibetan Plateau revealed from ambient noise tomography. J. Geophys.
Res. Solid Earth. 119, 1954–1970. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010374.
Li, J.X., Guo, Q.H., Wang, Y.X., 2015. Evaluation of Temperature of Parent Geothermal
Fluid and Its Cooling Processes during Ascent to Surface: A case study in Rehai
Geothermal Field. Tengchong. Earth Science. 40 (9), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/
10.3799/dqkx.2015.142.
Li, J.X., Yang, G., Sagoe, G., Li, Y.L., 2018. Major hydrogeochemical processes
controlling the composition of geothermal waters in the Kangding geothermal field,
western Sichuan Province. Geothermics. 75, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2018.04.008.
Li, Y.G., 2016. Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and its Origin Analysis of Geothermal
water in the Qia Bu-qia Area, GongHe Basin. East China University of Technology,
QingHai Province.
Liu, M.L., 2015. A comparison of Geochemistry in Geothermal System with Different
Heat Source – as Gonghe Geothermal Field in Qinghai Province and Rehai
Geothermal Field in Yunnan Province for example. Chinese University of
Geosciences (Wuhan).
Liu, M.L., Guo, Q.H., Zhang, X.H., Luo, J., Li, J.X., Zhou, C., Guo, W., Zhang, C.H.,
Zhu, M.C., 2016. Geochemistry of geothermal waters from the Gonghe region,
Northwestern China: implications for identification of the heat source. Environ.
Earth Sci. 75 (8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5508-6.
Liu, M.L., Guo, Q.H., Wu, G., Guo, W., She, W.Y., Yan, W.D., 2019. Boron geochemistry
of the geothermal waters from two typical hydrothermal systems in Southern Tibet
(China): Daggyai and Quzhuomu. Geothermics 82, 190–202. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.06.009.
Liao, Z.J., 2018. Thermal Springs and Geothermal Energy in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
and the Surroundings. Springer.
Liao, Z., Zhao, P., 1999. Geothermal Zones in Yunnan and Tibet. Science Press, Beijing
(in Chinese).
S. Pan et al.
Lowenstern, J., Bergfeld, D., Evans, W.C., Hurwitz, S., 2012. Generation and evolution of
hydrothermal fluids at Yellowstone: insights from the Heart Lake Geyser Basin.
Geochem. Geophys Geosyst. 13 (1) https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003835.
Lü, Y.Y., Zheng, M.P., Zhao, P., Xu, R.H., 2014. Geochemical processes and origin of
boron isotopes in geothermal water in the Yunnan-Tibet geothermal zone. Sci.
China. Earth. Sci. 57 (12), 2934–2944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-4940-
2.
Luijendijk, E., Winter, T., Köhler, S., Ferguson, G., von Hagke, C., & Scibek, J. (2020).
Using thermal springs to quantify deep groundwater flow and its thermal footprint in
the Alps and a comparison with North American orogens. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47(22),
e2020GL090134. 10.1029/2020GL090134.
Menzies, C.D., Teagle, D.A., Craw, D., Cox, S.C., Boyce, A.J., Barrie, C.D., Roberts, S.,
2014. Incursion of meteoric waters into the ductile regime in an active orogen.
Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 399, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.04.046.
Molnar, P., Tapponnier, P., 1978. Active tectonics of Tibet. J.Geophys. Res. 83 (B11),
5361–5375. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB083iB11p05361.
Nicholson, K., 1993. Geothermal Fluids, Chemistry and Exploration Techniques.
Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. 10.1007/978-3-642-77844-5.
O’nions, R., Oxburgh, E., 1988. Helium, volatile fluxes and the development of
continental crust. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 90 (3), 331–347. 10.1016/0012-821X(88)
90134-3.
Pang, Z.H., Reed, M., 1998. Theoretical chemical thermometry on geothermal waters:
problems and methods. Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 62, 1083e1091. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00037-4.
Pang, Z.H., 2006. pH dependant isotope variations in arc-type geothermal waters: New
insights into their origins. J. Geochem Explor. 89 (1e3), 306e308. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gexplo.2005.12.006.
Pham, V.N., Boyer, D., Therme, P., Yuan, X.C., Li, L., Jin, G.Y., 1986. Partial melting
zones in the crust in southern Tibet from magnettelluric results. Nature 319,
310–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/319310a0.
Reed, M., Spycher, N., 1984. Calculation of pH and mineral equilibria in hydrothermal
waters with application to geothermometry and studies of boiling and dilution.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 48, 1479e1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(84)
90404-6.
Sano, Y., Tominaga, T., Nakamura, Y., Wakita, H., 1982. 3He/4He ratios of methane-rich
natural gases in Japan. Geochemical Journal 16 (5), 237–245. https://doi.org/
10.2343/geochemj.16.237.
Sano, Y., Wakita, H., 1985. Geographical distribution of 3He/4He ratios in Japan:
implications for arc tectonics and incipient magmatism. J. Geophys. Res., Solid.
Earth 90 (B10), 8729–8741. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB10p08729.
Sano, Y., Hara, T., Takahata, N., Kawagucci, S., Honda, M., Nishio, Y., Tanikawa, W.,
Hasegawa, A., Hattori, K., 2014. Helium anomalies suggest a fluid pathway from
mantle to trench during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Nat. Commun. 5 (1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4084.
Shen, X.J., 1991. Crust and upper mantle thermal structure of Xizang (Tibet)
inferredfrom the mechanism of high heat flow observed in South Tibet. In: Čermák,
V., Rybach, L. (Eds.), Terrestrial Heat Flow and the Lithosphere Structure. Springer,
pp. 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75582-8_14.
Shi, L.H., Yuan, J.Y., Lin, L.H., Liu, X.S., Ai, M.Q., Jin, F.F., Wang, P.L., Chen, X.G., 2020.
Gas geochemistry of hot springs at the Tengchong field, Southwest China: Controlled
by the spatial distribution of magmatic chamber. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res. 402,
106998 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2020.106998.
Shoedarto, R.M., Tada, Y., Kashiwaya, K., Koike, K., Iskandar, I., 2020. Specifying
recharge zones and mechanisms of the transitional geothermal field through
hydrogen and oxygen isotope analyses with consideration of water-rock interaction.
Geothermics. 86, 101797 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.101797.
Sun, Y.G., 2004. Gonghe aulacogen and conjugate and transfer between the west Qinling
and east Kunlun orogens. Northwest University (in Chinese with English abstract).
Sun, Z.X., Li, B.X., Wang, Z.L., 2011. Exploration of the possibility of hot dry rock
occurring in the Qinghai Gonghe Basin. Hydrogeol. Eng. Geol. 38, 119–151 (in
Chinese with English abstract). 10.16030/j.cnki.issn.1000-3665.2011.02.030.
Tapponnier, P., Xu, Z.Q., Roger, F., Meyer, B., Amaud, N., Wittlinger, G., Yang, J., 2001.
Oblique stepwise rise and growth of the Tibet plateau. Science. 294 (5547),
1671–1677. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.105978.
Tian, J., Pang, Z.H., Guo, Q., Wang, Y.C., Li, J., Huang, T.M., Kong, Y.L., 2018.
Geochemistry of geothermal fluids with implications on the sources of water and
heat recharge to the Rekeng high-temperature geothermal system in the Eastern
Himalayan Syntax. Geothermics. 74, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2018.02.006.
Tian, J., Pang, Z.H., Liao, D.W., Zhou, X.C., 2021. Fluid geochemistry and its implications
on the role of deep faults in the genesis of high temperature systems in the eastern
edge of the Qinghai Tibet Plateau. Appl. Geochem. 131, 105036 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apgeochem.2021.105036.
Truesdell, A.H., Fournier, R.O., 1976. Conditions in the deeper parts of the hot spring
systems of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming (No. 76-428). US Geological
Survey. 10.3133/ofr76428.
16
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
Truesdell, A.H., Nathenson, M., Rye, R.O., 1977. The effects of subsurface boiling and
dilution on the isotopic compositions of Yellowstone thermal waters. J. Geophys Res.
82 (26), 3694–3704. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB082i026p03694.
Truesdell, A.H., Haizlip, J.R., Armannsson, H., D’Amore, F., 1989. Origin and transport
of chloride in superheated geothermal steam. Geothermics 18, 295–304. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0375-6505(89)90039-4.
Verma, S.P., Santoyo, E., 1997. New improved equations for NaK, NaLi and SiO2
geothermometers by outlier detection and rejection. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res. 79
(1–2), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(97)00024-3.
Wang, G.C., Cao, K., Zhang, K.X., Wang, A., Liu, C., Meng, Y.N., Xu, Y.D., 2011. Spatio-
temporal framework of tectonic uplift stages of the Tibetan Plateau in Cenozoic. Sci.
China. Earth. Sci. 54 (1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-010-4110-0.
Wang, G.C., Zheng, M.P., 2019. Hydrochemical Characteristics and evolution of hot
fluids in the gudui geothermal field in Comei county. Himalayas. Geothermics. 81,
243–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.05.010.
Wang, J.Y., 2015. Geothermics and its Applications. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese
with English abstract).
Wang, M.M., Zhou, X., Liu, Y., Xu, H.F., Wu, Y.Q., Zhuo, L.Y., 2020. Major, trace and rare
earth elements geochemistry of geothermal waters from the Rehai high-temperature
geothermal field in Tengchong of China. Appl. Geochem. 119, 104639 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2020.104639.
Wang, S.Q., 2017. Hydrogeochemical processes and genesis mechanism of high-
temperature geothermal system in Gudui. China University of Geosciences, Beijing
(in Chinese with English abstract), Tibet.
Wang, X., Wang, G.L., Lu, C., Gan, H.N., Liu, Z., 2018. Evolution of deep parent fluids of
geothermal fields in the Nimu-Nagchu geothermal belt, Tibet, China. Geothermics
71, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.07.010.
Wang, X.C., Li, Y.H., Ding, Z.F., Zhu, L.P., Wang, C.Y., Bao, X.W., 2017. Three-
dimensional lithospheric S wave velocity model of the NE Tibetan Plateau and
western North China Craton. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 122, 6703–6720. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014203.
Wang, Z.C., Zhang, P.Z., Garzione, C.N., Lease, R.O., Zhang, G.L., Zheng, D.W.,
Hough, B., Yuan, D.Y., Li, C.Y., Liu, J.H., Wu, Q.L., 2012. Magnetostratigraphy and
depositional history of the Miocene Wushan basin on the NE Tibetan Plateau, China:
Implications for middle Miocene tectonics of the West Qinling fault zone. J. Asian.
Earth. Sci. 44, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2011.06.009.
Xu, T.F., Yuan, Y.L., Jia, X.F., Lei, Y.D., Li, S.T., Feng, B., Hou, Z.Y., Jiang, Z., 2018.
Prospects of power generation from an enhanced geothermal system by water
circulation through two horizontal wells: A case study in the Gonghe Basin, Qinghai
Province. China. Energy. 148, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.01.135.
Ye, Z., Li, Q.S., Gao, R., Zhang, H.S., Shen, X.Z., Liu, X.Z., Gong, C., 2016. Anisotropic
regime across northeastern Tibet and its geodynamic implications. Tectonophysics.
671, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.011.
Yin, A., Harrison, T.M., 2000. Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen.
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 28 (1), 211–280. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
earth.28.1.211.
Yokoyama, T., Nakai, S.I., Wakita, H., 1999. Helium and carbon isotopic compositions of
hot spring gases in the Tibetan Plateau. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res. 88 (1–2), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(98)00108-5.
Zhang, C., Jiang, G.Z., Shi, Y.Z., Wang, Z.T., Wang, Y., Li, S.T., Jia, X.F., Hu, S.B., 2018a.
Terrestrial heat flow and crustal thermal structure of the Gonghe-Guide area,
northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Geothermics. 72, 182–192. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.11.011.
Zhang, C., Hu, S.B., Zhang, S.S., Li, S.T., Zhang, L.Y., Kong, Y.L., Zuo, Y.H., Song, R.C.,
Jiang, G.Z., Wang, Z.T., 2020a. Radiogenic heat production variations in the Gonghe
Basin, northeastern Tibetan Plateau: Implications for the origin of high-temperature
geothermal resources. Renew. Energy. 148, 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.11.156.
Zhang, H.P., Craddock, W.H., Lease, R.O., Wang, W.T., Yuan, D.Y., Zhang, P.Z.,
Molnar, P., Zheng, D.W., Zheng, W.J., 2012. Magnetostratigraphy of the Neogene
Chaka Basin and its implications for mountain building processes in the north-
eastern Tibetan Plateau. Basin Res. 24, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2117.2011.00512.x.
Zhang, M.L., Guo, Z.F., Zhang, L.H., Sun, Y.T., Cheng, Z.H., 2017. Geochemical
constraints on origin of hydrothermal volatiles from southern Tibet and the
Himalayas: Understanding the degassing systems in the India-Asia continental
subduction zone. Chem. Geol. 469, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemgeo.2017.02.023.
Zhang, M.L., Guo, Z.F., Xu, S., Barry, P.H., Sano, Y., Zhang, L.H., Halldórsson, S.A.,
Chen, A.T., Chen, Z.H., Liu, C.Q., Li, S.L., Lang, Y.C., Zheng, G.D., Li, Z.P., Li, L.W.,
Li, Y., 2021. Linking deeply-sourced volatile emissions to plateau growth dynamics
in southeastern Tibetan Plateau. Nat. Commun. 12 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41467-021-24415-y.
Zhao, P., Xie, E.J., Dor, J., Jin, J., Hu, X.C., Du, S.P., Yao, Z.H., 2002. Geochemical
characteristics of geothermal gases and their geological implications in Tibet. Acta
Petrologica Sinica. 18 (4), 539–550 (in Chinese with English abstract).
S. Pan et al.
Zhang, S.Q., Yan, W.D., Li, D.P., Jia, X.F., Zhang, S.S., Li, S.T., Fu, L., Wu, H.D., Zeng, Z.
F., Li, Z.W., Mu, J.Q., Cheng, Z.P., Hu, L.S., 2018b. Characteristics of geothermal
geology of the Qiabuqia HDR in Gonghe Basin, Qinghai Province. Geology in China.
45 (6), 1087–1102 (in Chinese with English abstract). 10.12029/gc20180601.
Zhang, S.Q., Li, X.F., Song, J., Wen, D.G., Li, Z.W., Li, D.P., Cheng, Z.P., Fu, L., Zhang, L.
Y., Feng, Q.D., Yang, T., Niu, Z.X., 2020b. Analysis on the geophysical evidence for
the existence of partial melt layer in the crust and the regional heat source
mechanism for the hot dry rock resources of the Gonghe Basin. Earth Science. 789,
228525 (in Chinese with English abstract). https:// doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2020.094.
17
Journal of Hydrology 603 (2021) 126985
Zhang, S.Q., Wu, H.D., Zhang, Y., Song, J., Zhang, L.Y., Xu, W.L., Li, D.P., Li, S.T., Jia, X.
F., Fu, L., Li, X.F., Feng, Q.D., 2020c.Characteristics of regional and geothermal
geology of the Reshuiquan HDR in Guide County, Qinghai Province. Acta Geologica
Sinica. 94(5):1591-1605 (in Chinese with English abstract). https:// doi:10.19762/j.
cnki. dizhixuebao. 2020159.
Zhang, X.B., Guo, Q.H., Liu, M.L., Luo, J., Yin, Z.W., Zhang, C.H., Zhu, M.C., Guo, W.,
Li, J.X., Zhou, C., 2016. Hydrogeochemical processes occurring in the hydrothermal
systems of the Gonghe-Guide basin, northwestern China: critical insights from a
principal components analysis (PCA). Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (16), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12665-016-5991-9.