Abstract
Jeffbenite (having the same chemical composition of pyrope, ~ Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}, and also known as TAPP phase) is a mineral inclusion only found in diamonds formed between about 300 and 1000 km depth) and is considered a stable phase in the transition zone (410–660 km depth) and/or in the shallowest regions of the lower mantle (around 660–700 km depth). This rare and enigmatic mineral is considered to be a pressure marker for superdeep diamonds and therefore it has a key role in superdeep diamond research. However, the pressure–temperature stability fields for Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite is unknown and its actual formation conditions remain unexplored. Here we have determined the thermodynamic pressure–temperature stability field for the jeffbenite Mgend member and surprisingly discovered that it is stable at low pressure–temperature conditions, i.e., 2–4 GPa at 800 and 500 °C. Thus, Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite is not the highpressure polymorph of pyrope and is likely a retrogressed phase formed during the late ascent stages of superdeep diamonds to the surface.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Jeffbenite (ideal formula Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}) is a rare mineral that so far was only found as mineral inclusion in superdeep diamonds^{1}. It was discovered in 1997^{2,3} and since then it has been referred to as TAPP, an acronym from “Tetragonal Almandine Pyrope Phase” for its stoichiometry, which is coincident with that of the pyropealmandine garnet series. However, the crystal structure of jeffbenite is different from that of garnet, thus garnet and jeffbenite are actually polymorphs. In 2016, TAPP was finally given a mineral name approved by IMA, which is “jeffbenite” (IMA 2014–097)^{1} to honour Jeffrey W. Harris and Ben Harte, two eminent experts in the field of diamond research. From its first discovery 26 years ago, only 23 natural jeffbenites were reported in literature and 7 of them were identified only by chemical analysis; 2 further jeffbenites reported in the literature are synthetic. So, only 16 natural jeffbenite inclusions in superdeep diamonds have been identified by Xray diffraction and/or microRaman spectroscopy (see Table 1, which summarizes all jeffbenites reported so far in the literature). Despite its rarity, jeffbenite inclusions in diamonds are considered to be an indicator of a superdeep origin for the diamond hosts and therefore it is an important mineral. Its superdeep origin is indeed well accepted in literature and jeffbenite is generally considered a transition zone or lower mantle mineral by the diamond research community^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}.
However, excluding a very Ti–rich synthetic jeffbenite^{11}, at present no pressure–temperature stability fields of jeffbenite are published and this mineral remains a geological enigma: (1) at what depth in the mantle does jeffbenite actually form? (2) is the Mgend member of jeffbenite a higher or lowerpressure polymorph of pyrope garnet?
To answer these questions, here we constrain the pressure–temperature stability field of pure jeffbenite, Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}. As no thermodynamic data for jeffbenite are available in literature, we compute the data from first principles, at the hybrid Hartree–Fock/Density Functional Theory (HF/DFT) level, within the limit of the quasiharmonic approximation and in the framework of statistical thermodynamics. This allows us to comprehend the actual nature of the pure Mg endmember of jeffbenite.
Results
Jeffbenite versus pyrope molar volume: an evident discrepancy
Indeed, the present work was driven not only by the need to constrain the pressure–temperature stability field for a mineral taken to be characteristic of superdeep diamonds, but also because already in 1997^{2} study of the first natural jeffbenite (at that time indicated as TAPP) revealed inconsistencies in terms of volume and density with respect to garnet. In detail, the natural jeffbenite discovered in 1997^{2} (sample 244B, on which the authors refined the crystal structure) had an approximate composition equal to [Mg_{2.64}Fe^{tot}_{0.27}(Ca + Na + Mn)_{0.08}][Al_{1.85} Cr_{0.15}][Si_{2.91}Al_{0.09}]O_{12} and a Mg# [Mg/(Mg + Fe)] = 0.91; its unitcell volume was V = 774.35(± 0.77) Å^{3}. Such unitcell volume can be converted in a molar volume equal to 11.657(± 0.012) J/bar. Comparing this molar volume with that of a garnet with similar composition along the pyropealmandine series [Mg_{2.70}Fe_{0.30}]Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} and Mg# = 0.91 (e.g., see Table 3 of ref.^{21}), it is evident that the molar volume of the garnet, which is equal to 11.332(± 0.001) J/bar, is significantly smaller than that of jeffbenite.
This first simple calculation in terms of molar volume shows a strong discrepancy: the molar volume of jeffbenite seems significantly larger than its pyrope polymorph, thus jeffbenite should not be the higherpressure polymorph of pyrope; this said on the basis of simple thermodynamical considerations.
To confirm this unexpected result with respect to what is believed in the superdiamond research, we need a complete set of thermodynamic parameters.
Thermoelastic properties, entropy and Gibbs free energy of jeffbenite
We have determined a BirchMurnaghan equation of state truncated to the third order (BM3EOS^{22}) for jeffbenite, which provides the following values of unitcell volume, V_{0}, bulk modulus, K_{0T} and first pressure derivative, K´(at T = 298.15 K):
(V_{0} can be expressed in J/bar providing a value of 11.532, which is already rescaled by a 0.9787 factor to take into account the typical overestimation from the DFT calculation. The correction factor was estimated starting from the same identical overestimation on pyrope). The reason for the overestimation of the cell volume in ab initio calculations (at the DFT or HF/DFT level of the theory) is well understood^{23,24} and it has long been proved to be not an issue in the estimation of the second derivatives of the energy versus volume function on which, in turn, bulk moduli and vibrational frequencies are computed.
The full elastic constant tensor of jeffbenite have been computed at the static level (i.e. T = 0 K, P = 0 GPa and no zero point effects included) by fitting the second derivatives of the energy with respect to strain components, then using stress–strain relations^{25}. Jeffbenite (tetragonal, space group I\(\overline{4}\)2d) has six independent elastic stiffnesses, calculated as follows: C_{11} = C_{22} = 319.2 GPa; C_{12} = 140.7 GPa; C_{13} = C_{23} = 123.5 GPa; C_{33} = 257.0 GPa; C_{44} = C_{55} = 100.5 GPa; C_{66} = 129.1 GPa. The aggregate elastic moduli (bulk and shear moduli) inferred by the elastic tensor through a VoigtReussHill averaging scheme are K_{VRH} = 184.2 GPa and G_{VRH} = 98.4 GPa, respectively. The former value is in excellent agreement with that obtained at T = 0 K and P = 0 GPa from the static BM3EOS (i.e. K_{0} = 182.8 GPa), which supports the internal consistency of ab initio elastic data computed for jeffbenite in this work.
The evolution of the bulk modulus as a function of temperature is shown in Fig. 1a. The temperature dependency of the bulk modulus is expressed as:
The volume thermal expansion coefficient is given by:
The thermal expansion coefficient evolution as a function of temperature is shown in Fig. 1b.
The values of entropy and Gibbs energy of formation (starting from pyrope) are given as:
Calculated versus experimental Raman spectrum of jeffbenite
To show that the thermodynamic properties of jeffbenite calculated in this work are reliable, we have compared the Raman spectrum calculated from our data with an experimental one for the holotype jeffbenite approved by IMA (Fig. 2)^{1}. The spectra are nearly identical, with the calculated one showing a higher resolution (this is quite typical as it is unlikely that an experimental spectrum can reach the resolution of the computed one); the experimental spectrum appears to be slightly shifted toward higher wavenumbers: this could be related to the differences in chemical composition between the pure Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite used for the calculation in this work and the natural sample, which shows an average of 4.6 wt% of FeO (of which about 20% as Fe^{3+}), some Cr^{3+} and slightly less Al than the pure end member. However, although such limited chemical differences, the overlap is satisfactory.
As the entropy (at least the vibrational contribution to it, which is the only one if order/disorder phenomena are excluded, as it is in the present case) is uniquely determined by the phonon spectrum, the excellent match between the calculated and the experimental Raman spectrum in Fig. 2 provides assurance that the value of entropy we determined for jeffbenite is reliable (see next section).
Gibbs free energy, entropy and pressure–temperature stability field of jeffbenite
To analyse the possible phase transition between the two polymorphs jeffbenite and pyrope we need first to compute the Gibbs energy. The differences in Gibbs energy between jeffbenite and pyrope, as functions of pressure, at different (fixed) temperatures is described as follows:
The free energy of pyrope has been evaluated in several different ways:

(1)
Full quantum–mechanical evaluation;

(2)
Quantum–mechanical evaluation but with a correction for the entropy at standard conditions (\(S_{0}\)) taken from the H&P 2011 database

(3)
From the H&P 2011 database

(4)
From the H&P 2002 database

(5)
From the Stixrude database
The entropy of pyrope at standard conditions is a critical parameter affecting the pressure of transition from jeffbenite to pyrope as the temperature increases. The quantum–mechanical evaluation of S_{0} is 276.31 J/mol K [the modifiedKieffer model^{26}], has been used for the evaluation of the acoustic mode contribution, with frequencies taken from the original Kieffer publication^{27}; the value of the entropy without such acoustic contribution is significantly lower: 263.82 J/mol K, about 4.5% lower]. The value of S_{0} we determined in this work by quantum–mechanical evaluation is nearly identical to a previous one^{28} (276.85 J/mol K), at the ab initio level, through a supercell approach for the evaluation of both the phonon dispersion effects and the acoustic contribution. Furthermore, the vibrational entropy values calculated in this work for pyrope are consistent with previous computational investigations performed at the hybrid HF/DFT level^{29}. In Fig. 3, the entropy as functions of temperature, at zero pressure and from different works, is shown.
The difference between the entropies from Baima et al.^{28} and the current work are negligible, at least up to a temperature of 600 K. Experimental values are generally lower than the corresponding ab initio values. Indeed, the experimental \(S_{0}\) is 266.27 J/mol K. The values of \(S_{0}\) for pyrope adopted in thermodynamic databases are: 266.30, 269.50 and 242.36 J/mol K for HP02^{32}, HP11^{33} and Stx^{34}, respectively.
In this work, the Gibbs energy of jeffbenite was evaluated by using the same methods and computational parameters as those employed for pyrope. In Fig. 4, a comparison of the \(\Delta G\left( P \right)\) between the two polymorphs, at 300 (Fig. 4a), 500 (Fig. 4b) and 700 K (Fig. 4c) is shown. In Fig. 4, the straight line \(\Delta G = 0\) (zero line) marks the transition from jeffbenite to pyrope, that occurs at 6.02 GPa at 300 K (Fig. 4a), as seen from the intersection of the solid line with the zero line. In this case, the Gibbs energy of pyrope is evaluated at the ab initio level. Dashed lines, in colour, refer to the evaluation of the Gibbs energy of pyrope by means of the thermodynamics databases HP02, HP11 and Stx. The estimated transition pressures are 6.25 GPa (HP02), 6.11 GPa (HP11) and 6.08 (Stx). At this relatively low temperature (300 K), the impact of entropy on the computed \(\Delta G\) is almost negligible. At higher temperatures, the situation significantly changes: in particular, at a temperature of 500 K (Fig. 4b), the transition pressure decreases to 4.27 GPa (red dashed line).
However, by recognising the fact that the entropy at standard conditions (S_{0}) of pyrope, computed at the ab initio level, is overestimated with respect to the experimental value, a correction could be applied that results in black solid line of the Fig. 4b (S_{0} corr., which refers to such a correction of the entropy in the standard state). The correction here adopted corresponds to the HP11 value of S_{0}. In this case, the transition pressure is 4.94 GPa. Indeed, the higher value of the transition pressure in the latter case is due to a relative decrease of the Gibbs energy of pyrope (in turns, due to the decrease of its entropy). The transition pressures computed by employing the Gibbs energies of pyrope from the databases are 5.04 (HP02) and 4.93 GPa (HP11). The curve resulting from the Stixrude database is not reported, as the corresponding value of S_{0} for pyrope is too far from the experimental one to be considered reliable; in addition, at variance with the entropy reported in the other databases, with the experimental measurements and with the quantum–mechanical estimations, the Stixrude database reports a value for S_{0} that is lower than the corresponding value for jeffbenite computed in the present work; this leads to an increase of the transition pressure as the temperature is increased (6.45 GPa, at 500 K; this P–T point is not represented in Fig. 4b).
At higher temperatures (see Fig. 4c for T = 700 K) the observed trends are confirmed. The estimation of the transition pressure, if pyrope is dealt at the ab initio level (with the correction for S_{0} described above), is 3.20 GPa; otherwise, the pressure is 3.53 GPa (pyrope from the HP11 database) or 3.82 GPa (pyrope from the HP02 database). Even with the Stixrude database, at 700 K, the transition pressure decreases (5.92 GPa; again, this P–T point this is not shown in Fig. 4c).
By entering the thermodynamic data of Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite determined in this work into the Stixrude database^{34} as implemented in Perple_X software^{35}, the phase diagram section for the Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} system can be calculated and is shown in Fig. 5. Surprisingly, and in total disagreement with respect to the literature, the stability field indicates that jeffbenite is a low pressure polymorph of pyrope; in detail, by using the Stixrude database^{34}, jeffbenite stability field expands toward higher temperatures and lower pressures. At the maximum temperature, e.g., 1400 K, jeffbenite is stable at about 0.90 GPa, while it reaches a maximum of 6 GPa just above 400 K.
Discussion
Thermoelastic properties: a comparison between jeffbenite and pyrope
The main target of this work was to compute pressure–temperature stability field of jeffbenite and to establish its polymorphic relationship with pyrope. However, thermodynamic and thermoelastic data of jeffbenite were lacking in literature and thus we had to calculate them.
With respect to pyrope, in term of bulk modulus, jeffbenite shows a value of 175.39 GPa which lies within the average value through several data published in literature for pyrope, that spans between about 164 and 182 GPa, with an average value around 170.2 GPa^{25,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47}. The first pressure derivative, K´, is 4.09 for jeffbenite and appears to be slightly lower than the average value of all published values for pyrope, which is 4.63 (ranging between 3.2 and 6.4). The computed bulk modulus and K´ for pyrope (same computational parameters as those employed for jeffbenite) are 162.8 GPa and 4.36, respectively, and are consistent with the ranges of the experimentally measured values.
In terms of bulk modulus dependency with temperature, we obtained for jeffbenite a value equal to 0.020 GPa/K against an average (experimental) value of − 0.022 GPa/K of pyrope [although this value has a quite significant data scatter in literature going from − 0.0194(30)^{43}, to − 0.021(9)^{48}, up to − 0.026(4)^{47}]. However, the computed dK_{0}/dT for pyrope is 0.033 GPa/K; that is, it is slightly higher from that of jeffbenite.
The volume thermal expansion coefficient for jeffbenite is here calculated as α_{0V} = 1.717 × 10^{–5} K^{1} (at 298.15 K) and, differently with respect to what we observed for the bulk modulus, we find a significant difference between jeffbenite and pyrope, with this last showing an average value of 2.19 × 10^{–5} K^{1} (with values ranging between about 2 and 2.5 × 10^{–5} K^{1}, ref.^{44,49,50}). The ab initio computed value of α_{0V} for pyrope is 3.0 × 10^{–5} K^{1} (at 298.15 K).
Pressure–temperature stability field of jeffbenite
Thanks to the above calculated thermodynamic data, here we have reported, for the first time, the pressure–temperature stability field of jeffbenite, at least for its Mg endmember with composition Mg_{3}Al_{2}Al_{3}O_{12}, which represents the ideal formula of jeffbenite reported in the official mineral list updated to July 2022 by the International Mineralogical Association. The stability field definitively indicates that jeffbenite is not a high pressure mineral and is the lower pressure polymorph of pyrope (see Fig. 5).
Although, based on what is now well accepted in literature, jeffbenite is considered only as a superdeep inclusion in diamonds and thus the higher pressure polymorph of pyrope, our results contradict this statement and, at the same time, they are totally consistent with the analysis of the molar volumes of the two phases. Indeed, as we also mentioned in the first section of the Results, even without any of our calculation and completely neglecting our work, a clear contradiction was already evident at the experimental level by comparing the molar volume of jeffbenite, which has V_{0} = 11.532 (J/bar), and that of pyrope, which has a V_{0} = 11.316 (J/bar)^{51}.
By taking into account the thermoelastic parameters of jeffbenite and pyrope as calculated in this work, jeffbenite has a larger molar volume with respect to pyrope in the whole P–T stability range investigated in this work (see Fig. 6). This definitively demonstrates that the former cannot be a higher pressure polymorph of the Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} endmember phase but instead it is the lower pressure polymorph. This is consistent with our pressure–temperature stability field for jeffbenite in Fig. 5.
As to the other thermodynamic properties, it is interesting to note that some attempts was made in the past to empirically estimate the thermodynamic properties of jeffbenite in such a way to reconcile the phase relations observed in type III inclusions in diamonds from Brazil with an hypothetical stability field of this garnet phase^{52,53}. In particular, a minimum pressure and temperature of 25 GPa and 2273 K were suggested for the formation of jeffbenite on the basis of observations on the Ca content of type III inclusions in diamond where jeffbenite coexists with two silicate perovskites^{52}. Nevertheless, the purely hypothetical HPHT stability field of jeffbenite in the predicted phase diagram for the enstatite (MgSiO_{3})—pyrope (Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}) join, besides not being supported by any experimental evidence, is clearly flawed by physical unsoundness of the thermodynamic data assumed for jeffbenite. In fact, the former thermodynamic assessment^{53} was forced to assume a much higher compressibility of jeffbenite with respect to pyrope as well as huge entropy values for jeffbenite to stabilize this phase at high pressures and temperatures, respectively. This clearly contradicts our first principles results, which define both internally and physicallyconsistent thermoelastic parameters and reliable entropy values for jeffbenite and pyrope as well. As an example, the entropy value assessed for jeffbenite at T = 970 K^{53} is S_{0 970} = 827.35 J/mol·K, which is overestimated by roughly 10% as compared to our ab initio value (i.e. S_{0 970} = 754.5 J/mol·K). This discrepancy is well beyond the level of confidence by which DFT is able to predict vibrational entropy of silicate minerals^{54}.
Jeffbenite is a rare silicate only found in superdeep diamonds. Although jeffbenite is a rare mineral, however, it covers a crucial role in superdeep diamond research as it is considered a very high pressure mineral marker^{2} stable at least at the transition zone depths between 410 and 660 km. However, before our study, no pressure–temperature stability fields for jeffbenite was published (with the exception of one very Ti–rich synthetic jeffbenite^{11}) because no thermodynamic data were available for such rare mineral. Here we have calculated all thermoelastic and thermodynamic data and determined the first pressure–temperature stability field for the Mg jeffbenite endmember. Of the 16 natural analysed jeffbenite known in literature, well 8 jeffbenites show a Mg# between 0.90 and 0.92, 7 jeffbenites have a Mg# between 0.81 and 0.89 and only one jeffbenite shows a Mg# equal to 0.43. Thus, such data indicate that the Mg jeffbenite endmember is the most abundant and critical one to understand the behaviour of jeffbenite and this is why we focused on it.
Very surprisingly, our results definitively show that the Mg endmember of jeffbenite is not a highpressure polymorph of pyrope and is stable at low pressure and temperature conditions (Fig. 5). However, although several Mgrich jeffbenites were indicated by authors as superdeep inclusions, using our data on pure Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite, we cannot speculate about the thermodynamic stability of Fericher and Tiricher jeffbenites (and in some jeffbenites even the Cr content could be significant); actually, for Ferich and Ti–rich jeffbenites authors reported synthesis experiments demonstrating that they can be obtained at high pressure (Ti–rich up to 13 GPa^{11}, Fedominant jeffbenite at 15 GPa^{17}).
Combining our results and those from experiment laboratories^{11,17}, we would suggest to be cautious in using extremely Mgrich and extremely Tipoor jeffbenites to claim superdeep origin for their diamond hosts.
Methods
Computational details
Structures (unit cell parameters and atomic fractional coordinates), static energies and vibrational frequencies at the Γ point of the Brillouin zone of jeffbenite were computed at different values of the primitive unit cell volume, in the [359, 406 Å^{3}] range (10 points in the range). The full elastic tensor of jeffbenite, at the equilibrium static volume was also computed. The calculations were performed at the ab initio level by using the CRYSTAL17 code^{55}. The hybrid Hartree–Fock/Density Functional WC1LYP^{56}^{,}^{57}^{,}^{58}^{,}^{59} was employed. The localized basis sets chosen for the atoms were of the type 8511G(1d) for Mg, 8511G(2d) for Al, 8831G(2d) for Si, and 8411G(2d) for O. The thresholds controlling the computation of the Coulombic and exchange integrals (ITOL1 to ITOL5 in the CRYSTAL17 input^{56}) were set to 9, 9, 9, 9 and 22. The shrinking factor (IS) controlling the sampling of points in the BZ where the electronic Hamiltonian is diagonalized was set to 4, resulting in 13 independent k points in the BZ. An XXL grid^{56} for the numerical evaluation of the integrals of the DFT functionals of the electron density was chosen, which corresponded to 219,069 points in the unit cell; the very high accuracy of such numerical evaluation can be measured by the integration of the electron density over the unit cell, resulting in 399.999958 electrons in the cell, out of 400. Quantum–mechanical results are included in the manuscript related files.
By using the QMthermodynamic software^{59}, which implements a standard statistical thermodynamics formalism, in the limit of the QuasiHarmonic Approximation (QHA), vibrational frequencies and static energies at each unit cell volume were employed to compute (i) the Equation of State (thirdorder BirchMurnaghan) parameters (V_{0}, K_{0}, and K´) at 298.15 K; (ii) the dependence of K_{0} by the temperature (dK_{0}/dT); (iii) the specific heat at constant pressure (C_{P}) and its temperature dependence; (iv) the entropy at standard conditions (S_{0}); (v) the Gibbs free energy at standard conditions (G_{0}); (vi) the thermal expansion and its temperature dependence. A correction to C_{P}, S_{0} and G_{0}, in order to take into account the contribution of the acoustic phonons to those quantities, was made by employing the modified Kieffermodel as described in previous work^{26}. This method allows to define shear and longitudinal seismic velocities along different propagation (and polarization) directions of the single crystal from the ab initio elastic constant tensor by solving the Christoffel determinant. A set of directionallyaveraged seismic velocities are then used to calculate the acoustic contributions to thermodynamic properties according to a sine wave dispersion relation assumed for the three acoustic branches in the phonon spectrum^{27}.
Thermodynamics quantities were estimated up to a temperature of 1700 K, and a maximum pressure of about 20 GPa at a temperature of 298.15 K (24 GPa at 1700 K). Results are provided with the deposited files (see the below Data availability statement).
In order to consistently compare the stability of jeffbenite with that of pyrope, in the appropriate P/T region, identical ab initio calculations at the same HF/DFT level, which employed the same parameters as those already set for jeffbenite, where also performed for the pyrope case. The Gibbs free energy of jeffbenite at standard conditions (G_{0}), in the appropriate scale, was computed from the difference of the ab initio energies of jeffbenite and pyrope (energies estimated at the same ab initio level) and rescaled to the G_{0}’s found in the thermodynamic databases used for subsequent computations^{33,60}. The Perple_X program^{35} was then used to compute pseudosections for fixed global stoichiometries of the system corresponding to several significant mineral assemblages.
Data availability
All data generated during this study are included in this published article. In detail, we deposited the following 9 files: (1) Frequencies.pdf = vibrational frequencies of jeffbenite as a function of the unit cell volume and the static pressure as a function of the primitive unit cell volume. (2) jeff_pvt_eosfit.dat = contains the volumepressure–temperature data. (3) jeffbenite.eos = includes all thermoelastic parameters and has a format readable by EoSFITinc free software (http://www.rossangel.com/text_eosfit.htm). (4) R1_jeffbenite_WC1LYP_elastcon_P = 0.mb = zeropressure static elastic constants tensor calculated for jeffbenite at WC1LYP level of theory (C_{ijkl}, in Mbars). (5) R2_jeffbenite_WC1LYP_VRH_P = 0.txt = the aggregate elastic moduli (bulk modulus K, shear modulus G, Young’s modulus E, in Mbars; Poisson’s ratio) and longitudinal and shear seismic velocities (V_{P} and V_{S}, in km/s) of jeffbenite, computed according to the VoigtReussHill scheme^{61}. (6) R3_jeffbenite_WC1LYP_elastcon_P = 0_VpG_S1S2.txt = the longitudinal and shear seismic velocities (V_{P}, V_{S1} and V_{S2}, in km/s) along any direction of propagation (and polarization) in the singlecrystal of jeffbenite, obtained by solving the Christoffel determinant^{26,62}. Longitudinal and shear seismic velocities calculation of jeffbenite were calculated using CAREWARE package^{63}. (7) Input_file_calc.pdf = input file including the complete processing of the abinitio data to produce the thermodynamic parameters, by means of the QmThermodynamic Python program (https://qmthermodynamics.readthedocs.io/en/main/). ^{59} .This file allows any readers to reproduce all results obtained in this work. (8) jeffbenite_WC1LYP_elastcon_P = 0.d12 = input file of zeropressure elastic constant tensor calculation of jeffbenite at WC1LYP level of theory. (9) jeffbenite_WC1LYP_elastcon_P = 0.txt = output file of zeropressure elastic constant tensor calculation of jeffbenite at WC1LYP level of theory calculated with CRYSTAL.
Change history
17 February 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598023301112
References
Nestola, F. et al. Tetragonal AlmandinePyrope Phase, TAPP: Finally a name for it, the new mineral jeffbenite. Min. Mag. 80, 1219–1232 (2016).
Harris, J. W., Hutchison, M. T., Hursthouse, M., Light, M. & Harte, B. A new tetragonal silicate mineral occurring as inclusions in lower mantle diamonds. Nature 387, 486–488 (1997).
Hutchinson, M. T. Constitution of the deep transition zone and lower mantle shown by diamonds and their inclusions. Ph.D. Thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1997).
McCammon, C., Hutchison, M. & Harris, J. Ferric iron content of mineral inclusions in diamonds from São Luiz: A view into the lower mantle. Science 278, 434–436 (1997).
Stachel, T., Harris, J. W., Brey, G. P. & Joswig, W. Kankan diamonds (Guinea) II: Lower mantle inclusion parageneses. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 140, 16–27 (2000).
Hutchison, M. T., Hurtshouse, M. B. & Light, M. E. Mineral inclusions in diamonds: Associations and chemical distinctions around the 670km discontinuity. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 142, 119–126 (2001).
Harte, B., Harris, J. W., Hutchison, M. T., Watt, G. R. & Wilding, M. C. in Mantle petrology; field observations and highpressure experimentation: A tribute to Francis R. (Joe) Boyd. Vol. 6, (eds. Y. Fei, C. M. Bertka & B. O. Mysen) 125–153 (Geochemical Society, 1999).
Kaminsky, F. V. et al. Superdeep diamonds from the Juina area, Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 140, 734–753 (2001).
Hayman, P. C., Kopylova, M. G. & Kaminsky, F. V. Lower mantle diamonds from Rio Soriso (Juina area, Mato Grosso, Brazil). Contrib. Min. Petrol. 149, 430–445 (2005).
Bulanova, G. P. et al. Mineral inclusions in sublithospheric diamonds from Collier 4 kimberlite pipe, Juina, Brazil: Subducted protoliths, carbonated melts and primary kimberlite magmatism. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 160, 489–510 (2010).
Armstrong, L. S. & Walter, M. J. Tetragonal almandine pyrope phase (TAPP): Retrograde Mgperovskite from subducted oceanic crust?. Eur. J. Min. 24, 587–597 (2022).
Harte, B. & Hudson, N. F. C. in Proc. 10th Int. Kimberlite Conf., Vol. 2, 235–253 (Journal of the Geological Society of India, 2013).
Zedgenizov, D. A., Kagi, H., Shatsky, V. S. & Ragozin, A. L. Local variations of carbon isotope composition in diamonds from Sao Luis (Brazil); evidence for heterogenous carbon reservoir in sublithospheric mantle. Chem. Geol. 363, 114–124 (2014).
Nestola, F. Inclusions in superdeep diamonds: Windows on the very deep Earth. Rend. LinceiSci. Fis. 28, 595–604 (2017).
Zedgenizov, D., Hirioyuki, K., Ohtani, E., Tsujimori, T. & Komatsu, K. Retrograde phases of former bridgmanite inclusions in superdeep diamonds. Lithos 370–371, 105659 (2020).
Smith, E. M. & Nestola, F. in Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions, Geophysical Monograph 263 (eds. Marquardt, H., Ballmer, M., Cottaar, S. & Konter, J.) 179–192 (American Geophysical Union, Wiley, 2021).
Smyth, J. R. et al. Ferromagnesian jeffbenite synthesized at 15 GPa and 1200 °C. Am. Min. 107, 405–412 (2021).
Wang, F. et al. Highpressure crystal structure and equation of state of ferromagnesian jeffbenite: Implications for stability in the transition zone and uppermost lower mantle. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 176, 93 (2021).
Thomson, A. R. et al. Origin of sublithospheric diamonds from the Juina5 kimberlite (Brazil): Constraints from carbon isotopes inclusion compositions. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 168, 1081 (2014).
Smith et al. Blue boronbearing diamonds from Earth’s lower mantle. Nature 560, 84–87.
Geiger, C. A. & Feenstra, A. Molar volumes of mixing of almandine–pyrope and almandine–spessartine garnets and the crystal chemistry of aluminosilicate garnets. Am. Min. 82, 571–581 (1997).
Birch, F. Finite elastic strain of cubic crystals. Phys. Rev. 71, 809–824 (1947).
Cremer, D. Density functional theory: Coverage of dynamic and nondynamic electron correlation effects. Mol. Phys. 99, 1899–1940 (2001).
Prencipe, M. Quantum mechanics in Earth sciences: A onecenturyold story. Rend. LinceiSci. Fis. 30, 239–259 (2019).
Erba, A., Mahmoud, A., Belmonte, D. & Dovesi, R. High pressure elastic properties of minerals from ab initio simulations: The case of pyrope, grossular and andradite silicate garnets. J. Chem. Phys. 140, 124703 (2014).
Belmonte, D., Gatti, C., Ottonello, G., Richet, P. & VetuschiZuccolini, M. Ab initio Thermodynamic and Thermophysical Properties of Sodium Metasilicate, Na_{2}SiO_{3}, and Their ElectronDensity and ElectronPairDensity Counterparts. J. Phys. Chem. A 120, 8881–8895 (2016).
Kieffer, S. W. Thermodynamics and lattice vibrations of minerals: 4: Application to chain and sheet silicates and orthosilicates. Rev. Geophys. Space Ge. 18, 862–886 (1980).
Baima, J., Ferrabone, M., Orlando, R., Erba, A. & Dovesi, R. Thermodynamics and phonon dispersion of pyrope and grossular silicate garnets from ab initio simulations. Phys. Chem. Min. 43, 137–149 (2016).
De La Pierre, M. & Belmonte, D. Ab initio investigation of majorite and pyrope garnets: Lattice dynamics and vibrational spectra. Am. Min. 101, 162–174 (2016).
Haselton, H. T. & Westrum, E. F. Lowtemperature heat capacities of synthetic pyrope, grossular, and pyrope_{60} grossular_{40}. Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 44, 701–709 (1980).
Téqui, C., Robie, R. A., Hemingway, B. S., Neuville, D. R. & Richet, P. Melting and thermodynamic properties of pyrope (Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}). Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 55, 1005–1010 (1991).
Holland, T. J. B. & Powell, R. An internally consistent thermodynamic data set for phases of petrological interest. J. Metamorph. Geol. 16, 309–343 (1998).
Holland, T. J. B. & Powell, R. An improved and extended internally consistent thermodynamic dataset for phases of petrological interest, involving a new equation of state for solids. J. Metamorph. Geol. 29, 333–383 (2011).
Stixrude, L. & LithgowBertelloni, C. Thermodynamics of mantle minerals – II, Phase equilibria. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1180–1213 (2011).
Connolly, J. A. D. Computation of phase equilibria by linear programming: A tool for geodynamic modeling and its application to subduction zone decarbonation. Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 236, 524–541 (2005).
Babuška, V., Fiala, J., Kumazawa, M., Ohno, I. & Sumino, Y. Elastic properties of garnet solidsolution series. Phys. Earth Planet. In. 16, 157–176 (1978).
Leitner, B. J., Weidner, D. J. & Liebermann, R. C. Elasticity of single crystal pyrope and implications for garnet solid solution series. Phys. Earth Planet. In. 22, 111–121 (1980).
O’Neill, B., Bass, J. D., Rossman, G. R., Geiger, C. A. & Langer, K. Elastic properties of pyrope. Phys. Chem. Min. 17, 617–621 (1991).
Ottonello, G., Bokreta, M. & Sciuto, P. F. Parametrization of energy and interaction in garnets: Endmember properties. Am. Min. 81, 429–447 (1996).
Conrad, P., Zha, C. S., Mao, H.K. & Hemley, R. J. The highpressure, singlecrystal elasticity of pyrope, grossular, and andradite. Am. Min. 84, 384–388 (1999).
Chen, G., Cooke, J. A., Gwanmesia, G. D. & Liebermann, R. C. Elastic wave velocities of Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}pyrope garnet to 10 GPa. Am. Min. 84, 384–388 (1999).
Mittal, R., Chaplot, S. L., Choudhury, N. & Loong, C. K. Inelastic neutron scattering and latticedynamics studies of almandine Fe_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}. Phys. Rev. B 61, 3983–3988 (2001).
Sinogeikin, S. V. & Bass, J. D. Elasticity of majorite and majoritepyrope solid solution to high pressure: Implications for the transition zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 2453–2456 (2002).
Milani, S. et al. Diamond–garnet geobarometry: The role of garnet compressibility and expansivity. Lithos 227, 140–147 (2015).
Chantel, J. et al. Elastic wave velocities in polycrystalline Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12}pyrope garnet to 24 GPa and 1300 K. Am. Min. 101, 991–997 (2016).
Hu, Y., Wu, Z., Dera, P. K. & Bina, C. R. Thermodynamic and elastic properties of pyrope at high pressure and high temperature by firstprinciples calculations. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 6462–6476 (2016).
Angel, R. J., Gillio, M., Mazzucchelli, M. L. & Alvaro, M. Garnet EoS: A critical review and synthesis. Contrib. Min. Petrol. 177, 54 (2022).
Zou, Y. et al. Thermal equation of state of Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} pyrope garnet up to 19 GPa and 1,700 K. Phys. Chem. Min. 39, 589–598 (2012).
Skinner, B. J. Physical properties of endmembers of the garnet group. Am. Min. 41, 428–436 (1956).
Thieblot, L., Roux, J. & Richet, P. Hightemperature thermal expansion and decomposition of garnets. Eur. J. Min. 10, 7–15 (1998).
Geiger, C. A. A tale of two garnets: The role of solid solution in the development toward a modern mineralogy. Am. Min. 101, 1735–1749 (2016).
Gasparik, T. & Hutchinson, M. T. Experimental evidence for the origin of two kinds of inclusions in diamonds from the deep mantle. Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 181, 103–114 (2000).
Gasparik, T. Phase Diagrams for Geoscientists: An Atlas of the Earth’s Interior (Springer, 2014).
Benisek, A. & Dachs, E. The accuracy of standard enthalpies and entropies for phases of petrological interest derived from densityfunctional calculations. Contrib. Min. Pet. 173, 90 (2018).
Dovesi, R. et al. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 8, e1360 (2018).
Dovesi, R. et al. CRYSTAL17 User’s Manual (University of Torino, 2017).
Wu, Z. & Cohen, R. E. More accurate generalized gradient approximation for solids. Phys. Rev. B 73, 235116 (2006).
Lee, C., Yang, W. & Parr, R. G. Development of the ColleSalvetti correlationenergy formula into a functional of the electron density. Phys. Rev. B 37, 785–789 (1988).
Prencipe, M. MauroPrencipe/QMthermodynamics: QmThv2.4.1alpha (Version 2.4.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5061097 (2021).
Stixrude, L. & LithgowBertelloni, C. Thermodynamics of mantle minerals: I. Physical properties. Geophys. J. Int. 162, 610–632 (2005).
Hill, R. W. The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate. Proc. Phys. Soc. London 65A, 349–354 (1952).
Musgrave, M. J. P. Crystal Acoustics. HoldenDay, San Francisco, California, 288 pp. (1970).
Mainprice, D. A Fortran program to calculate seismic anisotropy from the lattice preferred orientation of minerals. Comput. Geosci. 16, 385–393 (1990).
Acknowledgements
F.N. thanks the ERC Starting Grant n. 307322. D.B. warmly acknowledges financial support by the Italian MIUR PRIN2017 (Project Number 2017KY5ZX8).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F.N. conceived the study and analysed jeffbenite literature data. M.P and D.B. performed the calculations and analysed jeffbenite and garnet literature data. F.N., M.P. and D.B. wrote and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this Article was revised: The Acknowledgments section in the original version of this Article was incomplete. It now reads: “F.N. thanks the ERC Starting Grant n. 307322. D.B. warmly acknowledges financial support by the Italian MIUR PRIN2017 (Project Number 2017KY5ZX8).”
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nestola, F., Prencipe, M. & Belmonte, D. Mg_{3}Al_{2}Si_{3}O_{12} jeffbenite inclusion in superdeep diamonds is thermodynamically stable at very shallow Earth’s depths. Sci Rep 13, 83 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598022272909
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598022272909
This article is cited by

Imperfections in natural diamond: the key to understanding diamond genesis and the mantle
La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.