# Micro-XRF-Based Quantitative Mineralogy of the Beauvoir Li Granite: A Tool for Facies Characterization and Ore Processing Optimization

Zia Steven Kahou, Michel Cathelineau, Wilédio Marc-Emile Bonzi, Lise Salsi, Patrick Fullenwarth

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Zia Steven Kahou, Michel Cathelineau, Wilédio Marc-Emile Bonzi, Lise Salsi, Patrick Fullenwarth. Micro-XRF-Based Quantitative Mineralogy of the Beauvoir Li Granite: A Tool for Facies Characterization and Ore Processing Optimization. Minerals, 2025, 16 (1), pp.29. 10.3390/min16010029. hal-05485004

HAL Id: hal-05485004

https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-05485004v1

Submitted on 30 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Article

# Micro-XRF-Based Quantitative Mineralogy of the Beauvoir Li Granite: A Tool for Facies Characterization and Ore Processing Optimization

Zia Steven Kahou <fnref n="1" />,* , Michel Cathelineau <fnref n="1" /> , Wilédio Marc-Emile Bonzi <fnref n="2" />, Lise Salsi <fnref n="1" /> and Patrick Fullenwarth <fnref n="3" />

## Abstract

Quantitative mineralogy plays a vital role in exploration geology by defining mineral assemblages, identifying metal-bearing phases, and providing clues to optimize ore processing. In peraluminous rare-metal granites such as those at Beauvoir (France), mineral quantification is challenging, especially in altered facies where partial replacement complicates the estimation of muscovite and feldspars. The present study applies micro-X-ray fluorescence (micro-XRF) to quantify mineral assemblages of the Beauvoir granite. Modal abundances were compared with normative proportions derived from whole-rock geochemistry. In fresh facies with Li contents between 4000 and 6000 ppm, albite and quartz dominate (~40% and 25%), respectively, while lepidolite averages 20%–25%. During alteration to greisen, feldspars and lepidolite are partly replaced by muscovite, reducing lepidolite by up to threefold and increasing muscovite to ~30%. The obtained results demonstrate that micro-XRF provides a fast and reliable method for quantifying mineral distributions in rare-metal granites. Combined with complementary microscale techniques, quantitative mineralogy offers a powerful approach to characterize Li-bearing granites, assess alteration intensity, and improve predictions of ore quality and processability.

**Keywords:** quantitative mineralogy; micro-XRF; Li-bearing Beauvoir granite; alteration facies; normative mineral proportion; ore processing

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Academic Editors: William Keyser, Benedikt Steiner and Benjamin Hines

Received: 7 November 2025

Revised: 15 December 2025

Accepted: 24 December 2025

Published: 26 December 2025

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the [Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## 1. Introduction

Quantitative mineralogy is a key component of geological exploration and resource evaluation, as it allows the identification of primary mineral assemblages and alteration parageneses, the quantification of metal-bearing minerals (e.g., Li, Au, Cu), and the anticipation of beneficiation strategies [1–5]. The nature and relative abundance of mineral phases within a paragenetic sequence constrain both the petrogenetic conditions of rock formation and the economic parameters of an orebody, including grade, tonnage, and metallurgical behavior.

Two main approaches are commonly used to estimate mineral proportions in rocks. The first is a modal approach, based on direct mineral identification and quantification from image analysis of drill cores or thin sections [6]. The second is a normative approach,

<footnote n="1">¹ Université de Lorraine, CNRS, GéoRessources, F-54000 Nancy, France; michel.cathelineau@univ-lorraine.fr (M.C.); lise.salsi@univ-lorraine.fr (L.S.)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Université Daniel Ouezzin Coulibaly, Dédougou BP 176, Burkina Faso; wiledio.bonzi@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Imerys Ceramics France-Kaolins de Beauvoir, 03330 Echassières, France; patrick fullenwarth@expertisefrance.fr</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: steven.kahou27@gmail.com</footnote>
which derives mineral abundances from whole-rock geochemical compositions using mass-balance calculations [7,8]. Modal methods increasingly rely on chemical and mineralogical mapping techniques, including micro X-ray fluorescence (micro-XRF; [6]), laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (micro-LIBS; [9]), X-ray diffraction (XRD; [10]), visible-near-infrared and short-wave infrared spectroscopy (VNIR-SWIR; [11]), and scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS; [12]).

Among these techniques, micro-XRF mapping has become one of the most widely used tools for modal mineralogy, owing to its rapid acquisition, non-destructive nature, multi-elemental capability, and relative ease of implementation. It has been successfully applied to a wide range of geological contexts, including gold deposits [1], volcanogenic massive sulfide and platinum-group-element (PGEs) deposits [2,13], and sedimentary systems for environmental studies [14,15]. Although micro-XRF cannot directly detect elements lighter than magnesium, the combined use of multiple elemental maps allows indirect identification and quantification of minerals hosting light elements, such as Li-bearing phases (e.g., lepidolite or amblygonite-group minerals). However, because micro-XRF is inherently a surface-based technique, questions remain regarding the representativeness of mapped sections relative to bulk-rock volumes.

By contrast, the normative approach is based on whole-rock chemical analyses obtained from crushed samples, typically using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). This approach benefits from better volumetric representativeness at the scale of drill core intervals but may suffer from under-determination when several mineral phases share the same major elements, as is commonly the case in peraluminous granites containing feldspars and multiple mica species. Consequently, modal and normative approaches should be regarded as complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and their combined use provides a means of cross-validation and uncertainty assessment.

In this study, we apply micro-XRF mapping to quantify mineral distributions in the peraluminous rare-metal Beauvoir granite (northern French Massif Central), which is a highly fractionated intrusion of the western European Variscan belt [16]. Petrological studies distinguish three main magmatic units (B1 to B3), with the uppermost B1 unit representing the most evolved facies [16]. The B1 granite is hololeucocratic and dominated by an albite matrix containing abundant lepidolite, with quartz, K-feldspar, topaz, Li-rich phosphates, and Sn-Nb-Ta oxides as accessory phases [17]. Based on the B1 unit, the total inferred resources of the Beauvoir granite are estimated at approximately 117 Mt of ore with an average grade of ~0.9 wt.% Li₂O (https://emili.imerys.com, accessed on 30 October 2025).

Quantitative mineral mapping was performed on drill cores and thick sections from duplicate core samples, encompassing both fresh and hydrothermally altered facies, with a particular focus on lepidolite as the main Li-bearing mineral. These modal estimates are systematically compared with normative mineral abundances derived from whole-rock geochemical data obtained on the same samples. The primary objective of this work is to evaluate the robustness, limitations, and complementarity of modal and normative approaches for estimating mineral proportions in Li-mica-bearing granites. Such quantitative constraints are essential for exploration, resource modeling, and process design, particularly in systems where hydrothermal alteration modifies the modal abundance of economically critical minerals.
## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. *Sampling*

The samples have been obtained from the PER and EMILI drilling campaigns (Figure 1), conducted by IMERYS in 2018 (PER) and ongoing since 2021 (EMILI). Following the drilling campaign, whole-rock geochemical analyses were obtained from the drill cores.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Figure 1.** Simplified geological of the Echassières mining district showing the Beauvoir and les Colettes granites and the enclosing micaschists (modified after [1]). The red points represent the drilling holes selected to obtain samples for the present study.

The whole-rock analyses corresponding to the drill holes selected were then plotted in a Quartz–Feldspar (QF) diagram [2] to discriminate between fresh and altered drill cores (Figure 2). Based on the QF diagram and macroscopic observations, fourteen drill core samples from fresh facies and nine drill cores from altered facies, respectively, have been selected from the north, central, and southern parts of the Beauvoir quarry. The fresh facies correspond to a white-color typical Beauvoir granite texture, without alteration signs, made of albite, quartz, lepidolite, K-feldspar, and minor amblygonite-group minerals and Sn-Nb-Ta oxides. The altered facies correspond to a greenish-color granite highlighting the replacement of the feldspars (albite and K-feldspar) and lepidolite by hydrothermal muscovite and quartz. Table 1 lists the chosen samples and their characteristics. The twenty-third set of core samples was then cut into 5 × 5 cm mini-core samples and prepared as thick sections. Similarly, nineteen of the twenty-eight mini-core samples used for the thick-section preparation were crushed into powder, reduced to aqueous solutions by acid attack, and sent to the Service d'Analyses des Roches et Matériaux (SARM, Nancy, France). Major element and trace element contents were determined using a ThermoFisher ICP-OES iCap6500 and ICP-MS iCapQ. In addition, an Agilent 200 Atomic Absorption Spectrometer was used for Lithium analysis, and an ion-specific electrode (ISE) coupled to a Metrohm 855 Robotic Titrosampler was used for Fluorine analysis.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** The Quartz–Feldspar diagram (Q = Si/3 – (K + Na) vs. F = K-Na where Q and F are calculated from millicationic values derived from whole-rock analysis using the calculation exemplified in the file provided in the supplementary material from [2]). The diagram applied to selected drilling holes of the EMILI campaigns shows that most granites are distributed along a trend from fresh albitic granites towards a quartz–muscovite assemblage so-called “greisen” where feldspars are absent. Intermediate “altered granites” as indicated correspond to granites with progressive development of muscovite at the expense of albite and lepidolite. The colored dots represent a selected drilling holes of the EMILI campaigns. Ab: albite; Lpd: lepidolite. The mineral abbreviations are according to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) as adopted by [3].</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Summary of fresh and altered samples collected from the drill holes, including their mineralogy, depth, and facies nature. Ab: Albite; Qz: quartz; Lpd: lepidolite; Ms: muscovite; Kfs: K-feldspar; Tpz: topaz; AGM: amblygonite-group minerals; Cst: cassiterite; Ap: apatite. The mineral abbreviations are according to the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) as adopted by [3].</caption><thead><tr><th>Drill Hole.</th><th>Sample Number</th><th>Depth (m)</th><th>Mineralogy</th><th>Facies Nature</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">PER North</td><td>N48</td><td>48</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>N77</td><td>77</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>N84</td><td>84</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Ap</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>N118</td><td>118</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, Ms, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>C30</td><td>30</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">PER Center</td><td>C39</td><td>39</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>C42</td><td>42</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>C52</td><td>52</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>C112</td><td>112</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>C117</td><td>117</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">PER South</td><td>S50</td><td>50</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz, Ms</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>S73</td><td>73</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>S113</td><td>113</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz, Ms</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">EMI 006</td><td>EMI6-196</td><td>196</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, CGM, Ap</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>EMI6-198</td><td>198</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Cst</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>EMI10-175</td><td>175</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EMI 010</td><td>EMI10-208</td><td>208</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, Ap</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>EMI10-211</td><td>211</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Kfs</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 013</td><td>EMI13-91</td><td>91</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 016</td><td>EMI16-215</td><td>215</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, Ms, AGM, Tpz</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 019</td><td>EMI19-111</td><td>111</td><td>Ms, Qz, Lpd, Ap</td><td>altered</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 036</td><td>EMI36-485</td><td>485</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz, Ms</td><td>fresh</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 046</td><td>EMI46-482</td><td>482</td><td>Ab, Qz, Lpd, Kfs, AGM, Tpz, Ms</td><td>fresh</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.2. Micro X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry

Micro-XRF analyses have been conducted at GéoRessources (Nancy, France) using a Bruker M4 Tornado micro-XRF equipped with a Rhodium X-ray tube. The conditions for the elemental mapping were a 20 µm spot size, a step width of 20 µm, 16 ms times per pixel, and a voltage/intensity of 50 kV/600 µA under a 20 mbar vacuum. The two spectrometers were used at 40 keV/130 kcps for each. Elemental distribution maps of Al, Si, K, Fe, Rb, and P were acquired using the associated software of the micro-XRF (Figure 3A–F), following the procedure explained by [4]. Converting elemental maps to chemical composite maps (Figure 3G) enables us to identify the minerals present and their modal proportions. This conversion was performed with MARCIA [5], a free GitHub code for quantitative mineralogy mapping (https://github.com/hameye/MARCIA, accessed on 15 October 2025). MARCIA is a standardless quantification method in which classification is achieved by defining masks as linear combinations of the elemental intensities of each mineral. We note that the volume modal proportions obtained by MARCIA have been converted into mass percentages for comparison with normative proportions. This conversion is performed by multiplying the modal proportion of each mineral by its density, then MARCIA sums the relative masses and normalizes them to 100.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** (A–F) Elemental distribution maps of Al, Si, K, Fe, Rb, and P from a thick section from the Beauvoir granite generated by the M4 Tornado software (version 1.6.5) and corresponding (G) modal mineral distribution generated by the MARCIA code. AGM: amblygonite-group minerals.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.3. Normative Mineral Calculation with GeoRunes

The normative calculation of minerals is based on whole-rock geochemistry and defines a theoretical mineralogical sequence based on the bulk composition of the rock. The first use of this method, known as the Cross-Iddings-Pirsson-Washington norm (CIPW norm; [6]), involved determining the molar content of each chemical element in the bulk composition and allocating it to the corresponding mineral, following a pre-determined paragenetic sequence. In this study, we employ an alternative approach in which we describe the bulk composition as a linear combination of the chemical compositions of the minerals it contains [7–9]. Fifteen samples from fresh to highly altered granite were crushed and reduced into powder and analyzed using ICP-OES, AAS (for Li) and ISE (for F) for major elements (SiO₂, TiO₂, Al₂O₃, Fe₂O₃, MnO, MgO, CaO, Na₂O, K₂O, P₂O₅, LOI), and ICP-MS for trace elements (Rb, Sn, Nb, Ta).

The normative calculation was performed using Georunes, a Python-based library developed for data visualization and geochemical calculations (https://github.com/dugucrypter/georunes, version 0.1.0, accessed on 2 December 2025). The functions used from the GeoRunes library (modmin module) fit the mineral abundances to the whole-rock
(WR) chemical composition by assuming that the WR composition is a linear combination of the oxide compositions of the constituent minerals. This assumption yields a system of linear equations (Equation (1)), where the unknowns are the mineral modal proportions (expressed as percentages). The coefficients in this system are the oxide weight percentages (wt%) of the minerals, while the constant terms are the whole-rock oxide wt%. The starting data required includes (1) bulk geochemistry of data (in oxide wt%) and (2) the average composition of the minerals from the paragenetic sequence (in oxide wt%). Based on the textural characterization, albite, quartz, lepidolite, K-feldspar, topaz, and amblygonite-group minerals (AGMs) were chosen for the fresh facies samples. In contrast, albite, lepidolite, quartz, K-feldspar, muscovite and apatite were selected for the altered facies. Since small mineral proportions are not well estimated during normative calculation [10], we decided not to add Sn-Nb-Ta oxides to the fresh facies and fluorite to the altered facies (Table 2).

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Representative mineral chemical composition (oxides in wt%) used for the normative proportion calculation. The iron oxide corresponds to total iron in ferric form.</caption><thead><tr><th>Mineral</th><th>SiO<sub>2</sub></th><th>TiO<sub>2</sub></th><th>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></th><th>Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></th><th>MnO</th><th>MgO</th><th>CaO</th><th>Na<sub>2</sub>O</th><th>K<sub>2</sub>O</th><th>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></th><th>Li<sub>2</sub>O</th><th>F</th><th>Rb<sub>2</sub>O</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Albite</td><td>68.2</td><td>0</td><td>19.9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Quartz</td><td>99.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Lepidolite</td><td>51.8</td><td>0</td><td>22.6</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>9.9</td><td>0</td><td>6.2</td><td>5.1</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Microcline</td><td>64.8</td><td>0</td><td>18.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>16.5</td><td>0.3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Muscovite</td><td>46.0</td><td>0</td><td>36.4</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>10.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Topaz</td><td>32.6</td><td>0</td><td>56.9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>17.5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Amblygonite</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>36.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>7.5</td><td>0</td><td>46.9</td><td>6.0</td><td>8.8</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Apatite</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>55.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>41.8</td><td>0</td><td>3.9</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The relative amounts of these minerals can be calculated independently as they contain only minor amounts of elements common to the main minerals, such as iron. Equation (1) is as follows:

$$ \left\{ \begin{array}{l} a_{ox_1,mi_1}x_{mi_1} + a_{ox_1,mi_2}x_{mi_2} + \cdots + a_{ox_1,mi_n}x_{mi_n} = y_{ox_1}, \text{WR} \\ a_{ox_2,mi_1}x_{mi_1} + a_{ox_2,mi_2}x_{mi_2} + \cdots + a_{ox_2,mi_n}x_{mi_n} = y_{ox_2}, \text{WR} \\ \vdots \\ a_{ox_m,mi_1}x_{mi_1} + a_{ox_m,mi_2}x_{mi_2} + \cdots + a_{ox_m,mi_n}x_{mi_n} = y_{ox_m}, \text{WR} \end{array} \right. \qquad (1) $$

Linear system Equation (1) is solved by minimizing an error function of the Euclidean norm of the difference between the given WR composition and the computed WR composition (Equation (2)). This minimization was addressed using a gradient descent algorithm that iteratively adjusts the mineral modal proportions to converge to an optimal solution. A random starting composition is selected as the initial estimate for the modal proportions. The gradient descent algorithm is run for a maximum of 1000 iterations, with a learning rate of 0.0005 to control the step size at each iteration Equation (2):

$$ \|e\|_2 = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{m} (y_{ox_i, calculated} - y_{ox_i, WR})^2} \qquad (2) $$
# 3. Results

## 3.1. Textural Characterization of the Beauvoir Granite

The Beauvoir granite comprises three units, from the least evolved B3 and B2 units at the bottom, to the most evolved B1 unit at the top [11]. Unit B1 of the Beauvoir granite extends to a depth of around 450 m [11]. Two lithologies characterize this unit: (1) a fresh facies, hololeucocratic (Figure 4A), and (2) an altered facies known as *greisen* (Figure 4B), found in the superficial part of the granite and near fracture networks in depth.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.** Hand specimens (A,B), optical microscopic (C,E), and SEM (D,F) microphotographs showing the textural relationships from the fresh and altered facies of the Beauvoir granite. Ab: Albite; Qz: quartz; Lpd: lepidolite; Ms: muscovite; Kfs: K-feldspar; Tpz: topaz; AGM: amblygonite-group minerals; Cst: cassiterite; Cra: crandallite; CGM: columbite-group minerals.

Based on hand-sample examination and optical microscopy observations (Figure 4A,C), the matrix of the fresh facies is composed of abundant albite laths and lepidolite, with interstices filled by globular quartz, potassium-feldspar (i.e., K-feldspar), and topaz. Sn-Nb-Ta oxides are rare but can be recognized in hand samples by their metallic luster. Phosphates of the fresh facies are composed of Li-rich Al-phosphates (i.e., amblygonite-group minerals, Figure 4D) and a minor amount of Be-phosphates, which are not recognizable macroscopically [12–14]. Magmatic apatite is rare and has not been identified in either hand samples or thin sections.

Altered facies have a green (hydrothermal muscovite) aspect. According to optical microscopy (Figure 4B,E), the feldspars are replaced by a muscovite–quartz assemblage. Muscovite also partially replaces K-feldspar and lepidolite (Figure 4E,F). Secondary apatite is the dominant phosphate in the altered facies, while primary Li-Al phosphates are absent, and replaced by crandallite-group minerals. Neither beryl nor Be-phosphates were identified in the altered facies. Finally, it is pertinent to note that oxides are less abundant in the altered facies, but fluorite is noticeably more abundant than in the fresh rock.

## 3.2. Micro-XRF Modal Abundances

The modal abundances of the samples from fresh and altered facies are presented in Table 3 and Figure 5.
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Summary of modal mineral proportions from all the samples selected for the selected study. Oxides represent the total opaque minerals, and AGM represent amblygonite and montebrasite.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="9">Fresh Granite</th></tr><tr><th>Sample/Mineral</th><th>Albite</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Lepidolite</th><th>Muscovite</th><th>K-Feldspar</th><th>AGM</th><th>Topaz</th><th>Oxides</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>N-48m</td><td>48</td><td>22</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>N-77m</td><td>43</td><td>23</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>N-118m</td><td>45</td><td>28</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-30m</td><td>52</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-39m</td><td>45</td><td>21</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-42m</td><td>47</td><td>21</td><td>24</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-52m</td><td>60</td><td>21</td><td>15</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-112m</td><td>49</td><td>28</td><td>14</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>S-50m</td><td>53</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>S-113m</td><td>49</td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 13-91m</td><td>49</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 16-215m</td><td>45</td><td>28</td><td>12</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 36-485m</td><td>46</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 46-482m</td><td>43</td><td>24</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th colspan="9">Altered Granite</th></tr><tr><th>Sample/Mineral</th><th>Albite</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Lepidolite</th><th>Muscovite</th><th>K-Feldspar</th><th>Apatite</th><th>Topaz</th><th>Oxides</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EMI 10-175m</td><td>0</td><td>49</td><td>7</td><td>29</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 10-208m</td><td>0</td><td>37</td><td>14</td><td>41</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 10-211m</td><td>0</td><td>62</td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 19-111m</td><td>0</td><td>38</td><td>2</td><td>59</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 06-196m</td><td>0</td><td>47</td><td>6</td><td>32</td><td>13</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>EMI 06-198m</td><td>0</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>56</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>N-84m</td><td>8</td><td>46</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>21</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>C-117m</td><td>1</td><td>49</td><td>9</td><td>30</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>S-73m</td><td>6</td><td>50</td><td>10</td><td>33</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Histogram summarizing mineralogical modal proportions of the fresh and altered facies analyzed by micro-XRF. The asterisk indicates the samples analyzed by both micro-XRF for modal proportions and ICP-OES for normative proportions (see Figure 6 for normative proportions). Phosphates represent AGM and apatite.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Histogram summarizing mineralogical normative proportions for the fresh and altered facies of the studied samples. Phosphates represent amblygonite, montebrasite, and apatite.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.2.1. Fresh Granite

The modal proportions reveal that albite is the most abundant mineral, with an average abundance of 44%. Granular quartz ranks second, with an average abundance of 25%. Lepidolite, the main Li-bearing mineral, has a proportion of 20 ± 3%. After these three main phases, K-feldspar (5%–10%, with an average of 8%) and topaz (average 3%) are the two minor silicate minerals. In addition, minor phosphates and oxides have been identified. Amblygonite-group minerals and calcium-rich phosphates (i.e., herderite and magmatic apatite) show an average abundance of less than 5%, while Sn-Nb-Ta oxides do not exceed 1%. As shown in Figure 5, K-feldspar is much more abundant in the northern part of the granite than in the center and south (up to 5%).

### 3.2.2. Altered Facies

Altered greisen facies (Figure 4B) are typically comprising muscovite (average 37%) and quartz (average 48%). As shown by optical microscopy and SEM-EDS images, muscovite replaces the feldspars (Figure 4E) and lepidolite (Figure 4F). While the feldspars are entirely replaced by muscovite (in the highly altered facies), lepidolite shows a partial replacement by muscovite, occurring at the rims and along the cleavages (Figure 4F). Contrary to feldspars, the globular magmatic quartz is not replaced. Still, new hydrothermal quartz has precipitated along the fractures (Figure 4E).

After hydrothermal muscovite and quartz, lepidolite shows the third most abundant proportion (average 10%). However, this proportion can decrease to 1% in the highly altered facies. Furthermore, K-feldspar shows a heterogeneous distribution (typically 5%) in the altered facies, sometimes wholly or partially replaced, especially in the northern part of the quarry. Finally, topaz and AGM are almost entirely replaced by muscovite and crandallite-group minerals. Although less abundant in the altered facies, oxides survived from greisenisation (Figure 4B). Finally, fluorite appears in the altered facies (average 5%), mainly in the northern part of the granite.
### 3.3. *Normative Proportions Results*

Table 4 and Figure 6 show the normative proportions of the selected samples.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Summary of normative mineral proportions from fifteen selected samples, and their corresponding modal proportions. Oxides represent the total opaque minerals, and AGM represent amblygonite and montebasite.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Mineral/Sample</th><th colspan="12">FRESH GRANITE</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">C-30m</th><th colspan="2">C-39m</th><th colspan="2">C-52m</th><th colspan="2">C-112m</th><th colspan="2">S-50m</th><th colspan="2">S-113m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 13-91m</th></tr><tr><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Albite</td><td>46</td><td>52</td><td>35</td><td>45</td><td>46</td><td>60</td><td>38</td><td>49</td><td>43</td><td>53</td><td>49</td><td>49</td><td>43</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Quartz</td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>27</td><td>21</td><td>26</td><td>21</td><td>27</td><td>28</td><td>22</td><td>17</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Lepidolite</td><td>19</td><td>22</td><td>20</td><td>22</td><td>18</td><td>15</td><td>15</td><td>14</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>24</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Muscovite</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>K-Feldspar</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>AGM</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Topaz</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Oxides</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Mineral/Sample</th><th colspan="12">ALTERED GRANITE</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">C-117m</th><th colspan="2">S-73m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 10-175m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 10-208m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 10-211m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 19-111m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 06-196m</th><th colspan="2">EMI 06-198m</th></tr><tr><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th><th>Nor mative</th><th>Modal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Albite</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Quartz</td><td>46</td><td>49</td><td>46</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>49</td><td>40</td><td>37</td><td>60</td><td>62</td><td>47</td><td>38</td><td>44</td><td>47</td><td>52</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Lepidolite</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>11</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Muscovite</td><td>41</td><td>30</td><td>44</td><td>33</td><td>32</td><td>29</td><td>33</td><td>41</td><td>22</td><td>19</td><td>51</td><td>59</td><td>21</td><td>32</td><td>40</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>K-Feldspar</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>26</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Apatite</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Topaz</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Oxides</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

The distributions in Figure 6 issued from whole-rock chemical data show a rough similar distribution when compared to those issued from Micro-XRF image treatment (Figure 5). The number of selected mineral phases was reduced as already explained methodological section, explaining the differences concerning the minerals in low abundance (phosphate, oxides).

Normative proportions of the selected samples were compared with modal abundances (Figure 7). It can be emphasized that for comparison purposes, linear regressions were calculated with the intercept constrained to zero. Regressions forced through the origin are shown solely to assess proportionality between modal and normative estimates, as zero mineral abundance implies zero elemental contribution. Furthermore, the constrained regressions are not used as indicators of correlation strength and should not be interpreted as measures of statistical goodness-of-fit. Figure 7A,B,D shows that modal and normative proportions of albite, quartz, and lepidolite are proportional. For the altered facies, modal and normative proportions are less well proportional (Figure 7C). Muscovite from the altered facies shows modal and normative proportions that are less well proportional. Finally, K-feldspar abundances from fresh (Figure 7G) and altered facies (Figure 7H) show moderate relationships, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Binary diagrams showing the correlation between modal and normative proportions from albite (A), magmatic quartz (B) and hydrothermal quartz (C), lepidolite from fresh (D) and altered facies (E), muscovite (F), and K-feldspar from fresh (G) and altered facies (H). Note that the line corresponds to a regression forced through the origin and is shown only to illustrate proportionality; no R² is reported for this regression. The error bars represent an assigned relative uncertainty of ±5 to both modal and normative mineral proportions.</figcaption></figure>

# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. Advantages and Limitations of the Different Quantitative Mineralogical Methods and Comparison to LIBS

To date, micro-XRF is the fastest, requires the least preparation time, is the most cost-effective, and is the most precise tool for the mineralogical mapping of thin and thick sections, as well as drill cores. However, some issues can arise, related to (1) surface preparation as well as the representativeness of the minerals present at depth and (2) poor estimation at low concentrations. When analyzing samples with micro-XRF, careful attention must be paid to ensure the sample is flat and uniform to obtain accurate results.
Indeed, preparation defects can cause poor interaction between X-rays and the material, resulting in poor-quality maps and, ultimately, incorrect mineralogical proportions. Special precautions must, therefore, be taken, particularly during the sawing of rock samples and the preparation of thin sections. Additionally, it is crucial to select surfaces that accurately represent the mineralogical composition of the entire sample. Micro-XRF analysis focuses on the upper few micrometers of the sample surface. This surface is intended to describe the whole sample, but that may not always be the case. For instance, for the sample EMI06-196, the normative proportion of K-feldspar is double that obtained by modal calculation. Such a discrepancy could be explained by a higher proportion of K-feldspar at depth than analyzed by micro-XRF at the surface. Another limitation of micro-XRF is the poor estimation of low-concentration elements, which is related to both the grain size and software calculations. For instance, at Beauvoir, Sn-Nb-Ta oxides, although rare, do not exceed a hundred micrometers in size [15] when they are not included in albite or lepidolite [16,17]. Since the minimum spot size is 20 µm, a significant portion of Sn-Nb-Ta oxides could not be mapped, resulting in a poor approximation of the abundance of these oxides. Since the primary target was lepidolite, estimating the proportions in the Beauvoir granite case was not difficult. However, estimating Sn-Nb-Ta oxides, which constitute a secondary target, remains challenging.

As explained in Section 2.3, the normative method is applied after crushing and reducing the sample to powder, and the sample is then analyzed by ICP-OES and ICP-MS. Unlike micro-XRF, which estimates surface abundances, mineral abundances from whole-rock analysis reflect the entire sample. Although time-consuming and requiring more preparation than micro-XRF or XRD Rietveld, this technique is the most accurate and representative. However, two drawbacks exist: (1) the approximation in attributing element abundances to different minerals during the normative calculation and (2) the poor estimation of small mineral proportions. The main difficulty lies in attributing element abundances to different minerals. In the altered Beauvoir granite, a significant problem is the presence of three potassic minerals: lepidolite, K-feldspar, and muscovite. K-feldspar from the altered facies is not fresh (see Figure 4E,F) and has been replaced by muscovite. Indeed, the calculation of the normative composition of the altered facies tends to overestimate K in muscovite, leading to an overestimation of the muscovite proportion relative to lepidolite and K-feldspar. One solution would be to simplify the actual composition of these three K-minerals. For instance, removing H₂O from the composition of muscovite and lepidolite helps stabilize the proportion of muscovite and lepidolite in the normative mineralogy. This modification of the chemical formulas during modeling, thus allowed a better distribution of K among the three K-minerals in the altered facies.

Besides micro-XRF and the normative method, LIBS, as a tool for in situ elemental mapping and quantitative mineralogy, is widely used [18–20]. Indeed, in addition to being fast and cost-effective, it can analyze light elements (i.e., Li, Be, and F), that micro-XRF cannot. For instance, Be-bearing phosphate minerals in the Beauvoir granite, including beryllonite, hurlbutite, and herderite [12–14], could not be identified by micro-XRF. In contrast, there is no doubt that LIBS would have allowed easier identification of these Be-minerals.

## 4.2. *Modal and Normative Quantitative Mineralogy Comparison*

When comparing modal and normative proportions, attention must be paid to the choice of the sample and, consequently, to the scale differences between thin sections and crushed samples. Indeed, since micro-XRF only analyzes surfaces, we must ensure that the surface is representative of the entire sample. In our case, micro-XRF was mainly performed on thick sections while normative analyses were based on core samples. However, to
avoid representativity and scale disparities, samples were selected based on whole-rock geochemistry. However, identification of fresh and altered facies was based on geochemical analysis following optical observation. To obviate the scaling problem, the core remnant used to produce the thin section was itself crushed for whole-rock geochemistry. When comparing the silicate minerals for fresh facies, it is evident that both modal and normative proportions exhibit similar proportions for albite (Figure 7A), quartz (Figure 7B) and lepidolite (Figure 7D). This could be explained by the fact that fresh facies of the Beauvoir granite are relatively homogeneous. The proportions of the four main silicates do not vary, except for a higher proportion of K-feldspar in the northern part of the granite. At the same time, for the calculation of normative proportions, the absence of mineralogical transformations implies a near stoichiometric distribution of elements, especially K, which is shared between lepidolite and K-feldspar only.

Some mineralogical changes are evident in the altered greisen facies. As shown in Section 3, the feldspars and lepidolite are partially replaced by muscovite. This replacement can lead to misrepresentation of mineralogical proportions. Lepidolite shows a strong proportionality between modal and normative estimates. Muscovite is well discriminated using the MARCIA procedure and does not affect the lepidolite estimate (see Figure 7E). Similarly, hydrothermal quartz abundances are adequately accounted when estimating the rate of conversion of albite into quartz and muscovite, e.g., the progressive "greisenisation" [2]. Finally, modal proportions sometimes show lower values than those recorded in normative data for muscovite. The normative data seem robust because K is accommodated between the three potassic minerals (i.e., lepidolite, muscovite, and K-feldspar). However, the modal data appear to be underestimated. The main reason is the partial, small-scale replacement of lepidolite and diffuse albite alteration, which results in complex textures and leads to an underestimation of the muscovite proportion. K-feldspar, when present, exhibits a less pronounced issue. The EMI 010 drill hole, located to the north, in the K-feldspar-rich zone, reveals an accurate estimation between the modal and normative data, except for the EMI 10-208 sample, where the K-feldspar from the modal calculation would seem to be underestimated. This underestimation of K-feldspar could be explained by an overestimation of K-feldspar altered by muscovite.

In the fresh facies, mineralogical homogeneity yields a reasonable comparison between modal and normative proportions, resulting in a good reconciliation of the mineralogical proportions. The altered facies exhibit differences between the modal and normative proportions, which are almost certainly linked to the partial-to-total replacement of feldspars and lepidolite during the greisen-forming episode. If lepidolite and hydrothermal quartz are similar in their modal and normative proportions, muscovite and K-feldspar show modal and normative proportions that are not relatively equal, due to the approximation of attributing element abundances, especially K, between both minerals.

### 4.3. Implications for Facies Classification of Beauvoir Granite and Lithium Recovery

The definition of mineralogical proportions, as well as the reconciliation of modal and normative data, are beneficial for understanding the distribution of minerals and metals during magmatic and hydrothermal stages, for the recovery of metals, and, ultimately, for the distribution of Li and its associated minerals. Indeed, the mineralogical proportions clearly show a replacement of feldspar and magmatic lepidolite by hydrothermal muscovite. Muscovite averages more than 35% of the mineralogical proportion when the feldspars are replaced. K-feldspar is a significant constituent of the altered facies in the northern zone of the Beauvoir granite. The increase in quartz proportion is primarily reflected in hydrothermal quartz associated with greisenisation, such as the replacement of albite by quartz and muscovite. Lepidolite is also replaced by muscovite, from partial to total
replacement in the highly altered zones. The greisen alteration yields a decrease in the lepidolite abundance by a factor of two to three times when comparing the fresh facies (20 ± 3%) with the altered facies (between 5% and 10%). Furthermore, this hydrothermal alteration appears to be less widespread than in other Variscan rare-metal granites of western Europe [21–23]. As explained by [11], the emplacement depth of Beauvoir granite (i.e., 3–4 km) prevents vein and fracture development, and therefore, pervasive alteration of significant volumes of rocks compared to other western Variscan rare-metal granites such as C/novec granite [24,25], resulting in the partial replacement of lepidolite.

The plot of the normative proportions of lepidolite versus Li whole-rock content is rich in information (Figure 8 and Table 5): (i) the good correlation in this diagram (R² = 0.99) indicates that the endmember controlling the Li content in the rock is the lepidolite, which is known to have a relatively constant Li content around 29,000 ppm [26], and (ii) the fresh to moderately altered facies, which show Li whole-rock values between 4000 and 7000 ppm, have a lepidolite content between 16% and 23%–25%, while moderately to highly altered facies with Li whole-rock values of less than 4000 ppm (average 2000 ppm) show lepidolite proportions between 15% and 1%–5%. This finding is in agreement with the observations cited in [26,27], who have demonstrated that muscovite from Beauvoir granite is nearly Li-free. Muscovite is therefore a diluting endmember, reducing the bulk Li content of the bulk mica concentrate (lepidolite + muscovite).

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Diagrams from the fifteen selected samples from Table 4, highlighting a good correlation (R² = 0.9997) between (A) the Li whole-rock content and the lepidolite normative proportion, (B) the Quartz–Feldspar diagram (modified from [2]), and the lepidolite normative proportion. Ab: albite; Lpd: lepidolite; Ms: muscovite; Kfs: K-feldspar.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Correlation between the Li whole-rock content and the lepidolite normative proportion from fifteen selected samples from Table 4.</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample</th><th>Li Whole-Rock Content (ppm)</th><th>Lepidolite Normative Proportion (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C30</td><td>5591</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>C39</td><td>5788</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>C52</td><td>5121</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>C112</td><td>4329</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>S50</td><td>4927</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>S113</td><td>4726</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>EMI13-91</td><td>6997</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>C117</td><td>2500</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>S73</td><td>2781</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>EMI10-175</td><td>1651</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>EMI10-208</td><td>3352</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>EMI10-211</td><td>3653</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>EMI19-111</td><td>97</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>EMI6-196</td><td>1851</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>EMI6-198</td><td>2026</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>
In the case of ore processing, muscovite is extremely difficult to separate from lepidolite. Therefore, the best solution to maintain the highest Li content in the mica concentrates is to avoid exploiting the greisen-rich volumes of the granite intrusion.

## 4.4. Quantitative Estimation of Lepidolite: Comparison and Integration of Bulk-Rock Geochemistry and Chemical Mapping

Quantitative estimation of lepidolite abundance in the Beauvoir granite is challenging because several major mineral phases (lepidolite, muscovite, K-feldspar) share the same principal chemical components (K-Al-Si), leading to under-determined systems when using bulk-rock chemical data alone. Although lepidolite is distinguished by its high and relatively constant Li content (~28,000 ppm), uncertainties arise where K-feldspar is scarce or variably altered, and where Li is not measured directly in mapping techniques.

Bulk-rock geochemical analyses provide representative data at the scale of decimetric samples or 4 m drilling intervals and are therefore well suited for estimating average mineral proportions at borehole scale, provided that sampling and analytical protocols are rigorous. However, solving modal proportions from whole-rock chemistry requires mathematical minimization procedures and remains sensitive to assumptions regarding mineral compositions.

By contrast, micro-XRF chemical mapping allows direct spatial discrimination of K-bearing phases and provides robust surface-based modal estimates, particularly when phase-specific thresholding is calibrated using the actual mineral compositions determined by EPMA. The principal limitations of this approach relate to representativeness (mapped area versus sample volume) and to potential scale effects, although these are mitigated at Beauvoir by the low textural variability at the sample scale and the absence of strong mineral preferred orientations.

In this study, we therefore adopted an integrated approach in which micro-XRF-derived surface proportions are used to calibrate bulk-rock-based modal calculations on the same samples. Once calibrated, this relationship can be extrapolated to continuous geochemical datasets acquired along boreholes, allowing lepidolite abundance to be estimated at deposit scale. This combined strategy provides a practical and reproducible solution for industrial-scale resource evaluation, while explicitly accounting for the uncertainties inherent to each method. Table 6 provides the main advantages and limitations of the two methods.

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Comparison of normative and modal approaches for estimating lepidolite abundance.</caption><thead><tr><td>Aspect</td><td>Normative Approach (Whole-Rock Geochemistry)</td><td>Modal Approach (Micro-XRF Mapping)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Principle</td><td>Mineral proportions calculated from bulk-rock chemistry using mass balance.</td><td>Direct identification and surface quantification of mineral phases from elemental maps.</td></tr><tr><td>Scale</td><td>Decimetric to metric (e.g., 4 m drill-core intervals).</td><td>Millimetric to centimetric (thin/thick sections).</td></tr><tr><td>Representativeness</td><td>High, provided sampling and quartering are robust.</td><td>Limited; depends on number of sections and textural homogeneity.</td></tr><tr><td>Discrimination of K-bearing phases</td><td>Limited when several phases share major elements (under-determined systems).</td><td>High, using phase-specific chemical thresholds (MARCIA approach).</td></tr><tr><td>Sensitivity to Li</td><td>High at bulk scale, indirect at mineral scale.</td><td>Indirect (Li not detected), inferred from associated elements and calibration.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 6. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><td>Aspect</td><td>Normative Approach (Whole-Rock Geochemistry)</td><td>Modal Approach (Micro-XRF Mapping)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sensitivity to alteration</td><td>Expressed as bulk metal loss</td><td>Explicitly resolved through replacement textures (e.g., lepidolite → muscovite).</td></tr><tr><td>Main uncertainties</td><td>Assumed mineral compositions; phase overlap.</td><td>Surface-to-volume extrapolation.</td></tr><tr><td>Strengths</td><td>Robust drill-core-scale estimates.</td><td>High mineralogical and textural resolution.</td></tr><tr><td>Limitations</td><td>Poor resolution of textural controls.</td><td>Cannot be extrapolated alone to resource scale.</td></tr><tr><td>Optimal combined use</td><td>Provides volumetric control and resource-scale continuity.</td><td>Provides calibration, phase discrimination and correction factors.</td></tr><tr><td>Implications for exploration and resource modeling</td><td>Ensures reliable grade and tonnage estimation at borehole scale</td><td>Improves mineralogical accuracy and correction of normative models in heterogeneous or altered facies.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5. Conclusions

* Elemental and chemical composite mapping combined with modal mineralogy highlights the usefulness of micro-XRF for mineralogical characterization.

* Beyond qualitative mapping, Micro-XRF imaging enables quantitative comparisons with normative and modal mineralogy, providing insights into the respective strengths and limitations of each approach.

* Micro-XRF results, in conjunction with normative mineral proportion calculations, reveal similar mineralogical abundances for fresh granite; however, noticeable discrepancies occur in the estimation of muscovite in the altered facies.

* By comparing mineralogical proportions with Li content, this study allows the discrimination of fresh and altered facies based on their mineral signatures, thereby improving deposit characterization and predictions of ore-processing performance.

* Micro-XRF is not suitable for the direct quantification of lithium-bearing minerals as it cannot detect elements with atomic numbers below sodium (Z = 11). This intrinsic limitation highlights the necessity of complementary analytical techniques, such as ICP-MS or LA-ICP-MS, when investigating lithium-rich phases.

* Overall, this work demonstrates the value of quantitative mineralogy—particularly for Li-bearing rare-metal granites—in providing critical information on the abundance of Li-bearing minerals and the potential presence of Li-poor muscovite acting as a diluting component in flotation mica concentrates.

* In Li-mica-bearing peraluminous granites such as Beauvoir, neither normative nor modal approaches alone provide a fully reliable estimate of lepidolite abundance. Whole-rock geochemistry ensures volumetric representativeness at the drill-core scale but suffers from under-determined systems where several K-bearing phases coexist. Conversely, micro-XRF mapping allows precise discrimination of mineral phases and alteration textures but is limited by surface representativeness. Their combined use enables cross-calibration of mineral proportions, reduces methodological uncertainties, and provides a robust framework for resource estimation and orebody modeling.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, Z.S.K. and M.C.; methodology, Z.S.K., M.C., W.M.-E.B. and L.S.; software, Z.S.K. and W.M.-E.B.; validation, M.C. and P.F.; investigation, Z.S.K., M.C., W.M.-E.B. and L.S.; resources, Z.S.K., M.C., W.M.-E.B. and L.S.; data curation, Z.S.K., M.C. and W.M.-E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.S.K. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, Z.S.K., M.C.,
W.M.-E.B., L.S. and P.F.; project administration, M.C. and P.F.; funding acquisition, M.C. and P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The work was supported by the French National Research Agency through the national program "Investissements d'avenir" with the reference ANR-10-LABX-21-RESSOURCES21.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data supporting the findings of this study, specifically the geographical coordinates of the Beauvoir quarry and the drill cores, are available upon request from the corresponding author, Zia Steven Kahou. The data are not publicly available since they form part of an ongoing exploration campaign.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank IMERYS and all their geologists, especially Benjamin Barré and Alyson Bargain, for providing access to the Beauvoir quarry and for assistance during core sampling. This work was supported by the French National Research Agency through the national program "Investissements d'avenir" with the reference ANR-10-LABX-21-RESSOURCES21. Andreï Lecomte from the Service Commun de Microscopie Electronique et de Microanalyse (SCMEM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France) is thanked for his assistance during the SEM acquisition. The corresponding author would also like to warmly thank Gregoire Jean and Jean Cauzid, respectively, the head of IMERYS R&D and an assistant professor at Lorraine University, for numerous discussions about quantitative mineralogy, which significantly improved the present paper. Analyses were carried out at the SCMEM and LA-ICP-MS platforms of GeoRessources in Nancy, which are funded by the Labex Ressources 21 (ANR-10-LABX-21-RESSOURCES21), the Region Lorraine, and the European Community through the FEDER program.

**Conflicts of Interest:** Patrick Fullenwarth was employed by Imerys Ceramics France-Kaolins de Beauvoir. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

## References

1. Harlaux, M.; Mercadier, J.; Bonzi, W.M.-E.; Kremer, V.; Marignac, C.; Cuney, M. Geochemical Signature of Magmatic-Hydrothermal Fluids Exsolved from the Beauvoir Rare-Metal Granite (Massif Central, France): Insights from LA-ICPMS Analysis of Primary Fluid Inclusions. *Geofluids* **2017**, *2017*, 1925817. [CrossRef]

2. Cathelineau, M.; Kahou, Z.S. Discrimination of Muscovitisation Processes Using a Modified Quartz–Feldspar Diagram: Application to Beauvoir Greisens. *Minerals* **2024**, *14*, 746. [CrossRef]

3. Warr, L.N. IMA–CNMNC Approved Mineral Symbols. *Mineral. Mag.* **2021**, *85*, 291–320. [CrossRef]

4. Mohamed, N.; Rifai, K.; Selmani, S.; Constantin, M.; Doucet, F.R.; Özcan, L.Ç.; Sabsabi, M.; Vidal, F. Chemical and Mineralogical Mapping of Platinum-Group Element Ore Samples Using Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy and Micro-X-Ray Fluorescence. *Geostand. Geoanal. Res.* **2021**, *45*, 539–550. [CrossRef]

5. Meyer, H.; Jean, C. Hameye/MARCIA: MARCIA v 0.1.3. *Zenodo* **2021**, *711*. [CrossRef]

6. Cross, W.; Iddings, J.P.; Pirsson, L.V.; Washington, H.S. A Quantitative Chemico-Mineralogical Classification and Nomenclature of Igneous Rocks. *J. Geol.* **1902**, *10*, 555–690. [CrossRef]

7. Banks, R. The Use of Linear Programming in the Analysis of Petrological Mixing Problems. *Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.* **1979**, *70*, 237–244. [CrossRef]

8. Tolosana-Delgado, R.; von Eynatten, H.; Karius, V. Constructing Modal Mineralogy from Geochemical Composition: A Geometric-Bayesian Approach. *Comput. Geosci.* **2011**, *37*, 677–691. [CrossRef]

9. Weltje, G.J. End-Member Modeling of Compositional Data: Numerical-Statistical Algorithms for Solving the Explicit Mixing Problem. *Math. Geol.* **1997**, *29*, 503–549. [CrossRef]

10. Braun, G.E. Quantitative Analysis of Mineral Mixtures Using Linear Programming. *Clays Clay Miner.* **1986**, *34*, 330–337. [CrossRef]

11. Cuney, M.; Marignac, C.; Weisbrod, A. The Beauvoir Topaz-Lepidolite Albite Granite (Massif Central, France); the Disseminated Magmatic Sn-Li-Ta-Nb-Be Mineralization. *Econ. Geol.* **1992**, *87*, 1766–1794. [CrossRef]

12. Aubert, G.; Burnol, L. Observations Sur Les Mineralisations En Beryllium Du Massif Granitique d'Echassiers Decouverte de Herderite. *Acad. Sience Comptes Rendus* **1964**, *258*, 273–276.

13. Burnol, L. Geochimie du Beryllium et Types de Concentration dans les Leucogranites du Massif Central Francais; Relations Entre les Caracteristiques Geochimiques des Granitoides et les Gisements Endogenes de Type Depart Acide (Be, Sn, Li) ou de Remaniement Tardif (U, F, Pb et Zn); BRGM: Orléans, France, 1974.

14. Charoy, B. Beryllium Speciation in Evolved Granitic Magmas; Phosphates versus Silicates. *Eur. J. Mineral.* **1999**, *11*, 135–148.
15. Demeusy, B.; Arias-Quintero, C.A.; Butin, G.; Lainé, J.; Tripathy, S.K.; Marin, J.; Dehaine, Q.; Filippov, L.O. Characterization and Liberation Study of the Beauvoir Granite for Lithium Mica Recovery. *Minerals* **2023**, *13*, 950. [CrossRef]

16. Chen, W.R.; Fontan, F.; Monchoux, P. Interrelations et Évolution Comparée de La Cassitérite et Des Niobotantales Dans Les Différents Faciès Du Granite de Beauvoir (Massif d'Echassières). *Géologie Fr.* **1987**, *2–3*, 237–245.

17. Wang, R.C. Minéraux Disséminés Comme Indicateurs du Caractère Pegmatitique du Granite de Beauvoir, Massif d'Echassières, Allier, France. *Can. Mineral.* **1992**, *30*, 763–770.

18. Sweetapple, M.T.; Tassios, S. Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) as a Tool for In Situ Mapping and Textural Interpretation of Lithium in Pegmatite Minerals. *Am. Mineral.* **2015**, *100*, 2141–2151. [CrossRef]

19. Rifai, K.; Constantin, M.; Yilmaz, A.; Özcan, L.Ç.; Doucet, F.R.; Azami, N. Quantification of Lithium and Mineralogical Mapping in Crushed Ore Samples Using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy. *Minerals* **2022**, *12*, 253. [CrossRef]

20. Fabre, C.; Trebus, K.; Tarantola, A.; Cauzid, J.; Motto-Ros, V.; Voudouris, P. Advances on microLIBS and microXRF Mineralogical and Elemental Quantitative Imaging. *Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc.* **2022**, *194*, 106470. [CrossRef]

21. Ballouard, C.; Carr, P.; Parisot, F.; Gloaguen, É.; Melleton, J.; Cauzid, J.; Lecomte, A.; Rouer, O.; Salsi, L.; Mercadier, J. Petrogenesis and Tectonic-Magmatic Context of Emplacement of Lepidolite and Petalite Pegmatites from the Fregeneda-Almendra Field (Variscan Central Iberian Zone): Clues from Nb-Ta-Sn Oxide U-Pb Geochronology and Mineral Geochemistry. *BSGF–Earth Sci. Bul.* **2024**, *195*, 3. [CrossRef]

22. Michaud, J.A.-S.; Gumiaux, C.; Pichavant, M.; Gloaguen, E.; Marcoux, E. From Magmatic to Hydrothermal Sn-Li-(Nb-Ta-W) Mineralization: The Argemela Area (Central Portugal). *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2020**, *116*, 103215. [CrossRef]

23. Raimbault, L.; Cuney, M.; Azencott, C.; Duthou, J.-L.; Joron, J.L. Geochemical Evidence for a Multistage Magmatic Genesis of Ta-Sn-Li Mineralization in the Granite at Beauvoir, French Massif Central. *Econ. Geol.* **1995**, *90*, 548–576. [CrossRef]

24. Breiter, K.; Hložková, M.; Korbelová, Z.; Galiová, M.V. Diversity of Lithium Mica Compositions in Mineralized Granite–Greisen System: Cínovec Li-Sn-W Deposit, Erzgebirge. *Ore Geol. Rev.* **2019**, *106*, 12–27. [CrossRef]

25. Harlaux, M.; Blein, O.; Gourcerol, B. Comparison of the Beauvoir and Cínovec Rare Metal Granite/Greisen Systems: Role of Muscovitization on Li-Sn-W-Ta Hydrothermal Remobilization. In Proceedings of the 17th Biennial SGA Meeting, Zurich, Switzerland, 28 August–1 September 2023; pp. 39–42.

26. Kahou, S.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.-C. *Quantitative Mineralogy and Lithium Distribution in the Upper Part of the Beauvoir Granite; European Geosciences Union General Assembly:* Vienna, Austria, 2024.

27. Monnier, L.; Salvi, S.; Melleton, J.; Lach, P.; Pochon, A.; Bailly, L.; Béziat, D.; De Parseval, P. Mica Trace-Element Signatures: Highlighting Superimposed W-Sn Mineralizations and Fluid Sources. *Chem. Geol.* **2022**, *600*, 120866. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.