Electrical conductivity in minerals is sensitive to hydrogen content, and therefore, it is a potentially important property from which one can infer hydrogen (water) distribution in the mantle. However, there has been much confusion in the reported results on hydrogen-assisted conductivity. In this paper, I review the existing experimental observations on hydrogen-enhanced electrical conductivity in olivine and other minerals to identify the causes of confusion. Hydrogen loss as well as hydrogen gain could occur during a conductivity measurement at high pressures and temperatures. Particularly important is the unrecognized hydrogen gain during an experiment that could lead to a large degree of error. Many experiments were conducted under the conditions where specimens were super-saturated with hydrogen making the validity of those results unclear. A model for hydrogen loss is developed showing a strategy by which hydrogen loss can be minimized.When one selects the experimental results in which the influence of hydrogen loss/gain are carefully examined, there is no major discrepancy among the results from different laboratories except differences between the results from low and high temperatures. Differences between low-temperature and high-temperature results are caused by the change in conduction mechanism. At low temperatures, conduction is due to the migration of interstitial (“free”) proton and is nearly isotropic, whereas conduction at high temperatures is due to the migration of two protons at M-site that is highly anisotropic. There is no evidence for substantial concentration dependence of activation enthalpy. Observed exceptionally large concentration dependence reported by Poe et al. (Phys Earth Planet Inter 181:103-111, 2010) is inconsistent with all other reports and is likely caused by some experimental artifact.Experimental results in the high-temperature regime explain a majority of geophysical observations on the conductivity of the oceanic asthenosphere: partial melting is not needed in most regions and is rather inconsistent with the observations on the matured oceanic mantle. Exception is the asthenosphere near the ridge and/or near the trench where very high conductivity (~ 0.1 S/m) is reported at the top of the asthenosphere. Partial melting might play some role in these regions.Electrical conductivity in the continental lithosphere cannot be attributed entirely to olivine. An important role of orthopyroxene and/or other minor materials (graphite, sulfide) is needed to explain high conductivity reported in some regions such as Bushveld in South Africa.The largest remaining uncertainty is the degree to which hydrogen affects electrical conductivity in the lower mantle minerals. Determining the influence of hydrogen on electrical conductivity in lower mantle minerals is critical to make progress in understanding the global water circulation.

中文翻译：

---

关于橄榄石和其他矿物中氢辅助电导率的一些评论

矿物中的电导率对氢含量敏感，因此，它是一种潜在的重要特性，可从中推断出氢（水）在地幔中的分布。然而，关于氢辅助电导率的报道结果存在很多混淆。在本文中，我回顾了有关橄榄石和其他矿物中氢增强电导率的现有实验观察结果，以确定引起混淆的原因。在高压和高温下进行电导率测量时，可能会发生氢的损失以及氢的吸收。特别重要的是，在实验过程中无法识别的氢增益可能会导致很大程度的误差。许多实验都是在标本被氢气过饱和的条件下进行的，因此不清楚这些结果的有效性。一种用于氢损失模型开发出一种策略，通过该氢损失可minimized.When一个选择其中氢损失的影响/增益仔细检查的实验结果，有一个从除了差异不同实验室的结果之间没有大的差异在低温和高温的结果之间。低温和高温结果之间的差异是由传导机制的变化引起的。在低温下，传导是由于间隙质子（“自由”）质子的迁移而几乎是各向同性的，而在高温下传导是由于两个质子在M位点的迁移是高度各向异性的。没有证据表明活化焓对浓度有很大的依赖性。观察到Poe等人报道的异常大的浓度依赖性。（Phys Earth Planet Inter 181：103-111，2010）与所有其他报告不一致，可能是由一些实验人工产物引起的。高温状态下的实验结果解释了大多数关于地球软流圈电导率的地球物理观测结果：大多数地区不需要部分融化，这与对成熟洋幔的观测结果不一致。异常情况是在脊和/或沟槽附近的软流圈，在软流圈的顶部据报道导电率非常高（〜0.1 S / m）。部分融化可能在这些区域中起一定作用。大陆岩石圈的电导率不能完全归因于橄榄石。邻苯并reported和/或其他次要材料（石墨，硫化物）的重要作用是解释某些地区（如南非的布什维尔德）报道的高电导率。最大的不确定性是氢对下地幔电导率的影响程度。矿物质。确定氢对下地幔矿物电导率的影响对于在理解全球水循环方面取得进展至关重要。