Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bradbury, S. E. Articles by Williams, Q. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Contrasting bonding behavior of two hydroxyl-bearing metamorphic minerals under pressure: Clinozoisite and topaz

Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, U.S.A.

Correspondence: ^* E-mail: qwilliams{at}es.ucsc.edu

Clinozoisite and topaz are examined to pressures of 36 and 24 GPa, respectively, at 300 K using infrared spectroscopy. Both minerals metastably persist throughout this pressure range at ambient temperature. Both stretching and bending vibrations of the silicate tetrahedra are tracked upon compression and decompression of each phase, as are their hydroxyl-stretching vibrations. The hydroxyl-stretching vibrations lie at 3650 cm^–1 in topaz and 3351 cm^–1 in clinozoisite and shift by 0.6 (±0.3) cm^–1/GPa and –5.1 (±0.9) cm^–1/GPa, respectively. Therefore, the hydrogen bonding in clinozoisite and topaz responds completely differently to pressure: hydrogen bonding increases in clinozoisite, but decreases in topaz. The clinozoisite hydroxyl-stretching vibration also broadens by almost a factor of six under compression. Both the clinozoisite peak shift and its pressure-induced broadening are simulated using a model of the hydrogen bond potential. The markedly different structural responses of these two minerals to pressure are interpreted on crystal-chemical grounds, and demonstrate that the bonding of hydrogen in possible subduction-related hydrous phases varies dramatically, depending on crystal chemistry.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Komatsu, H. Kagi, W.G. Marshall, T. Kuribayashi, J.B. Parise, and Y. Kudoh Pressure dependence of the hydrogen-bond geometry in topaz-OD from neutron powder diffraction American Mineralogist, January 1, 2008; 93(1): 217 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. P. Scott, Z. Liu, R. J. Hemley, and Q. Williams High-pressure infrared spectra of talc and lawsonite American Mineralogist, November 1, 2007; 92(11-12): 1814 - 1820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. D. Gatta, F. Nestola, G.D. Bromiley, and A. Loose New insight into crystal chemistry of topaz: A multi-methodological study American Mineralogist, November 1, 2006; 91(11-12): 1839 - 1846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Libowitzky and A. Beran The Structure of Hydrous Species in Nominally Anhydrous Minerals: Information from Polarized IR Spectroscopy Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, January 1, 2006; 62(1): 29 - 52. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Tsuchiya, T. Tsuchiya, and S. Tsuneyuki First-principles study of hydrogen bond symmetrization of phase D under high pressure American Mineralogist, January 1, 2005; 90(1): 44 - 49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Komatsu, H. Kagi, T. Okada, T. Kuribayashi, J.B. Parise, and Y. Kudoh Pressure dependence of the OH-stretching mode in F-rich natural topaz and topaz-OH American Mineralogist, January 1, 2005; 90(1): 266 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Liebscher Spectroscopy of Epidote Minerals Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, January 1, 2004; 56(1): 125 - 170. [Full Text] [PDF]