Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
American Mineralogist RIMG advertisement
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

American Mineralogist; August 2006; v. 91; no. 8-9; p. 1448-1451; DOI: 10.2138/am.2006.2299
© 2006 Mineralogical Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sanchez, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Gunter, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Quantification of amphibole content in expanded vermiculite products from Libby, Montana U.S.A. using powder X-ray diffraction

Matthew S. Sanchez and Mickey E. Gunter*

Department of Geological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-3022, U.S.A.


Figure 1
View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 1. Powder XRD scans showing the mineral phases in expanded vermiculites. (a) Two scans of differing count times of Zonolite; the 2–17° scan (with count time of 8 s) shows the three mineral phases routinely found in an expanded vermiculite product with each of the peaks labeled and keyed to hydrobiotite (hy), vermiculite (ve), and biotite (bi), and an 8.5–11.5° scan with a 180 s count over the location of the 110 amphibole peak as well as the 003 hydrobiotite peak. (b) Two stacked XRD scans of the unspiked Black Gold sample with range and count times as in Figure 1a. Notice the three mineral phases in the lower scans and that K-exchanging the sample "collapses" them into the single biotite peak, thus removing the interference of the 003 hydrobiotite peak with the 110 amphibole peak. (c) This scan is a K-exchanged sample from Libby clearly showing presence of the 110 amphibole peak.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 2. XRD scans for some of the K-exchanged amphibole-spiked Black Gold samples and the K-exchanged Libby sample, for each the longer 2{theta} scan is a count time of 8 s and the shorter 180 s. (a) A subset of the spiked samples showing the 1000 ppm sample’s 110 peak that is our detection limit, and the relationship between the 110 peak area and added amphibole. (b) The top most scan is the bg_10000 ppm spiked sample with the unknown attic samples plotted in decreasing order of % amphibole. (c) A series of scans with differing count times for the bg_10000 ppm spiked sample, showing that at the 1% level, amphibole is detected by XRD at count times much less than the 180 s we used for our calibration method.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 3. Plotted net peak area vs. concentration of the spiked and unknown expanded vermiculite samples. The triangles are the spiked calibration samples used to create the regression equation: amphibole ppm = 14632(702) x 110 peak area. The squares are the Libby samples fit to the regression line based upon their measured 110 amphibole net peak areas. All the Libby samples contain less than 10 000 ppm (or 1%) amphibole.

 





JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Mineralogical Society of America