Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:35:52.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental studies of fine-grained micas

II. The water content of wet-ground micas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

P. G. Rouxhet  and
G. W. Brindley
P. G. Rouxhet
Affiliation:
Materials Research Laboratory, and Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
G. W. Brindley
Affiliation:
Materials Research Laboratory, and Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The water gained by two micas during a wet-grinding process (extra-water) has been evaluated. It was found to be proportional to the surface area and the amount was about 29 µmoles/m2 for a fluorphlogopite and about 16 µmoles/m2 for a muscovite. This estimation was made possible by eliminating the physically adsorbed water. The material contaminating the surfaces and the constitution water of muscovite were taken into account by the comparison of the two minerals and by the use of infrared spectroscopy in addition to thermovolumetric data. It is thought that the extra-water is related to a disordered and chemically modified surface layer of the particles. The bearing of these results on the nature of illite is indicated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1966 , pp. 219 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brindley, G.W. & Wentworth, S.A. (1965) 14th North American Clay Minerals Conference, Programme and Abstracts, p. 12.Google Scholar
Escard, J. (1950) J. Chim. phys. 47, 113.Google Scholar
Fripiat, J.J., Jelli, A., Poncelet, G. & André, J. (1965) J. phys. Chem., Wash. 69, 2185.Google Scholar
Gaines, G.L. & Vedder, W. (1964) Nature, Lond. 201, 495.Google Scholar
Garrels, R.M. & Howard, P. (1959) Clays and Clay Minerals, Proc. 6th Conf., p. 68. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kelly, W.P., Jenny, H. & Brown, S.M. (1936) Soil Sci. 41, 259.Google Scholar
Lange, K.A. (1949) J. Colloid Sci. 4, 447.Google Scholar
Livingston, A.K. (1949) J. Coloid Sci. 4, 447.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, R.C. & Milne, A.A. (1953a) Mineralog. Mag. 30, 178.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, R.C. & Milne, A.A. (1953b) Clay Miner. Bull. 2, 57.Google Scholar
Takahashi, H. (1959) Clays and Clay Minerals, Proc. 6th Conf., p. 279. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Uytterhoeven, J. & Fripiat, J.J. (1962) Bull. Soc. chim. Fr. 788.Google Scholar
Wade, W.H., Cole, H.D., Meyer, D.E. & Hackerman, N. (1961) Solid Surfaces and the Gas Solid Interaction (Gould, R.F., editor), p. 35. Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 33. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar