Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:17:22.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Thermal Effects on Surface and Structural Parameters of Natural Californian and Quebec Chrysotile Asbestos up to 700°C

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

William J. Murphy  and
Robert A. Ross
William J. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7B 5E1
Robert A. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7B 5E1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The effect of heat treatment on surface area, pore volume, pore size distribution, physical and chemical structure up to 700°C have been studied on samples of naturally occurring chrysotile minerals from California and Quebec. Techniques used included thermogravimetric analysis, low-temperature nitrogen adsorption, electron microscopy, X-ray powder and electron diffraction. The materials behaved similarly on heating to 100°C showing a 0.5% weight loss attributable to desorption of physisorbed water. At 500°C, Quebec samples retained the chrysotile crystal structure while Californian samples were X-ray amorphous. Forsterite was formed by dehydration of both chrysotiles at 700°C; the greater stability of the Quebec samples to this process is explained by the presence of brucite as an impurity which enters into stray solid-solid interactions with the chrysotile.

Type
Research Article
Information
Clays and Clay Minerals , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 78 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Clay Minerals Society 1977

References

Addison, C. C., Addison, W. E., Neal, G. H. and Sharp, J. H. (1962) J. Chem. Soc. 278, 1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addison, W. E. and Sharp, J. H. (1962) J. Chem. Soc. 716, 3693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. W. and Hayami, R. (1965) Miner. Mag. 35, 189.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. W., Narahari, A. B. N. and Sharp, J. H. (1967) Am. Miner. 52, 1697.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. W. and Zussman, J. (1956) Miner. Mag. 31, 107.Google Scholar
Dollimore, D. and Heal, G. R. (1964) J. Appl. Chem. 14, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drobyshev, L. A. and Govorova, Ya. Ya. (1971) Kristallografiya 16(3), 544.Google Scholar
Eitel, W. (1964) Silicate Science, Vol. 1, p. 415: Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Freund, F. and Hainrich, M. (1971) Fortschr. Mineral. 48(2), 243.Google Scholar
Girgis, B. S. (1975) Trans. J. Br. Ceram. Soc. 74(4), 135.Google Scholar
Hodgson, A. A. (1965) Fibrous Silicates, Royal Institute of Chemistry, Lecture Ser. No. 4.Google Scholar
Van Biljon, W. J. (1960) Neues Jahrb. Mineral. Abh. 94, 1223.Google Scholar
Wittaker, E. J. W. and Zussman, J. (1956) Miner. Mag. 31, 107.Google Scholar
Woodroofe, H. M. (1956) Trans. Can. Inst. Min. Metall. 59, 363.Google Scholar
Young, G. J. and Healey, F. H. (1954) J. Phys. Chem. 58, 881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar