Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:06:40.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination of Kaolinite Varieties in Porters Creek and Wilcox Sediments of North-Central Mississippi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

William R. Reynolds
William R. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, The University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677
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.

Use of a discriminant analysis has verified and grouped three suspected varieties of kaolinite found in kaolin-rich clay strata of late Paleocene to early Eocene age across north-central Mississippi. Initial identification of each type of kaolinite was based on clay-texture characteristics observed on scanning electron micrographs and the differences in pattern configurations of X-ray diffractograms. The discriminant function used for data treatment clearly segregated and grouped each variety. The discrimination variables were found to be the Hinckley index and, to a lesser extent, the Si4+ content relative to the Al3+ content.

The oldest variety is the Blue Mountain clay, composed of preserved hexagonal plates usually clustered into booklets with a vermiform texture. The Ashland variety, stratigraphically younger than the Blue Mountain clay, appears to have been derived from the erosion of the Blue Mountain clay. The Ashland cannot be recognized by any type of diagnostic texture, as it is made up of individual plates that have been corroded and abraded to the point where a hexagonal outline can no longer be recognized. The Sardis variety is the stratigraphically youngest of the three varieties and is at least a second, or possibly a third generation detrital product. The Sardis clay can be recognized by a distinct “ribbon” or “swirl” texture commonly found in ball clays.

Data from this study are not sufficient for complete petrogenetic interpretation. However, speculation on possible differences in depositional environments and modes of deposition can be based on the data at hand. The Blue Mountain variety is considered from previous studies to be primary. The Ashland variety is probably a first generation alluvial clay. The Sardis variety appears to be a multiple generation, detrital product that accumulated as part of overbank swamp deposits.

Keywords

KaoliniteDiscriminant analysisScanning electron microscopyHinckley indexBall clayClay deposition
Type
Research Article
Information
Clays and Clay Minerals , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 316 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 1991, The Clay Minerals Society

References

Allen, V. T., 1952 Petrographic relations in some bauxite and diaspore deposits Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull 63 649 – 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchard, E. F., 1924 Bauxite associated with siderite Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull 35 437 – 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchard, E. F., 1925 Bauxite in northeastern Mississippi U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull 750 101 – 146.Google Scholar
Clark, W. J., 1979 Interfluvial model for the upper Freeport coal seam in parts of West Virginia Columbia, South Carolina University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Conant, L. C., 1941 Tippah County mineral resources. Geology Mississippi Bur. Geol. Bull 42 101 – 146.Google Scholar
Conant, L. C. (1965) Bauxite and kaolin deposits of Mississippi exclusive of the Tippah-Benton District: U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1199–B, 70 pp.Google Scholar
Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R., 1985 Multivariate Data Analysis Malabar, Florida Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co..Google Scholar
Curtis, C. D. and Spears, D. A., 1971 Diagenetic development of kaolinite Clays & Clay Minerals 19 219 – 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, W. R. and Goldstein, M., 1984 Multivariate Analysis, Methods and Applications New York Wiley.Google Scholar
Duplantis, M. J., 1975 Depositional systems in the Midway and Wilcox Groups, Mississippi Mississippi The University of Mississippi, University.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. M. and Parrott, B. S., 1964 Development of clay mineral zones during deltaic migration Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull 48 57 – 59.Google Scholar
Hinckley, D. N. and Swine-ford, A., 1963 Variability in “crystallinity” values among the kaolin deposits of the coastal plain of Georgia and South Carolina Clays and Clay Minerals, Proc. 11th Natl. Conf, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1962 New York Pergamon Press 229 – 235.Google Scholar
Kachigan, S. K., 1986 Statistical Analysis New York Radius Press 357 – 375.Google Scholar
Keller, W. D., 1976 Scan electron micrographs of kaolins collected from diverse environments of origin—I Clays & Clay Minerals 24 107 – 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, W. D., 1976 Scan electron micrographs of kaolins collected from diverse environments of origin—II Clays & Clay Minerals 24 114 – 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, W. D., 1976 Scan electron micrographs of kaolins collected from diverse origins—III. Influence of parent material on flint clays and flint-like clays Clays & Clay Minerals 24 262 – 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, W. D., 1977 Kaolins collected from diverse environments of origin—IV. Georgia kaolin and kaolinizing source rocks Clays & Clay Minerals 25 311 – 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, W. D. and Stevens, R. P., 1983 Physical arrangement of high-alumina clay types in a Missouri clay deposit and implications for their genesis Clays & Clay Minerals 31 422 – 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, T.W. (1956) Benton County geology: Mississippi Bur. Geol. Bull. 80, 104 pp.Google Scholar
MacNeil, F. S., 1951 Fern Spring Member of the Wilcox Formation in Mississippi Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull 35 1062 – 1063.Google Scholar
Mellon, F. F. (1939) Winston County mineral resources: Mississippi Bur. Geol. Bull. 38, 169 pp.Google Scholar
Patterson, S. H., Murray, H. H. and Lefond, S. J., 1975 Clays Industrial Minerals and Rocks New York American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc..Google Scholar
Priddy, R. R., 1943 Pontotoc County mineral resources; Geology Mississippi Bur. Geol. Bull 54 5 – 88.Google Scholar
Raybon, S. O., 1982 Lithology and clay mineral variation in the middle phase of the Paleocene Porters Creek Formation of Mississippi Mississippi The University of Mississippi, University.Google Scholar
Reed, D. F. (1948) Bauxite deposits of Tippah and Benton Counties, Mississippi: U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 4281, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Reed, D. F. (1952) Investigation of high aluminum clays and bauxite of northeastern Mississippi: U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 4827, 84 pp.Google Scholar
Smoot, T. W. (1960) Clay mineralogy of Pre-Pennsylvanian shale of Illinois Basin: Illinois Geol. Surv. Cir. 293, 19 pp.Google Scholar
Snowden, J. O. and Forsthoff, G. M., 1976 Clay sedimentation in the Pearl River delta, Louisiana-Mississippi Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc 24 298 – 304.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. N., 1981 Petrology of north Mississippi bauxite; A case for depositional bauxite and kaolin Mississippi The University of Mississippi, University.Google Scholar
Tourtelot, H. A. (1964) Bauxite deposits of the Tippah-Benton District Mississippi: U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1199–C, 33 pp.Google Scholar
Valeton, I., 1972 Bauxites, Developments in Soil Science 1 New York Elsevier.Google Scholar
Whittig, L. D., Black, C. A., Evans, D. D., White, J. L., Ensminger, L. E. and Clark, F. E., 1965 X-ray diffraction techniques for mineral identification and mineralogical composition Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I 671 – 698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. G. and Berbenback, R. E., 1968 Origin of some Pennsylvanian underclays in western Pennsylvania J. Sed. Petr 39 1179 – 1193.Google Scholar