Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:21:33.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weddellite in modern sediments, Florida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

C. Osborne Hutton  and
William H. Taft
C. Osborne Hutton
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
William H. Taft
Affiliation:
University of South Florida, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Euhedra of weddellite have been recognized in modern, unconsolidated sediments collected from depths of water not exceeding one fathom, along the south-east coast of Florida. For weddellite, the following data have been determined: crystals simple with r {011} accompanied by a {010} in some cases; goniometric axial ratio is a:c = 1:0·593 (meas.), 1:0·5938 (calc.); a0 12·360 Å, c0 = 7·340 Å; space group I4/m, I4 or I4̅; α 1·529, γ = 1·544, δ = 0·015, uniaxial, positive; d22°C = 1·941. Heat treatment of weddellite led to development of whewellite, calcite, and calcium oxide in turn as higher temperatures were employed; fully indexed X-ray diffraction powder data are given for weddellite, in addition to d-spacings and intensities for whewellite.

It is suggested that weddellite developed in the calcareous Florida sediments under conditions of storage over a two-year period, and ahnost certainly was not a constituent of those sediments at the time of collection. This raises the question whether weddellite was present in the Weddell Sea material at the actual time they were recovered by members of the Scotia Expedition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical magazine and journal of the Mineralogical Society , Volume 34 , Issue 268 , 1965 , pp. 256 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1965

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

Bannister, (F.A.) And Hey, (M.H.), 1936. Discovery Reports, vol. 13, P. 60.Google Scholar
Duval, (C.), 1953. Inorganic thermogravimetric analysis. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Frondel, (C.) and Prien, (E.L.), 1942. Science, vol. 95, p. 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gude, (A.J.), Young, (E.J.), Kennedy, (V.C.), and Riley, (L.B.), 1960. Amer. Min., vol. 45, p. 1257.Google Scholar
Lecomte, (M.J.), Poeequin, (T.), and Wyart, (M.J.), 1945. Le Journal de Physique et le Radium, vol. 6, p. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, (O.C.), Stevenson, (J.S.), and Stevenson, (L.S.), 1950. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, vol. 44, p. 35.Google Scholar
Palache, (C.), Berman, (H.), and Frondel, (C.), 1951. The system of mineralogy, vol. 2, 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Pecora, (W.T.) and Kerr, (J.H.), 1954. Amer. Min., vol. 39, p. 208.Google Scholar
Peters, (H.) and Wiedemann, (H.G.), 1959. Z. anorg, u. allgem. Chem., vol. 300, p. 142..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipsborn, (H. v.), 1953. Fortschr. Min., vol. 31, p. 62.Google Scholar
Prien, (E.L.) and Frondel, (C.), 1947. Jour. Urology, vol. 57, p. 949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, (H.E.) and Fuyat, (R.K.), 1953. Standard X-ray diffraction powder patterns. Nat. Bur. Standards Circ. 539, vol. 2, p. 52.Google Scholar