Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:54:41.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The chemical stability of mendipite, diaboleïte, chloroxiphite, and cumengéite, and their relationships to other secondary lead(II) minerals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

D. Alun Humphreys ,
John H. Thomas ,
Peter A. Williams  and
Robert F. Symes
D. Alun Humphreys
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University College, Cardiff CF1 1XL
John H. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University College, Cardiff CF1 1XL
Peter A. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University College, Cardiff CF1 1XL
Robert F. Symes
Affiliation:
Department of Mineralogy, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The chemical stabilities of mendipite, Pb3O2Cl2, diaboleïte, Pb2CuCl2(OH)4, chloroxiphite, Pb3CuCl2O2(OH)2, and cumengéite, Pb19Cu24Cl42 (OH)44, have been determined in aqueous solution at 298.2 K. Values of standard Gibbs free energy of formation, ΔGf°, for the four minerals are −740, −1160, −1129, and −15163±20 kJ mol−1 respectively. These values have been used to construct the stability diagram shown in fig. I which illustrates their relationships to each other and to the minerals cotunnite, PbCl2, paralaurionite, PbOHCl, and litharge, PbO. This diagram shows that mendipite occupies a large stability field and should readily form from cold, aqueous, mineralizing solutions containing variable amounts of lead and chloride ions, and over a broad pH range. The formation of paralaurionite and of cotunnite requires a considerable increase in chloride ion concentration, although paralaurionite can crystallize under much less extreme conditions than cotunnite. The encroachment of the copper minerals on to the stability fields of those mineral phases containing lead(II) only is significant even at very low relative activities of cupric ion. Chloroxiphite has a large stability field, and at given concentrations of cupric ion, diaboleïte is stable at relatively high aCl−. Cumengéite will only form at high concentrations of chloride ion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 43 , Issue 331 , September 1980 , pp. 901 - 904
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1980

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

Alwan, (A. K.) and Williams, (P. A.), 1979. Transition Met. Chem. 4, 128-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, (J. W.), Williams, (S. A.), and Bideaux, (R. A.), 1977. Mineralogy of Arizona. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Baes, (C. F.) and Mesmer, (R. E.), 1976. The Hydrolysis of Cations. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Barner, (H. E.) and Scheuerman, (R. V.), 1978. Handbook of Thermochemical Data for Compounds and Aqueous Species. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Garrels, (R. M.) and Christ, (C. L.), 1965. Solutions, Minerals, and Equilibria. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Haacke, (D. F.) and Williams, (P. A.), 1979. Mineral. Mag. 43, 539-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, (W. H.) and Johns, (W. D.), 1967. Anal. Chim. Ada, 37, 508-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kielland, (J.), 1937. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 59, 1675-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mücke, (A.), 1972. Fortschr. Min. 50, 67-8.Google Scholar
Palache, (C.), Berman, (H.), and Frondel, (C.), 1951. The System of Mineralogy, 7th edn. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Perrin, (D. D.) and Sayce, (I. G.), 1967. Talanta, 14, 833-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, (R. C), 1973. J. Solid State Chem. 6, 86-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, (L. J.) and Mountain, (E. D.), 1923. Mineral. Mag. 20, 67-92.Google Scholar
Symes, (R. F.) and Embrey, (P. G.), 1977. Mineral. Rec. 8, 298-303.Google Scholar
Truesdell, (A. H.) and Jones, (B. F.), 1974. J. Res. U.S. Geol. Surv. 2, 233-48.Google Scholar
Vuceta, (J.) and Morgan, (J. J.), 1977. Limnol. Ocean. 22, 742-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagman, (D. D.), Evans, (W. H.), Parker, (V. B.), Halow, (I.), Bailey, (S. M.), and Schumm, (R. H.), 1968 and 1969. Nat. Bur. Standards, Tech. Notes, 270-3 and 270-4.Google Scholar
Wilson, (I. F.) and Rocha, (V. S.), 1955. Prof. Paper U.S. Geol. Surv. 273.Google Scholar
Winchell, (R. E.) and Rouse, (R. C.), 1974. Mineral Rec. 5, 280-7.Google Scholar
Yadava, (K. L.), Pandey, (U. S.), and Lai, (K. M.), 1968. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 30, 2915-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zirino, (A.) and Yamamoto, (S.), 1972. Limnol. Ocean. 17, 661-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar