Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:00:10.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The crystal chemistry of the gedrite-group amphiboles. II. Stereochemistry and chemical relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

F. C. Hawthorne ,
M. Schindler ,
Y. Abdu ,
E. Sokolova ,
B. W. Evans  and
K. Ishida
F. C. Hawthorne*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
M. Schindler
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Y. Abdu
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
E. Sokolova
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
B. W. Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Box 351310, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
K. Ishida
Affiliation:
Department of Evolution of Earth Environments, Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, 4-2-1 Ropponmatsu, Chu-ku, Fukuoko 810-8560, Japan
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The general formula of the amphiboles of this series may be written as NaxMg2(Mg(5-y)Aly,)(Si(8-z)Alz)O22(OH)2, where Mg = Mg + Fe2+ + Mn2+ and Al = Al + Fe3+ + Ti. The individual <T–O> distances are linear functions of their [4]Al content, and the [4]Al content is strongly ordered in the following way: T1B > T1A » T2B » T2A. The <M1-O>, <M2-O> and <M3–O> distances are linear functions of the mean ionic radius of their constituent cations. End-member compositions may be written as follows: A☐Mg2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2O22(OH)2; A☐Mg2(Mg3Al2)(Si6Al2)O22(OH)2; ANaMg2Mg5(Si7Al) These compositions define a plane in xyz space across which the data of Schindler et al. (2008), measured on amphiboles from amphibolites, follow a tightly constrained trajectory. Anthophyllite–gedrite amphiboles equilibrated under significantly different P-T conditions (e.g. igneous rocks, contact-metamorphic rocks) follow trends that diverge from this trajectory, with greater Na and [4]Al contents and relatively smaller [6]Al contents. Detailed examination of the local bond topology involving the A and M2 sites indicates that the maximum degree of bond-valence compensation will occur for incorporation of ANa and M2Al in the ratio 4:10, and hence 2.5 ANa = M2Al in these amphiboles. This relation closely fits the data of Schindler et al. (2008), suggesting that the variation in chemical composition in anthophyllite–gedrite amphiboles is strongly constrained by the anion bond-valence requirements of the Pnma amphibole structure. We further suggest that different compositional trends for ortho-amphiboles equilibrated under different P-T conditions are the result of the valence-sum rule operating with (different) bond-lengths characteristic of these P-T conditions.

Keywords

crystal chemistryamphiboleanthophyllitegedriteorderingbond valencechemical compositionshort-range order
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 731 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2008

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

Berg, J.H. (1985) Chemical variation in sodium gedrite from Labrador. American Mineralogist, 70, 1205–1210.Google Scholar
Brown, I.D. (1981) The bond-valence method: an empirical approach to chemical structure and bonding. Pp. 1–30 in: Structure and Bonding in Crystals II (O'Keeffe, M. and Navrotsky, A., editors). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brown, I.D. (2002) The Chemical Bond in Inorganic Chemistry. The Bond Valence Model. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Claeson, D.T. and Meurer, W.P. (2002) An occurrence of igneous orthorhombic amphibole, Eriksberg bro, southern Sweden. American Mineralogist, 87, 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, I.W. (1970) Refinement of the crystal structure of an anthophyllite. Carnegie Institute of Washington Year Book, 68, 283–288.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. (1983) The crystal chemistry of the amphiboles. The Canadian Mineralogist, 21, 173–480.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. (1992) The role of OH and H2O in oxide and oxysalt minerals. Zeitschrift fur Kristallographie, 201, 183–206.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. (1994) Structural aspects of oxide and oxysalt crystals. Ada Crystallographica, B50, 481–510.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. (1997) Short range order in amphiboles: a bond-valence approach. The Canadian Mineralogist, 35, 201–216.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. (2002) The use of end-member charge-arrangements in defining new mineral species and heterovalent substitutions in complex minerals. The Canadian Mineralogist, 40, 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. and Grundy, H.D. (1973) The crystal chemistry of the amphiboles. I. Refinement of the crystal structure of ferrotschermakite. Mineralogical Magazine, 39, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C. and Grundy, H.D. (1977) The crystal chemistry of the amphiboles. III. Refinement of the crystal structure of a sub-silicic hastingsite. Mineralogical Magazine, 41, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, F.C, Oberti, R., Ungaretti, L. and Grice, J.D. (1996) A new hyper-calcic amphibole with Ca at the A site: Fluor-cannilloite from Pargas, Finland. American Mineralogist, 81, 995–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irusteta, M.C. and Whittaker, EJ.W. (1975) A three-dimensional refinement of the structure of holmquis-tite. Ada Crystallographica, B31, 145–150.Google Scholar
Leake, B.E., Woolley, A.R., Arps, C.E.S., Birch, W.D., Gilbert, M.C, Grice, J.D., Hawthorne, F.C, , Kato, A., Kisch, H.J., Krivovichev, V.G., Linthout, K., Laird, I Mandarino, J.A., Maresch, W.V., Nickel, E.H., Rock, N.M.S., Schumacher, J.C. Smith, D.C., Stephenson, N.C.N., Ungaretti, L., Whittaker, E.J.W., and Youshi, G. (1997) Nomenclature of Amphiboles: Report of the Subcommittee on Amphiboles of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. The Canadian Mineralogist, 35, 219–246.Google Scholar
Oberti, R., Ungaretti, L., Cannillo, E., Hawthorne, F.C. and Memmi, I. (1995) Temperature-dependent Al order-disorder in the tetrahedral double-chain of C2/m amphiboles. European Journal of Mineralogy, 7, 1049–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papike, JJ. and Ross, M. (1970) Gedrites: crystal structures and intracrystalline cation distributions. American Mineralogist, 55, 1945–1972.Google Scholar
Papike, J.J., Ross, M. and Clark, J.R. (1969) Crystal chemical characterization of clinoamphiboles based on five new structure refinements. Mineralogical Society of America Special Paper, 2, 117–136.Google Scholar
Rabbitt, J.C. (1948) A new study of the anthophyllite series. American Mineralogist, 33, 263–323.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Jaffe, H.W. (1969) Chemographic exploration of amphibole assemblages from central Massachusetts and southwestern New Hampshire. Mineralogical Society of America Special Paper, 2, 251–274 Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Ross, M. and Jaffe, H.W. (1971) Composition of the anthophyllite—gedrite series, comparisons of gedrite—hornblende, and the antho-phylite—gedrite solvus. American Mineralogist, 56, 1004–1041.Google Scholar
Robinson, K., Gibbs, G.C., Ribbe, P.H. and Hall, M.R. (1973) Cation distribution in three hornblendes. American Journal of Science, 273A, 522–535.Google Scholar
Schindler, M., Sokolova, E., Hawthorne, F.C., Evans, B.W. and Ishida, K. (2008) The crystal chemistry of the gedrite-group amphiboles: I. Crystal structure and site populations. Mineralogical Magazine, 72, 703–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreyer, W., Bernhardt, H.-J. and Medenbach, O. (1993) Ferrogedrite, siderophyllite, septechamosite, andalusite and chloritoid as alteration products of sekaninaite (ferrocordierite) from the Dolni Bory Pegmatite, Moravia. Russian Geology and Geophysics, 34, 125–131.Google Scholar
Siefert, F. and Virgo, D. (1974) Temperature dependence of intracrystalline Fe +-Mg distribution in a natural anthophyllite. Carnegie Institute of Washington Year Book, 73, 405–411.Google Scholar
Siefert, F. and Virgo, D. (1975) Kinetics of the Fe2+—Mg order-disorder reaction in anthophyllites: quantitative cooling rates. Science, 188, 1107–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walitzi, E.M., Walter, F. and Ettinger, K. (1989) Verfeinerung der Kristallstruktur von Anthophyllit vom Ochsenkogel/Gleinalpe, Osterreich. Zeitschrifi fur Kristallographie, 188, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, B.E. and Modell, D.I. (1930) The structure of anthophyllite H2Mg7(SiO3)8 . Zeitschrift fur Kristallographie, 75, 161–178.Google Scholar
Welch, M.D. and Knight, K.S. (1999) A neutron diffraction study of cation ordering in high-temperature synthetic amphiboles. European Journal of Mineralogy, 11, 321–331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar