Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:20:21.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Cation Exchange in Ganophyllite and [Na + Al]-Substituted Tobermorite: Crystal-Chemical Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Sridhar Komarneni  and
Stephen Guggenheim
Sridhar Komarneni*
Affiliation:
Materials Research Laboratory and Department of Agronomy, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, U.S.A.
Stephen Guggenheim
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60680, U.S.A.
*
* Please address all correspondence to this author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ganophyllite and [Na+ + Al3+]-substituted tobermorite exhibited similar cation exchange properties and, in particular, selective cesium exchange. [Na+ + Al3+]-substituted tobermorite and ganophyllite showed a selective Cs exchange of 10.77 and 8.71 meq/100 g from 0.02N NaCl and of 11.08 and 9.04 meq/100 g from 0.02N CaCl2, respectively. The [Na+ + Al3+]-substituted tobermorite is structurally similar to ganophyllite: both are roughly analogous to 2:1 layer silicates, both have cross-linking tetrahedra across the interlayer region, and both have exchangeable cations located in zeolite-like sites in the interlayer region. The similarities in cation exchange properties imply that the residual charge configuration of the analogue 2 : 1 layer must be approximately equivalent also.

Keywords

ganophyllitetobermoritecation exchange
Type
Mineralogy and Crystal Structures
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 52 , Issue 366 , June 1988 , pp. 371 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1988

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

Eggleton, R.A., and Guggenheim, S. (1986) Mineral. Mag. 50, 307-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hemaly, S. A. S., Mitsuda, T., and Taylor, H. F. W. (1977) Cement Concr. Res. 7, 429-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenheim, S. and Eggleton, R.A. (1986) Mineral. Mag. 50, 512-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenheim, S. and Eggleton, R.A. (1987) Am. Mineral. 72, 724-38Google Scholar
Hamid, S.A. (1981) Z. Kristallogr. 154, 189-98.Google Scholar
Jackson, M.L. (1974) Soil Chemical AnalysisAdvanced Course. Publ. by the author, Dept. of Soils, University of Wisconsin, Madison, W. 53706, pp. 895.Google Scholar
Kato, T. (1980) Mineral. J. (Japan) 10, 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komarneni, S. and Roy, D.M. (1983) Science, 221, 647-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komarneni, S. and Roy, D.M. (1985) J. Mat. Sci. 20, 293-06Google Scholar
Komarneni, S. and Roy, D.M. Roy, R., Roy, D.M., Fyfe, C.A., Kennedy, G.J., Bothner-By, A.A., Dodok, J., and Chesnick, A.S. (1985) Ibid. 20, 420-914Google Scholar
Breval, E., Miyake, M., and Roy, R. (1987) Clays Clay Minerals, 35, 385-90.Google Scholar
Megaw, H.D. and Kelsey, C.H. (1956) Nature, 177, 390-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitsuda, T. and Taylor, H. F. W. (1978) Mineral. Mag. 42, 229-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. F. W. (d.) (1964) The Chemistry of Cements, Academic Press, Vol. 1, 460 pp.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. F. W. (d.) and Howison, J.W. (1956) Clay Mineral. Bull. 31, 98-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieker, W., Grimmer, A.R., Winkler, A., Magi, M., Tarmak, M., and Lippmaa, E. (1982) Cement Concr. Res. 12, 333-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar