scholarly journals Crystal Chemistry and Structural Complexity of the Uranyl Carbonate Minerals and Synthetic Compounds

Crystals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 704
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gurzhiy ◽  
Sophia A. Kalashnikova ◽  
Ivan V. Kuporev ◽  
Jakub Plášil
Keyword(s):  
Crystal Chemistry ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Structural Complexity ◽  
Synthetic Compounds ◽  
International Mineralogical Association ◽  
Mineralogical Association ◽  
Uranyl Carbonate ◽  
Hydration State ◽  
Uranyl Phosphates ◽  
Structural Architecture

Uranyl carbonates are one of the largest groups of secondary uranium(VI)-bearing natural phases being represented by 40 minerals approved by the International Mineralogical Association, overtaken only by uranyl phosphates and uranyl sulfates. Uranyl carbonate phases form during the direct alteration of primary U ores on contact with groundwaters enriched by CO2, thus playing an important role in the release of U to the environment. The presence of uranyl carbonate phases has also been detected on the surface of “lavas” that were formed during the Chernobyl accident. It is of interest that with all the importance and prevalence of these phases, about a quarter of approved minerals still have undetermined crystal structures, and the number of synthetic phases for which the structures were determined is significantly inferior to structurally characterized natural uranyl carbonates. In this work, we review the crystal chemistry of natural and synthetic uranyl carbonate phases. The majority of synthetic analogs of minerals were obtained from aqueous solutions at room temperature, which directly points to the absence of specific environmental conditions (increased P or T) for the formation of natural uranyl carbonates. Uranyl carbonates do not have excellent topological diversity and are mainly composed of finite clusters with rigid structures. Thus the structural architecture of uranyl carbonates is largely governed by the interstitial cations and the hydration state of the compounds. The information content is usually higher for minerals than for synthetic compounds of similar or close chemical composition, which likely points to the higher stability and preferred architectures of natural compounds.

scholarly journals Crystal Chemistry and Structural Complexity of Natural and Synthetic Uranyl Selenites

Crystals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gurzhiy ◽  
Ivan V. Kuporev ◽  
Vadim M. Kovrugin ◽  
Mikhail N. Murashko ◽  
Anatoly V. Kasatkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crystal Structure ◽  
Crystal Structures ◽  
Crystal Chemistry ◽  
Topological Analysis ◽  
Radioactive Decay ◽  
Structural Complexity ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Synthetic Compounds ◽  
Structural Architecture ◽  
Natural And Synthetic

Comparison of the natural and synthetic phases allows an overview to be made and even an understanding of the crystal growth processes and mechanisms of the particular crystal structure formation. Thus, in this work, we review the crystal chemistry of the family of uranyl selenite compounds, paying special attention to the pathways of synthesis and topological analysis of the known crystal structures. Comparison of the isotypic natural and synthetic uranyl-bearing compounds suggests that uranyl selenite mineral formation requires heating, which most likely can be attributed to the radioactive decay. Structural complexity studies revealed that the majority of synthetic compounds have the topological symmetry of uranyl selenite building blocks equal to the structural symmetry, which means that the highest symmetry of uranyl complexes is preserved regardless of the interstitial filling of the structures. Whereas the real symmetry of U-Se complexes in the structures of minerals is lower than their topological symmetry, which means that interstitial cations and H2O molecules significantly affect the structural architecture of natural compounds. At the same time, structural complexity parameters for the whole structure are usually higher for the minerals than those for the synthetic compounds of a similar or close organization, which probably indicates the preferred existence of such natural-born architectures. In addition, the reexamination of the crystal structures of two uranyl selenite minerals guilleminite and demesmaekerite is reported. As a result of the single crystal X-ray diffraction analysis of demesmaekerite, Pb2Cu5[(UO2)2(SeO3)6(OH)6](H2O)2, the H atoms positions belonging to the interstitial H2O molecules were assigned. The refinement of the guilleminite crystal structure allowed the determination of an additional site arranged within the void of the interlayer space and occupied by an H2O molecule, which suggests the formula of guilleminite to be written as Ba[(UO2)3(SeO3)2O2](H2O)4 instead of Ba[(UO2)3(SeO3)2O2](H2O)3.

Crystal chemistry and nomenclature of rhodonite-group minerals

2019 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 829-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadezhda V. Shchipalkina ◽  
Igor V. Pekov ◽  
Nikita V. Chukanov ◽  
Cristian Biagioni ◽  
Marco Pasero
Keyword(s):  
Crystal Chemistry ◽  
Structural Formula ◽  
Structure Type ◽  
Mineral Species ◽  
Triclinic Space Group ◽  
Space Group ◽  
International Mineralogical Association ◽  
Mineralogical Association ◽  
General Chemical

AbstractThis paper presents the nomenclature of the rhodonite group accepted by the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification of the International Mineralogical Association (IMA). An overview of the previous studies of triclinic (space group P$\bar{1}$) pyroxenoids belonging to the rhodonite structure type, with a focus on their crystal chemistry, is given. These minerals have the general structural formula VIIM(5)VIM(1)VIM(2)VIM(3)VIM(4)[Si5O15]. The following dominant cations at the M sites are known at present: M(5) = Ca or Mn2+, M(1–3) = Mn2+; and M(4) = Mn2+ or Fe2+. In accordance with the nomenclature, the rhodonite group consists of three IMA-approved mineral species having the following the general chemical formulae: M(5)AM(1–3)B3M(4)C[Si5O15], where A = Ca or Mn2+; B = Mn2+; and C = Mn2+ or Fe2+. The end-member formulae of approved rhodonite-group minerals are as follows: rhodonite CaMn3Mn[Si5O15]; ferrorhodonite CaMn3Fe[Si5O15]; and vittinkiite MnMn3Mn[Si5O15].

Inhomogeneous Strain Distribution in SiCf/SiC Coupons Under Tensile Loading

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Newton ◽  
Jonathan P. Jones ◽  
Adam L. Chamberlain ◽  
Martin R. Bache
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Testing ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Ceramic Matrix Composites ◽  
Tensile Tests ◽  
Image Correlation ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Inhomogeneous Strain ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Complex Structural ◽  
Structural Architecture

The complex structural architecture and inherent processing artefacts within ceramic matrix composites combine to induce inhomogeneous deformation and damage prior to ultimate failure. Bulk measurements of strain via extensometry or even localised strain gauging will fail to characterise such inhomogeneity when performing conventional mechanical testing on laboratory scaled coupons. The current research project has, therefore, applied digital image correlation (DIC) techniques to the room temperature axial assessment of a SiCf/SiC composite under static and ratchetted loading. As processed SiCf/SiC panels were subjected to detailed X-ray computed tomography (XCT) inspection prior to specimen extraction and subsequent mechanical testing. In situ DIC strain measurements were taken throughout the period of room temperature monotonic and ratchet style tensile tests. Contemporary acoustic emission (AE) signals were also recorded to indicate significant damage events and the onset of ultimate failure. Data from these separate monitoring techniques were correlated to indicate the sensitivity or otherwise to pre-existing artefacts within the as received CMC panels.

Classification of the minerals of the graftonite group

2018 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 1301-1306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank C. Hawthorne ◽  
Adam Pieczka
Keyword(s):  
Crystal Structures ◽  
Distinct Species ◽  
International Mineralogical Association ◽  
Coordination Numbers ◽  
Mineralogical Association ◽  
Strong Order

ABSTRACTA classification and nomenclature scheme has been approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification for the minerals of the graftonite group. The crystal structures of these minerals have three distinct sites that are occupied by Fe2+, Mn2+and Ca2+. These sites have coordination numbers [8], [5] and [6], and these differences lead to very strong order of Fe2+, Mn2+and Ca2+over these sites. As a result of this strong order, the following compositions have been identified as distinct species: graftonite: FeFe2(PO4)2; graftonite-(Ca): CaFe2(PO4)2; graftonite-(Mn): MnFe2(PO4)2; beusite: MnMn2(PO4)2; and beusite-(Ca): CaMn2(PO4)2.

Potassic-jeanlouisite from Leucite Hill, Wyoming, USA, ideally K(NaCa)(Mg4Ti)Si8O22O2: the first species of oxo amphibole in the sodium–calcium subgroup

2019 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-593
Author(s):  
Roberta Oberti ◽  
Massimo Boiocchi ◽  
Frank C. Hawthorne ◽  
Giancarlo Della Ventura ◽  
Gunnar Färber
Keyword(s):  
Microprobe Analysis ◽  
Electron Microprobe Analysis ◽  
Structure Refinement ◽  
Crystal Structure Refinement ◽  
Unit Cell Parameters ◽  
X Ray ◽  
International Mineralogical Association ◽  
Cell Parameters ◽  
Mineralogical Association ◽  
Sodium Calcium

AbstractPotassic-jeanlouisite, ideally K(NaCa)(Mg4Ti)Si8O22O2, is the first characterised species of oxo amphibole related to the sodium–calcium group, and derives from potassic richterite via the coupled exchange CMg–1W${\rm OH}_{{\rm \ndash 2}}^{\ndash}{} ^{\rm C}{\rm Ti}_1^{{\rm 4 +}} {} ^{\rm W}\!{\rm O}_2^{2\ndash} $. The mineral and the mineral name were approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification, IMA2018-050. Potassic-jeanlouisite was found in a specimen of leucite which is found in the lava layers, collected in the active gravel quarry on Zirkle Mesa, Leucite Hills, Wyoming, USA. It occurs as pale yellow to colourless acicular crystals in small vugs. The empirical formula derived from electron microprobe analysis and single-crystal structure refinement is: A(K0.84Na0.16)Σ1.00B(Ca0.93Na1.02Mg0.04${\rm Mn}_{{\rm 0}{\rm. 01}}^{2 +} $)Σ2.00C(Mg3.85${\rm Fe}_{{\rm 0}{\rm. 16}}^{2 +} $Ni0.01${\rm Fe}_{{\rm 0}{\rm. 33}}^{3 +} {\rm V}_{{\rm 0}{\rm. 01}}^{3 +} $Ti0.65)Σ5.01T(Si7.76Al0.09Ti0.15)Σ8.00O22W[O1.53F0.47]Σ2.00. The holotype crystal is biaxial (–), with α = 1.674(2), β = 1.688(2), γ = 1.698(2), 2Vmeas. = 79(1)° and 2Vcalc. = 79.8°. The unit-cell parameters are a = 9.9372(10), b = 18.010(2), c = 5.2808(5) Å, β = 104.955(2)°, V = 913.1(2) Å3, Z = 2 and space group C2/m. The strongest eight reflections in the powder X-ray pattern [d values (in Å) (I) (hkl)] are: 2.703 (100) (151); 3.380 (87) (131); 2.541 (80) ($\bar 2$02); 3.151 (70) (310); 3.284 (68) (240); 8.472 (59) (110); 2.587 (52) (061); 2.945 (50) (221,$\bar 1$51).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document