TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008

www.PosterPresentations.com

Conclusions: Observations of Study

X-Ray Diffraction Analysis

Spectra (Cont’d)Semiquantitative TEM/EDS

Elemental Data

erionite, Rome OR erionite/chabazite/quartzerionite-K, Chase Creek, OR offretiteerionite-Ca, Beech Creek, OR chabazite and thomsonitemordenite, Goble Cty mordenitethomsonite, Sagasen natrolitenatrolite , Lane Cty natrolitemesolite, Skookumchuck mesoliteerionite, Ireland chabazite, with some possible erionite-Caperlialite, Russia perlialitemazzite, Fr possible erionite and/or offretiteoffretite, Az phillipsiteoffretite-Erionite, Az1 levyne, possible minor erionite, Ca

1-Analysis of 2nd sample from Beech CreekRed Text indicates species identification different from “label

X-Ray Diffraction Validation Summary

Species Si Al Mg Ca Na K K:Ca, Al:SiRome erionite 78.83 8.47 12.09 1:0, 1:9Chase Creek erionite-K

73.70 12.94 2.28 10.28 4.5:1, 1:10

Beech Creek “erionite -Ca

57.62 24.68 1.96

14.39 1.34 0:14, 1:2.3

Japan erionite (Na)

64.38 16.97 7.04 2.92 7.60 1:1,1:4

mordenite, Goble Cty

88.24 1.82 9.93 0:10,1:44

“thomsonite”, Sagasen

75.89 22.36 0.55 1.19 0:1,1:3.5

natrolite, Lane Cty

60.60 21.78 1.06 16.67 0:1,1:2.7

mesolite, Skookumchuck

64.91 21.35 13.74 0:14,1:3

perlialite, Russia

48.54 20.20 1.10 11.39 5:1, 1:2:2

erionite, Ireland

67.41 15.18 2.64 13.45 3:1, 1:2.7mordenite, Or 69.37 16.3 2.64 4.13 1:1, 1:4mazzite, Fr 74.93 15.1 1.73 8.23 3:1, 1:4.5offretite, Az 63.94 17.28 9.78 8.99 1.2:1, 1:3

mordenite, Goble Cty OR, 100X, XPL mordenite, Goble Cty OR, 100X, 1.48 CSDS

Nnatrolite, Lane Cty OR, 100X, XPL

natrolite, Lane Cty Or, 100X, 1.48 CSDS

“erionite”, Ireland, 100X, XPL

XRD=chabazite XRD=chabazite

“erionite” Ireland, 100X, 1.48 CSDS

perlialite, Mt Yukspor, Russia100X, XPL

perlialite, Mt Yukspor, Russia,100X, 1.48, CSDS

mazzite, Semiol, Fr, 100X, XPL mazzite, Semiol, Fr, 100X, 1.48 CSDS

XRD=erionite and/or offretite XRD=erionite and/or offretite

Future Characterization Study

PLM/CSDS Examination Summary Data

EDS Major Cation Data Table

Procurement of additional fibrous zeolite specimens from type localities (erionite (Na, K, Ca), offretite, mazzite, scolecite, perlialite, mordenite & others)

Further evaluation of refractive indices of prismatic erionite specimens compared to asbestiform Durkee specimen

Refinement of 1.47, 1.48, 1.49 “HD” RIL’s for CSDS analysis

XRD validation analysis of all species

Spindle stage optics

Electron microprobe (EMP) compositional analysis

TEM/EDS analysis for comparison to EMP

Investigation of possible X-Y plots for species discrimination

1 – Na + K vs CSDS colors 2 – CSDS Parallel vs CSDS perpendicular

Acknowledgements1-Dr. Mickey Gunter for provision of Durkee Or woolly erionite specimen and future analytical collaboration

2- Craig Liska, IATL for TEM/EDS analysis

3-Vince Munroe, Lehigh University Intern for TEM/EDS analysis

ZeoliteZeoliteSpeciesSpecies

RI RI **

ParParRI *RI *PerpPerp

DispersionDispersionStaining Staining ColorsColors

ExtinctExtinctionionAngleAngle

Sign of Sign of Elongation/Elongation/MorphologyMorphology

erionite IrelandchabaziteTschernich, 1992

1.4781.478-1.5171.455-1.483

1.4801.475-1.5171.457-1.485

blue(pa)light magenta blue(pe)

0-5 deg Pos,rhombs, cubes, not fibrous

perlialite, Mt. Yukspor, RussiaTschernich, 1992

1.478

1.479-1.483

1.480

1.488-1.489

light bluedeep blue

0-5 deg pos, needle-like

mordenite, Tillamook, OrTschernich, 1992

1.476

1.471-1.483

1.478

1.476-1.487

light blueblue

0-5 deg Pos, needle-like

mazzite, Mt. Semiol, FranceErionite and/or offretiteTschernich, 1992

1.478

1.4990

1.480

1.5062

bluedeep blue

0-5 deg Pos, prismatic

offretite, Maricopa Cty, AZPhillipsite & erionite?Tschernich, 1992

1.480

1.483-1.5051.486-1.491

1.486

1.486-1.5141.486-1.516

blue, deep blue

0-5 deg pos, always twinned prisms, not fibrous

Chase Creek“erionite-K”offretite

1.476 1.482 blue-mag blue, blue-mag blue

0-5 deg pos+neg, prismatic. zoning

offretite-erionite, Beech Creek, ORlevyne (2011)chabazite (2010)

1.482

1.489-1.5101.518

1.486

1.487-1.5021.520

blue,light mag-blue

0-5 deg pos, prismatic

Rome Oregon erionite

1.476 1.478-1.480 bluedeep blue

0-5 deg Pos, prismatic

natrolite, ORTschernich, 1992

1.4861.485-1.496

1.4781.473-1.483

goldblue

0-5 deg pos, prismatic

thomsonite,Sagassennatrolite

1.51 1.53 gold,yellow

0-5 deg Pos, elongate fragment

mesolite, WATschernich, 1992

1.501.504-1.506

1.511.505-1.507

gold,gold

0-5 deg Pos, elongate fragment

Formulation of a 1.48 HD RI liquid is possible, and may have use in some analytical cases for differentiating zeolites. Indicates potential for other (1.47,1.48) <1.550 HD liquid formulations for zeolite differentiation.

Preliminary comparison of asbestiform (Durkee) erionite RI’s specimen indicates they are lower as compared to prismatic erionite specimens (example, Rome). Is this morphologic variation consistent for habits of erionite or is it a function of cationic, structural or other variation? Commercially obtained specimens for critical analysis require XRD species validation. Misclassification errors potential due to chemical, optical and morphological similarities.

Major cation analysis, alkali ratio comparisons by TEM/EDS does not appear to be useful for discrimination of erionite from other fibrous zeolites due to cationic substitution.

Multi-analytical approach most appropriate for zeolite characterization. Zeolites require species validation by definitive XRD identification, alternate methods of analysis for composition, optical properties, fibrosity evaluation.

Species highlighted in red identified by XRD as other species

Species Highlighted in red identified by XRD as other speciesBlue text designations reference values* Becke line technique measured values pa=parallel, pe=perpendicular

XRD Identification=mordenite XRD identification=mordenite

XRD identification=natrolite XRD identification=natrolite

XRD identification=perlialite XRD identification=perlialite

Specimen PLM/CSDS: Example Images