Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between Particle Size and Element Distribution in Stream Sediments from the Dongyuan W-Mo Deposit, Eastern China
Next Article in Special Issue
A Natural Vanadate–Arsenate Isomorphous Series with Jeffbenite-Type Structure: New Fumarolic Minerals Udinaite, NaMg4(VO4)3, and Arsenudinaite, NaMg4(AsO4)3
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Chemical Corrosion and Axial Compression on the Dynamic Strength Degradation Characteristics of White Sandstone under Cyclic Impact
Previous Article in Special Issue
Radvaniceite, GeS2, a New Germanium Sulphide, from the Kateřina Mine, Radvanice near Trutnov, Czech Republic
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lowering R3m Symmetry in Mg-Fe-Tourmalines: The Crystal Structures of Triclinic Schorl and Oxy-Dravite, and the Mineral luinaite-(OH) Discredited

1
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Sapienza Università di Roma, I-00185 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Geosciences, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden
3
Associazione Micromineralogica Italiana, Devesi-Ciriè, I-10073 Torino, Italy
4
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Torino, I-10025 Torino, Italy
5
Geosciences, Museums Victoria, P.O. Box 666, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2022, 12(4), 430; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040430
Submission received: 2 March 2022 / Revised: 28 March 2022 / Accepted: 29 March 2022 / Published: 31 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection New Minerals)

Abstract

:
Discreditation of the monoclinic tourmaline mineral species luinaite-(OH), ideally (Na,▯)(Fe2+,Mg)3Al6(BO3)3Si6O18(OH)4 was approved by the IMA-CNMNC (proposal 21-L) and is described. We analyzed two luinaite-(OH) samples: one from the type locality Cleveland tin mine, Luina, Waratah, Tasmania, Australia, and the other from Blue Mountain Saddle (Bald Hornet Claim), North Bend, King County, Washington, DC, USA. Biaxial (−) crystals representative of the studied samples were spectroscopically (Mössbauer, polarized Fourier transform infrared, optical absorption spectroscopy), chemically (nuclear microprobe analysis and electron microprobe analysis), and structurally characterized (single-crystal X-ray diffraction). Results show the occurrence of a triclinic structure for the studied luinaite-(OH) samples, which differs only in terms of a slight structural distortion from typical trigonal tourmaline structure (the topology of the structure is retained). As a result, following the IMA-CNMNC and tourmaline nomenclature rules, the triclinic luinaite-(OH) from the type locality (Australia) can be considered as the triclinic dimorph of schorl, as its chemical composition corresponds to schorl, and thus it should be referred as schorl-1A. Similarly, the triclinic sample from the USA can be considered as the triclinic dimorph of oxy-dravite, as its chemical composition corresponds to oxy-dravite, and then is referred to as oxy-dravite-1A.

1. Introduction

Tourmalines are complex borosilicates that usually crystallize in the trigonal crystal system, space-group type R3m, and whose general chemical formula can be written as: XY3Z6T6O18(BO3)3V3W, where X = Na+, K+, Ca2+, ▯ (= vacancy); Y = Al3+, Fe3+, Cr3+, V3+, Mg2+, Fe2+, Mn2+, Li+; Z = Al3+, Fe3+, Cr3+, V3+, Mg2+, Fe2+; T = Si4+, Al3+, B3+; B = B3+; V = (OH), O2−; W = (OH), F, O2−. Note that the letters X, Y, Z, and B represent groups of cations at the [IX]X, [VI]Y, [VI]Z, [IV]T, and [III]B crystallographic sites (designated by italicized letters). The letters V and W in the formula represent groups of anions accommodated at the [III]-coordinated O(3) and O(1) crystallographic sites, respectively.
This study concerns the discreditation of the tourmaline mineral species luinaite-(OH), ideally (Na,▯)(Fe2+,Mg)3Al6(BO3)3Si6O18(OH)4, which was approved by the International Mineralogical Association’s Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (IMA-CNMNC) in 2009 (proposal 2009-046) and discredited by the Commission in 2022 (proposal 21-L; [1]). Luinaite-(OH) was identified as monoclinic, space group Cm, and the structure was determined with representative cell dimensions (type material): a = 10.408(3), b = 15.991(5), c = 7.189(2) Å, β = 117.44(2)° and V = 1061.88 Å3 [2]. The symmetry reduction of this monoclinic-pseudotrigonal member of the tourmaline supergroup is caused by cation order. The type locality where luinaite-(OH) was recognized is the Cleveland tin mine, Luina, Waratah, Tasmania, Australia (41°28′57′′ S, 145°23′7′′ E; type locality).
There are two main reasons to discredit luinaite-(OH):
(1) Luinaite-(OH) violates the procedures for mineral nomenclature: if the crystal structures of the polymorphs have essentially the same topology, differing only in terms of a structural distortion or in the order-disorder relationship of some of the atoms comprising the structure, such polymorphs are not regarded as separate species [3];
(2) Luinaite-(OH) violates the procedures for tourmaline nomenclature: any deviation from the reference trigonal space-group type R3m symmetry is accommodated by adding a suffix to the root-name that indicates any atypical symmetry and not by a new name [2]. In this regard, however, the luinaite-(OH) name was approved in 2009, that is, before the approval of tourmaline nomenclature in 2011 [2].
We will show that the crystal structure of luinaite-(OH) has the same topology as an existing trigonal Fe-Mg-rich tourmaline. Throughout the paper, the name luinaite-(OH) is written in italics to indicate that it is not an IMA-CNMNC approved mineral.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples

In this study, we analyzed two samples: one (labelled as LUI-AUS) from the type locality Cleveland tin mine, Luina, Waratah, Tasmania, Australia, and another (labelled as LUI-USA) from Blue Mountain Saddle (Bald Hornet Claim), North Bend, King County, Washington, DC, USA. The latter is also a locality where luinaite-(OH) was recognized [2]. Other localities are listed in Section 5.

2.2. Crystal Chemical Characterization

The sample material was ground under acetone and analyzed by 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden) to determine the Fe3+/ΣFe ratio. Due to limited amounts of material, a Mössbauer point source was used. Data were collected over 1024 channels, and the raw spectra were folded and calibrated against an α-Fe foil.
Biaxial (−) crystals representative of samples LUI-AUS and LUI-USA were selected with a polarized light microscope for crystal chemical investigations.
Polarized Fourier transform infrared absorption spectra were measured on 41 μm (LUI-AUS) and 68 μm (LUI-USA) thick doubly polished single-crystal sections oriented parallel to the c-axis. A Bruker Vertex spectrometer attached to a Hyperion 2000 microscope (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden) was used to collect spectra in the range 2000–13,000 cm−1 at a resolution of 4 cm−1.
Polarized optical absorption spectra were acquired at room temperature on the same polished crystals that were used for the collection of infrared spectra. An AVASPEC-ULS2048X16 spectrometer (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden), connected via a 400 μm UV fiber cable to a Zeiss Axiotron UV-microscope, was used. A 75 W Xenon arc lamp was used as a light source, and Zeiss Ultrafluar 10× lenses served as both objective and condenser. A UV-quality Glan-Thompson prism, with a working range from 40,000 to 3704 cm−1, was used as the polarizer.
Nuclear microprobe analysis (Lund University, Lund, Sweden) was used to quantify lithium (7Li) according to the procedure reported in [4].
Electron microprobe analysis was obtained using a wavelength-dispersive spectrometer (WDS mode) with a Cameca SX50 instrument (CNR-Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, Roma, Italy), operating at an accelerating potential of 15 kV a sample current of 15 nA and 10 μm beam diameter. Minerals and synthetic compounds were used as standards: wollastonite (Si, Ca), magnetite (Fe), rutile (Ti), corundum (Al), vanadinite (V) fluorophlogopite (F), periclase (Mg), jadeite (Na), orthoclase (K), sphalerite (Zn), rhodonite (Mn), metallic Cr and Cu. The PAP routine was applied [5].
Single-crystal X-ray studies were carried out with a Bruker KAPPA APEX-II single-crystal diffractometer (Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy) equipped with a CCD area detector (6.2 cm × 6.2 cm active detection area, 512 × 512 pixels) and a graphite crystal monochromator, using MoKα radiation from a fine-focus sealed X-ray tube. The sample-to-detector distance was 4 cm. A total of 4055 exposures (step = 0.2°, time/step = 20 s) covering a full reciprocal sphere were collected at room temperature.

3. Results

3.1. Mössbauer Spectroscopy (MS)

The recorded Mössbauer spectra (Figure 1) were fitted using the software MossA [6] with four doublets assigned to Fe2+ and one doublet assigned to Fe3+, resulting in an Fe3+/ΣFe ratio of 0.056 for sample LUI-AUS and 0.13 for sample LUI-USA (Table 1).

3.2. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy

The single-crystal FTIR spectra recorded in polarized mode parallel to the crystallographic c-axis show a very intense band around 3530 cm−1 and two weaker but significant bands at 3629–3631 and 3720–3723 cm−1 (Figure 2). As typically observed for tourmaline spectra in the (OH) range, the main band is off-scale for the E//c direction due to excessive absorption. Spectra obtained perpendicular to the c-axis show considerably weaker bands centered at 3491 and 3550 cm−1 for sample LUI-AUS and 3529 cm−1 for sample LUI-USA. The occurrence of bands above ~3600 cm−1 is worth noting, which is the region where bands due to (OH) at the O(1) site (≡W) are expected [7,8].

3.3. Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (OAS)

The recorded optical absorption spectra (Figure 3) show broad and strongly Ec-polarized (i.e., O > E) absorption bands at ~22,700, ~14,000 and ~9100 cm−1. In agreement with previous optical studies of tourmaline [9], the bands at ~14,000 and ~9100 cm−1 are assigned to Fe3+-enhanced spin-allowed d-d transitions in six-coordinated Fe2+. These two bands are distinctly non-Gaussian in shape, which suggests that ferrous iron is located at several non-equal octahedrally coordinated sites. The broad, intense, and strongly Ec-polarized band at ~22,700 cm−1 is due to Fe2+-Ti4+ intervalence charge transfer processes [10,11]. Additional sharp absorption bands, observed in the E//c-spectrum in the range 6700–7000 cm−1, mark overtones of the fundamental (OH)-stretching modes.

3.4. Chemical Data and Mineral Formula

The electron microprobe analysis (EMPA) results represent the mean values of 12 spot analyses for each sample. Vanadium, Cr, Ni, Cu, and Zn were below detection limits (<0.03 wt%). The number of atoms per formula unit (apfu) was determined as follows. In accord with the structural information, the B content was assumed to be stoichiometric (B = 3.00 apfu): the values of the B- and T-site occupancy factors are consistent with the B fully occupied by B and T sites with no or insignificant B. The iron oxidation state was determined by MS. In accordance with the MS results and Fe and Mn redox potential arguments, all Mn was considered as Mn2+. In accordance with nuclear microprobe analysis, the Li content is insignificant: Li2O < 0.01 wt%. The (OH) content and the formulae were then calculated by charge balance with the assumption (T + Y + Z) = 15.00 apfu and 31 anions pfu. The excellent agreement between the number of electrons per formula unit (epfu) derived from EMPA and SREF (respectively, 246.07 and 245.73 epfu for sample LUI-AUS, and 236.81 and 237.76 epfu for sample LUI-USA) supports the stoichiometric assumptions. Chemical data are given in Table 2. It should be noted that the samples are rather homogeneous from a chemical viewpoint, as shown by relatively low standard deviation values (Table 2).
The ordered empirical chemical formulae, with appropriate grouping of sites, required for classification purposes [2] are:
  • Sample LUI-AUS
X(Na0.59K0.010.37Ca0.03)Σ1.00Y(Fe2+1.68Mg0.49Mn0.01Al0.71Fe3+0.10Ti0.01)Σ3.00ZAl6T[(Si5.98Al0.02)Σ6.00O18] (BO3)3 (OH)3 W[(OH)0.33F0.20O0.47]Σ1.00
  • Sample LUI-USA
X(Na0.680.24Ca0.08)Σ1.00Y(Mg1.39Fe2+0.86Al0.59Fe3+0.13Ti0.03)Σ3.00ZAl6T[(Si5.99Al0.01)Σ6.00O18] (BO3)3 (OH)3 W[(OH)0.36F0.03O0.60]Σ1.00
These chemical formulae lead to the ideal formulae:
  • Sample LUI-AUS: NaFe2+3Al6(Si6O18)(BO3)3(OH)3(OH).
  • Sample LUI-USA: Na(Mg2Al)Al6(Si6O18)(BO3)3(OH)3O.
As a result, the compositions of LUI-AUS and LUI-USA are consistent with mineral species schorl and oxy-dravite, respectively.

3.5. Crystal Structure

The observed biaxial interference figures of samples LUI-AUS and LUI-USA are inconsistent with the typical R3m space-group type of tourmaline. This result is also supported by the significant difference in unconstrained unit-cell refinements from the expected hexagonal cell values (a = b, α = β = 90°, and γ = 120°). The possible biaxial subsymmetries of space group R3m are the subgroups Cm (monoclinic) and P1 (triclinic). Thus, in accord with the studies of [12,13,14], we selected the space-group type P1 for the refinement in line with the significant departure of α and β from 90° in unconstrained unit-cell refinements. To facilitate the comparison between triclinic and trigonal structures, the primitive triclinic cell used in this study [e.g., sample LUI-AUS, a = 7.20820(10), b = 9.5000(2), c = 9.4947(2) Å, α = 113.7519(8)°, β = 104.5539(8)°, γ = 104.6823(9)° and V = 527.835(18) Å3] was recast in the non-standard space-group R1, defining a pseudohexagonal unit-cell similar to the typical hexagonal triple R cell but with unconstrained unit-cell parameters (Table 3).
The starting coordinates were taken from [14]. Structure refinement was undertaken using the SHELXL-2013 program [15]. Variable parameters were scale factor, extinction coefficient, atom coordinates, site-scattering values (for X, Ya, Yb, Yc, Za, Zb, Zc, Zd, Ze, and Zf sites), and atomic-displacement factors. Attempts to refine the extinction coefficient yielded values very close to zero and within standard uncertainty; thus, it was not refined. Neutral atom scattering factors were used. In detail, the X site was modeled using the Na scattering factor. The occupancy of the three and six non-equivalent Y and Z sites, respectively, were obtained considering the presence of Al versus Fe. All the T, B, and anion sites were modeled, respectively, with Si, B, and O scattering factors and with a fixed occupancy of 1, because refinement with unconstrained occupancies showed no significant deviations from this value. The position of the H atom bonded to the oxygen at three non-equivalent O(3) sites in the structure was taken from the difference-Fourier map and incorporated into the refinement model; the O(3)–H(3) bond length was restrained (by DFIX command) to be 0.97 Å with isotropic displacement parameter constrained to be equal to 1.2 times that obtained for the respective O(3) sites. There were no correlations greater than 0.7 between the parameters at the end of the refinement. Details concerning data collection and refinement are reported in Table 3.
Final atom positions, equivalent isotropic displacement parameters, bond distances, and refined site occupancy factors are given in Tables S1 and S2. Crystallographic information files (CIF) are on deposit (see Supplementary Materials).
The population of the Ya, Yb, Yc, Za, Zb, Zc, Zd, Ze, and Zf sites was optimized by the method of Wright et al. [16], in which structural and chemical data were used along with the default setting of the program, but with the chemical variability constrained by electroneutrality. Results are reported in Table 4.

4. Discussion

In accord with the current IMA-CNMNC rules, the polymorphic forms of a mineral are regarded as different species if their structures are topologically different [2]. Thus, if the crystal structures of LUI-AUS and LUI-USA show a different way of connecting the atoms (for example, showing at least an atom with a different coordination number) compared to that of the trigonal schorl and oxy-dravite (respectively) structure, they may be regarded as different species.
Figure 4 displays the crystal structure of sample LUI-AUS (a similar figure can be obtained for sample LUI-USA). From this figure, it is quite apparent that the triclinic structure is very similar to the typical trigonal structure: e.g., no change in the link between atoms or coordination number as the topology of the structure is retained. Both the triclinic structures of LUI-AUS and LUI-USA differ only in terms of a slight structural distortion from trigonal tourmaline structure. As a result, following the IMA-CNMNC and tourmaline nomenclature rules [2,3], the triclinic luinaite-(OH) from the type locality (LUI-AUS) can be considered as the triclinic dimorph of schorl, and then referred as schorl-1A (for Anorthic; [3]). Similarly, the triclinic sample LUI-USA can be considered as the triclinic dimorph of oxy-dravite, and thus, it can be referred to as oxy-dravite-1A.

5. World Locations Where non Trigonal Fe-Mg-Tourmalines Occur

Several lower symmetry tourmalines have also been discovered by S.J.M. and Uwe Kolitsch. These include fibrous tourmalines from: Mount Bendoc, Victoria (Australia), Mount Bischoff, Tasmania (Australia), Bald Hornet claim, North Bend, King Co., Washington (DC, USA), the Itatiaia mine, Conselheiro Pena, Doce Valley, Minas Gerais (Brazil), the Sn-bearing greisen deposit at Ehrenfriedersdorf, Saxony (Germany), and the following four Norwegian localities: Hundholmen, Midtfjellet quarry, A/S Granit quarry and E18 roadcut (these samples were preliminarily described in [19,20]. In all these cases, the crystal structure was solved in the monoclinic space group Cm with a ≈ 10.4, b ≈ 16.0, c ≈ 7.2 Å, and β ≈ 117°. Further details will be published in a separate paper.
Cámara et al. [14] reported a single crystal of schorl composition from Langesundsfjord, Telemark (Norway) showing a change in crystallographic symmetry, accompanied by a different optical behaviour, i.e., trigonal-uniaxial in the dark brownish core and triclinic-biaxial in the darker brownish rim.

6. Conclusions

Atom distributions in the R1 tourmaline structure are consistent with the ordering scheme of space groups Cm and R3m [12]. In general, the structure topology is preserved in both biaxial (triclinic and monoclinic) and uniaxial (trigonal) tourmalines, whereas the geometry of their structures differs only in terms of structural distortion. Thus, these polymorphic forms should not be regarded as separate mineral species. This conclusion can also be shown by the general structural formulae, along with the site coordination numbers, corresponding to R3m, Cm, and R1 (or P1) tourmaline crystal structures:
  • R3m
IXX VIY3 VIZ6 (IVT6O18) (IIIBO3)3 IIIO(3)3 IIIO(1);
  • Cm
IXX (VIYa VIYb2) (VIZa2 VIZb2 VIZc2) [(IVTa2 IVTb2 IVTc2)O18] [(IIIB1 IIIB22)O3]3 [IIIO(3A) IIIO(3B)2] IIIO(1);
  • R1 (or P1)
IXX (VIYa VIYb VIYc) (VIZa VIZb VIZc VIZd VIZe VIZf) [(IVTa IVTb IVTc IVTd IVTe IVTf)O18] [(IIIB1 IIIB2 IIIB3)O3]3 [IIIO(3A) IIIO(3B) IIIO(3C)] IIIO(1).
In general, distortions from the trigonal tourmaline structure can be identified using high-resolution single-crystal X-ray diffraction data, better if accompanied by a polarizing microscope analysis to assess the biaxiality of the crystal.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/min12040430/s1, Table S1: Luinaite-(OH): sites, fractional atomic coordinates, isotropic (*) or equivalent-isotropic displacement parameters (in Å2), site occupancies (s.o.) for schorl-1A from Cleveland tin mine, Australia (Sample LUI-AUS), and for oxy-dravite-1A from Blue Mountain Saddle, USA (Sample LUI-USA); Table S2: Luinaite-(OH): selected bond distances (in Å) for schorl-1A from Cleveland tin mine, Australia (Sample LUI-AUS), and for oxy-dravite-1A from Blue Mountain Saddle, USA (Sample LUI-USA); Crystallographic Information Files: LUI-AUS.cif and LUI-USA.cif.

Author Contributions

F.B., M.E.C., H.S. and U.H. conceived and designed the main ideas together and wrote and supervised the whole work. S.J.M. provided the information on the occurrence of non-trigonal Fe-Mg-tourmalines. M.E.C. provided the samples; F.B. the XRD data and the WDS analysis; H.S. contributed to MS and FTIR data; U.H. contributed to OAS data. Writing—review and editing, F.B., H.S., U.H., M.E.C. and S.J.M.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

F.B. acknowledges funding by Sapienza University of Rome (Prog. Università 2020) and by Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca through the project PRIN 2020 “HYDROX–HYDRous- vs. OXo-components in minerals: adding new pieces to the Earth’s H2O cycle puzzle”, prot. 2020WYL4NY.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Chemical analyses were completed with the kind assistance of M. Serracino (Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Rome, Italy), to whom the authors express their gratitude. Nuclear microprobe analysis of NRA (Nuclear Reaction Analysis) type was conducted at the Lund Ion Beam Analysis Facility (LIBAF), Lund, Sweden. Comments by the Academic Editor and four anonymous reviewers are very appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Miyawaki, R.; Hatert, F.; Pasero, M.; Mills, S.J. IMA Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC)–Newsletter 65. Eur. J. Mineral. 2022, 34, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Henry, D.J.; Novák, M.; Hawthorne, F.C.; Ertl, A.; Dutrow, B.; Uher, P.; Pezzotta, F. Nomenclature of the tourmaline supergroup minerals. Am. Mineral. 2011, 96, 895–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nickel, E.H.; Grice, J.D. The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names: Procedures and guidelines on mineral nomenclature. Can. Mineral. 1998, 36, 913–926. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosi, F.; Naitza, S.; Skogby, H.; Secchi, F.; Conte, A.M.; Cuccuru, S.; Hålenius, U.; De La Rosa, N.; Kristiansson, P. Late magmatic controls on the origin of schorlitic and foititic tourmalines from late-Variscan peraluminous granites of the Arbus pluton (SW Sardinia, Italy): Crystal-chemical study and petrological constraints. Lithos 2018, 308–309, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pouchou, J.L.; Pichoir, F. Quantitative analysis of homogeneous or stratified microvolumes applying the model “PAP”. In Electron Probe Quantitation; Heinrich, K.F.J., Newbury, D.E., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 31–75. [Google Scholar]
  6. Prescher, C.; McCammon, C.; Dubrowinsky, L. MossA: A program for analyzing energy-domain Mössbauer spectra from conventional and synchrotron sources. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2012, 45, 329–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gonzalez-Carreño, T.; Fernandez, M.; Sanz, J. Infrared and electron microprobe analysis in tourmalines. Phys. Chem. Miner. 1988, 15, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bosi, F.; Skogby, H.; Lazor, P.; Reznitskii, L. Atomic arrangements around the O3 site in Al- and Cr-rich oxy-tourmalines: A combined EMP, SREF, FTIR and Raman study. Phys. Chem. Miner. 2015, 42, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Mattson, S.M.; Rossman, G.R. Fe2+-Fe3+ interactions in tourmaline. Phys. Chem. Miner. 1987, 14, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Smith, G. A reassessment of the role of iron in the 5000–30,000 cm−1 region of the electronic absorption spectra of tourmaline. Phys. Chem. Miner. 1978, 3, 343–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Taran, M.N.; Lebedev, A.S.; Platonov, A.N. Optical absorption spectroscopy of synthetic tourmalines. Phys. Chem. Miner. 1993, 20, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shtukenberg, A.; Rozhdestvenskaya, I.; Frank-Kamenetskaya, O.; Bronzova, J.; Euler, H.; Kirfel, A.; Bannova, I.; Zolotarev, A. Symmetry and crystal structure of biaxial elbaite-liddicoatite tourmaline from the Transbaikalia region, Russia. Am. Mineral. 2007, 92, 675–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hughes, J.M.; Rakovan, J.; Ertl, A.; Rossman, G.R.; Baksheev, I.; Bernhardt, H.-J. Dissymmetrization in tourmaline: The atomic arrangement of sectorally zoned triclinic Ni-bearing dravite. Can. Mineral. 2011, 49, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Cámara, F.; Bosi, F.; Skogby, H.; Hålenius, U.; Celata, B.; Ciriotti, M.E. Schorl-1A from Langesundsfjord (Norway). J. Geosci. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sheldrick, G.M. Crystal structure refinement with SHELXL. Acta Crystallogr. 2015, C71, 3–8. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wright, S.E.; Foley, J.A.; Hughes, J.M. Optimization of site occupancies in minerals using quadratic programming. Am. Mineral. 2000, 85, 524–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hawthorne, F.C.; Ungaretti, L.; Oberti, R. Site populations in minerals: Terminology and presentation of results of crystal-structure refinement. Can. Mineral. 1995, 33, 907–911. [Google Scholar]
  18. Momma, K.; Izumi, F. VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2011, 44, 1272–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kolitsch, U.; Husdal, T.A.; Brandstätter, F.; Ertl, A. New crystal-chemical data for members of the tourmaline group from Norway: Occurences of fluor-schorl and luinaite-(OH). Nor. Bergverksmus. Skr. 2011, 46, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kolitsch, U.; Andresen, P.; Husdal, T.A.; Ertl, A.; Haugen, A.; Ellingsen, H.V.; Larsen, A.O. Tourmaline-group minerals from Norway, part II: Occurrences of luinaite-(OH) in Tvedalen, Larvik and Porsgrunn, and fluor-liddicoatite, fluor-elbaite and fluor-schorl at Ågskardet, Nordland. Nor. Bergverksmus. Skr. 2013, 50, 23–41. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. 57Fe Mössbauer spectrum of the studied samples obtained at room-temperature. Fitted absorption doublets assigned to Fe2+ and Fe3+ are indicated in blue and red, respectively. Diamonds denote measured spectrum, and black curve represents the summed fitted spectrum.
Figure 1. 57Fe Mössbauer spectrum of the studied samples obtained at room-temperature. Fitted absorption doublets assigned to Fe2+ and Fe3+ are indicated in blue and red, respectively. Diamonds denote measured spectrum, and black curve represents the summed fitted spectrum.
Minerals 12 00430 g001
Figure 2. Polarized FTIR spectra of the studied samples in the principal (OH)-range.
Figure 2. Polarized FTIR spectra of the studied samples in the principal (OH)-range.
Minerals 12 00430 g002
Figure 3. Polarized optical absorption spectra of the studied samples.
Figure 3. Polarized optical absorption spectra of the studied samples.
Minerals 12 00430 g003
Figure 4. Triclinic tourmaline structure showing the pseudohexagonal R1 unit-cell [a = 15.9513(5), b = 15.9421(5), c = 7.1921(2) Å, α = 90.0354(17)°, β = 89.9359(16)° and γ = 119.8527(14)°] similar to the typical hexagonal triple R cell. Note that the arrangement of polyhedra is the same as that of the trigonal structure. Structure obtained with Vesta 3 [18].
Figure 4. Triclinic tourmaline structure showing the pseudohexagonal R1 unit-cell [a = 15.9513(5), b = 15.9421(5), c = 7.1921(2) Å, α = 90.0354(17)°, β = 89.9359(16)° and γ = 119.8527(14)°] similar to the typical hexagonal triple R cell. Note that the arrangement of polyhedra is the same as that of the trigonal structure. Structure obtained with Vesta 3 [18].
Minerals 12 00430 g004
Table 1. Mössbauer parameters for luinaite-(OH).
Table 1. Mössbauer parameters for luinaite-(OH).
SampleδΔEQΓ% AreaAssignment
LUI-AUS1.102.560.2322.4Fe2+
1.092.320.2634.3Fe2+
1.112.000.2922.0Fe2+
1.121.580.3815.8Fe2+
0.410.860.395.6Fe3+
LUI-USA1.102.610.2413.5Fe2+
1.102.380.2830.7Fe2+
1.111.980.4128.1Fe2+
1.141.610.4314.5Fe2+
0.420.860.4413.2Fe3+
δ = centroid shift (mm/s), ΔEQ = quadrupole splitting (mm/s), Γ = full width at half maximum (mm/s).
Table 2. Chemical data (in wt%) for luinaite-(OH).
Table 2. Chemical data (in wt%) for luinaite-(OH).
ConstituentLUI-AUSLUI-USA
12 Spots12 Spots
SiO235.24 (67)36.01 (51)
TiO20.09 (3)0.23 (12)
B2O3(calc) a10.2410.45
Al2O333.66 (65)33.69 (62)
FeOtot12.51 (40)7.12 (71)
MnO0.08 (4)-
MgO1.94 (39)5.62 (53)
CaO0.18 (09)0.44 (13)
Na2O1.78 (27)2.12 (16)
K2O0.04 (1)-
F0.37 (10)0.06 (5)
H2O(calc) a2.943.03
O=F−0.16−0.03
Fe2O3 b0.771.04
FeO b11.826.18
Total99.0098.85
Note: Errors for oxides and fluorine are standard deviations (in brackets). a Calculated by stoichiometry. b From Mössbauer spectroscopy.
Table 3. Single crystal X-ray diffraction data details for luinaite-(OH).
Table 3. Single crystal X-ray diffraction data details for luinaite-(OH).
-LUI-AUSLUI-USA
Crystal sizes (mm)0.07 × 0.10 × 0.180.09 × 0.12 × 0.19
a (Å)15.9513 (5)15.9084 (3)
b15.9421 (5)15.9374 (3)
c7.1921 (2)7.20839 (15)
α (°)90.0354 (17)90.1073 (9)
β89.9359 (16)89.9118 (9)
γ119.8527 (14)119.9399 (7)
V3)1586.24 (9)1583.71 (6)
Range for data collection, 2θ (°)5.08–72.075.11–74.14
Reciprocal space range hkl−26 ≤ h ≤ 26
−20 ≤ k ≤ 26
−11 ≤ l ≤ 11
−26 ≤ h ≤ 26
−26 ≤ k ≤ 26
−12 ≤ l ≤ 12
Set of measured reflections17,77918,250
Unique reflections, Rint (%)8874, 3.519253, 2.83
Restraints, refined parameters6, 4716, 471
Flack parameter0.05 (2)0.07 (3)
wR2 (%)8.576.49
R1 (%) all data4.833.33
R1 (%) for I > 2σI3.832.94
GooF0.9220.902
Diff. peaks (±e3)0.74; –0.750.47; –1.01
Notes: Total number of frames = 4055. Data collection temperature = 293 K. Space-group type R1. Z = 3. Radiation: Mo- = 0.71073 Å. Absorption correction method: multi-scan (SADABS). Refinement method: full-matrix last-squares on F2. Structural refinement program: SHELXL-2013. Rint. = merging residual value; R1 = discrepancy index, calculated from F-data; wR2 = weighted discrepancy index, calculated from F2-data; GooF = goodness of fit; Diff. peaks = maximum and minimum residual electron density.
Table 4. Optimized cation site populations a (in atoms per formula unit) and mean atomic number b for luinaite-(OH).
Table 4. Optimized cation site populations a (in atoms per formula unit) and mean atomic number b for luinaite-(OH).
SiteSite PopulationMean Atomic Number
-Sample LUI-AUSObservedCalculated
X0.59 Na + 0.01 K + 0.03 Ca + 0.37 ▯7.82 (8)7.25
Ya0.34 Al + 0.43 Fe2+ + 0.11 Mg + 0.10 Fe3+ + 0.11 Mn + 0.12 Ti4+19.83 (14)19.93
Yb0.54 Al + 0.42 Fe2+ + 0.04 Mg18.30 (13)18.40
Yc0.57 Al + 0.38 Fe2+ + 0.06 Mg17.72 (12)17.82
Za0.95 Al + 0.03 Fe2+ + 0.02 Mg13.22 (8)13.32
Zb0.88 Al + 0.09 Fe2+ + 0.03 Mg13.98 (8)14.08
Zc0.97 Al + 0.02 Fe2+ + 0.01 Mg13.16 (8)13.26
Zd0.78 Al + 0.14 Fe2+ + 0.08 Mg14.61 (9)14.71
Ze0.92 Al + 0.05 Fe2+ + 0.03 Mg13.57 (8)13.67
Zf0.77 Al + 0.13 Fe2+ + 0.10 Mg14.52 (9)14.62
Ta,b,c,d,e6 Si14 c14
Tf5.98 Si + 0.02 Al 14 c14
B1,2,33 B5 c5
-Sample LUI-USAObservedCalculated
X0.68 Na + 0.08 Ca + 0.24 ▯9.78 (6)9.09
Ya0.57 Al + 0.26 Fe2+ + 0.17 Mg16.24 (6)16.21
Yb0.43 Al + 0.15 Fe2+ + 0.27 Mg + 0.13 Fe3+ + 0.03 Ti4+16.63 (7)16.60
Yc0.66 Al + 0.18 Fe2+ + 0.16 Mg15.18 (6)15.17
Za0.95 Al + 0.02 Fe2+ + 0.03 Mg13.21 (5)13.18
Zb0.76 Al + 0.07 Fe2+ + 0.17 Mg13.75 (5)13.73
Zc0.94 Al + 0.02 Fe2+ + 0.04 Mg13.29 (5)13.26
Zd0.72 Al + 0.06 Fe2+ + 0.22 Mg13.60 (5)13.57
Ze0.80 Al + 0.05 Fe2+ + 0.15 Mg13.55 (5)13.52
Zf0.77 Al + 0.05 Fe2+ + 0.18 Mg13.55 (5)13.52
Ta5.99 Si + 0.01 Al14 c14
Tb,c,d,e,f6 Si14 c14
B1,2,33 B5 c5
a Using the method of Wright et al. [16] b According to [17] c Fixed in the final stages of refinement.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bosi, F.; Skogby, H.; Hålenius, U.; Ciriotti, M.E.; Mills, S.J. Lowering R3m Symmetry in Mg-Fe-Tourmalines: The Crystal Structures of Triclinic Schorl and Oxy-Dravite, and the Mineral luinaite-(OH) Discredited. Minerals 2022, 12, 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040430

AMA Style

Bosi F, Skogby H, Hålenius U, Ciriotti ME, Mills SJ. Lowering R3m Symmetry in Mg-Fe-Tourmalines: The Crystal Structures of Triclinic Schorl and Oxy-Dravite, and the Mineral luinaite-(OH) Discredited. Minerals. 2022; 12(4):430. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040430

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bosi, Ferdinando, Henrik Skogby, Ulf Hålenius, Marco E. Ciriotti, and Stuart J. Mills. 2022. "Lowering R3m Symmetry in Mg-Fe-Tourmalines: The Crystal Structures of Triclinic Schorl and Oxy-Dravite, and the Mineral luinaite-(OH) Discredited" Minerals 12, no. 4: 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040430

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop