Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T13:51:35.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ti-Bearing Phases in the Huber Formation, an East Georgia Kaolin Deposit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Paul A. Schroeder  and
Jason Shiflet
Paul A. Schroeder
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Geology, 210 Field Street, Athens, Georgia 30602-2501, USA
Jason Shiflet*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Geology, 210 Field Street, Athens, Georgia 30602-2501, USA
*
†Present address: Zapata Engineering, P.A., 1100 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 104, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six kaolin samples from the Lower Tertiary Huber Formation near Wrens, Georgia were analyzed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction (ED), powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), chemical analysis, and magnetic susceptibility to characterize the Ti-bearing phases. Selected samples were treated with 5 M NaOH to remove kaolinite and concentrate the Ti-bearing phases for additional analysis. TiO2 content in the bulk fraction ranges from 1.2 to 5.4 wt. %. There are at least three Ti-bearing phases, including anatase, rutile, and a poorly defined nanocrystalline form. Anatase is most abundant and is commonly found with {010} faces in association with kaolinite edge and basal faces. The nanocrystalline form occurs at 0–1 wt. %, and rutile occurs in trace amounts. Bulk XRD analysis correlates well with the bulk TiO2 chemical measurements. Average anatase unit-cell parameters are a = 0.37908 ± 0.0002 nm and c = 0.951 ± 0.001 nm. These parameters indicate an approximate chemical formula of Fe3+0.05Ti4+0.95O1.95(OH)0.05.

The distribution of TiO2 content as a function of depth may be useful to obtain original grain-size variations associated with relative sea-level changes responsible for the deposition of the Huber Formation. Evidence for original depositional sediment properties can be seen in the occurrence of pseudomorphic replacement of micas and fecal pellets by kaolinite. Additional evidence for post-depositional changes includes the sub-micrometer euhedral character and low Fe content of the anatase (relative to soil-derived anatase). These observations for the Huber Formation are consistent with a previously published theory for kaolin genesis that includes biomineralization of originally coarser-grained aluminosilicates into a kaolinite-rich ore body.

Keywords

AnataseGeorgiaHuber FormationKaoliniteRutileTiO2TitaniumX-ray Diffraction
Type
Research Article
Information
Clays and Clay Minerals , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 151 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 2000, The Clay Minerals Society

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

Anand, R.R. and Gilkes, R.J., 1984 Weathering of ilmenite in a lateritic pallid zone Clays and Clay Minerals 32 363–374 10.1346/CCMN.1984.0320504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, J.F. Penn, R.L. and Zhang, H., 1998 Defect formation and phase transformation in nanocrystalline titania Geological Society of America Meeting, Toronto, Canada, Abstracts with Programs .Google Scholar
Benoit, P.H., 1987 Adaptation to microcomputer of the Appleman-Evans program for indexing and least-squares refinement of powder diffraction data for unit-cell dimensions American Mineralogist 72 1018–1019.Google Scholar
Berner, R.A., 1970 Sedimentary pyrite formation American Journal of Science 268 1–23 10.2475/ajs.268.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, F.H., 1974 Quantitative interpretation of X-ray diffraction patterns of mixtures. II. Adiabatic principle of X-ray diffraction analysis of mixtures Journal of Applied Crystallography 7 526–531 10.1107/S0021889874010387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullity, B.D., 1978 Elements of X-ray Diffraction Massachusetts Addison-Wesly Publishing Co., Inc., Reading.Google Scholar
Deer, W.A. Howie, R.A. and Zussman, J., 1992 An Introduction to the Rock-Forming Minerals Hong Kong Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Dodge, J.J., 1991 Estuarine transformation of fluvial khandite, coastal Georgia Athens, Georgia Department of Geology, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Dombrowski, T., Murray, H. Bundy, W.M. and Harvey, C., 1993 Theories of origin for the Georgia kaolins: A review Kaolin Genesis and Utilization Boulder, Colorado The Clay Minerals Society 75–98.Google Scholar
Downs, R.T. Bartelmehs, K.L. Gibbs, G.V. and Boisen, M.B., 1993 Interactive software for calculating and displaying X-ray or neutron powder diffractometer patterns of crystalline materials American Mineralogist 78 1104–1107.Google Scholar
Doyle, L.J. Carder, K.L. and Steward, R.G., 1983 The hydraulic equivalence of mica Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 53 643–648.Google Scholar
Dydak, S.M., 1991 The hydraulic sorting of light and heavy minerals, heavy-mineral concentrations, and grain size Williamsburg, Virginia College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
Hathaway, J.C., 1956 Procedure for clay mineral analysis used in the sedimentary petrology laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Bulletin 3 8–13 10.1180/claymin.1956.003.15.05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, V.J., Pickering, S.M. Jr. Hurst, V.J. and Elzea, J.M., 1997 Origins of the kaolins and associated bauxites 11th International Clay Conference Guidebook for the Field Trip to the Macon Area, Georgia Ottawa, Canada Association Internationale pour l’Etude des Argiles 32–46.Google Scholar
Hurst, V.J. and Pickering, S.M., 1997 Origin and classification of coastal-plain kaolins, southeastern USA, and the role of groundwater and microbial action Clays and Clay Minerals 45 274–285 10.1346/CCMN.1997.0450215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, V.J. Schroeder, P.A. and Styron, R.W., 1997 Accurate quantification of quartz and other phases by powder X-ray diffractometry Analytica Chimica Acta 337 233–252 10.1016/S0003-2670(96)00425-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampf, N. and Schwertmann, U., 1982 Quantitative determination of goethite and hematite in kaolinitic soils by X-ray diffraction Clay Minerals 17 359–363 10.1180/claymin.1982.017.3.08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumm, S., 1998 WinFit! v11.2. Computer Program for fitting peaks Germany Erlangen 91054.Google Scholar
Melear, N.D., 1998 Crystal properties of goethite and hematite from three weathering profiles of the Georgia Piedmont Athens, Georgia Department of Geology, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Pavich, M.J., 1989 Regolith residence time and the concept of surface age of the Piedmont “peneplain” Geomorphology 2 181–196 10.1016/0169-555X(89)90011-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiswell, R. and Canfield, D.E., 1996 Rates of reaction between silicate iron and dissolved sulfide in Peru margin sediments Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 60 2777–2787 10.1016/0016-7037(96)00141-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwertmann, U. Friedl, J. Pfab, G. and Gehring, A.U., 1995 Iron substitution in soil and synthetic anatase Clays and Clay Minerals 43 599–606 10.1346/CCMN.1995.0430509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, W.H.R., 1960 Studies in biogeochemistry—I: A biogeochemical periodic table: The data Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 19 196–207 10.1016/0016-7037(60)90005-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiflet, J.E., 1999 Ti-bearing phases in an east-Georgia kaolin deposit Athens, Georgia University of Georgia, Department of Geology.Google Scholar
Singh, B. and Gilkes, P.J., 1991 Concentration of iron oxides from soil clays by 5 M NaOH treatment: The complete removal of sodalite and kaolin Clay Minerals 26 463–472 10.1180/claymin.1991.026.4.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R.G., Walker, R.G. and James, N.P., 1992 Facies, facies models and modem stratigraphic concept: Facies models response to sea level change Facies Models New Foundland, Canada Geological Association of Canada, St. Johns 1–14.Google Scholar
Weaver, C.E., 1976 The nature of TiO2 in kaolinite Clays and Clay Minerals 24 215–218 10.1346/CCMN.1976.0240501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar