Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T05:18:14.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Applications of X-ray Diffraction Crystallite Size/Strain Analysis to Seismosaurus Dinosaur Bone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Steve J. Chipera
Affiliation:
Earth & Environmental Sciences Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Mail Stop D469, Los Alamos, NM 87545
David L. Bish
Affiliation:
Earth & Environmental Sciences Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Mail Stop D469, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Get access

Abstract

Recently, the remains of a giant Cretaceous Sauropod (~150 My old) were discovered in the Morrison Formation west of Albuquerque, New Mexico. This dinosaur, tentatively named Seismosaurus, was found in an exceptional state of preservation. Although it has been known since the 180Q's that fossilized bone is often composed of the mineral apatite, very few studies have been conducted to characterize farther the fossilized material. In an effort to gain insight into the state of preservation and Hie processes occurring in the bone since deposition, apatite in bone from Seismosaurus was compared with that from a contemporary elk from the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico, and with well-crystallized mineral apatite using X-ray powder diffraction and profile analysis techniques. Crystallite size/strain analyses were conducted using the Scherrer equation, the Warren-Averbaca and single-line methods, and the Rietveld method using the program GSAS. Heating the contemporary elk bone produced a decrease in the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of the reflections in the diffraction pattern. This decrease in FWHM is due to a decrease in microstrain along with a minor increase in crystallite size. Results from crystallite size/strain analysis show that both Seismosaurus and contemporary elk bone crystallites are elongate parallel to the c-axis. However, Seismosaurus bone crystallites are larger (-20-65 nm) with less strain than the contemporary elk bone crystallites (-8-20 nm), suggesting that if elk bone is an appropriate analog, then Seismosaurus bone must have undergone recrystallization.

Type
X. Crystallite Size/Strain Analysis
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1990

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

Bacon, G. E., Bacon, P. J., and Griffiths, R. K., 1979, The orientation of apatite crystals in bone, J., Appl. Cryst. 12: 99.Google Scholar
Cullity, B. D., 1978, “Elements of X-Ray Diffraction,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Delhez, R., de Keijser, Th.H., Mittemeijer, E. J., and Langford, J. I., 1988, Size and strain parameters from peak profiles: Sense and nonsense, Aust. J. Phys., 41: 213.Google Scholar
Eanes, E. D., 1965, Effect of fluoride on human bone apatite crystals, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 131: 727.Google Scholar
Gillette, D. D., and Schwartz, H., 1986, A new giant sauropod from the Morrison Formation, Upper Jurassic, of New Mexico, No. Amer. Paleo. Conv. IV., Abs., 16.Google Scholar
Klug, H. P., and Alexander, L. E., 1974, “X-Ray Diffraction Procedures for Polycrystalline and Amorphous Materials,” Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Larson, A. C. and Von Dreele, R. B., 1988, “GSAS - Generalized Structure Analysis System,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LAUR 86-748.Google Scholar
LeGeros, R. Z. Trautz, O. R., LeGeros, J. P., Klein, E., and Shirra, W. P., 1967, Apatite crystallites: Effects of carbonate on morphology. Science, 155: 1409.Google Scholar
McConnell, D., 1962, Dating of fossil bones by the fluorine method, Science. 136: 241.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, P. J., and Termine, J. D., 1965, Statistical analysis of the effect of fluoride on bone apatite. Ana N. Y. Acad. Sci., 131: 743.Google Scholar
Warren, B. E., and Averbach, B. L., 1950, The effect of cold-work distortion on X-ray patterns, J. App. Physics. 21: 595.Google Scholar
Zorn, G., 1988, Pitfalls in the evaluation of X-ray diffraction line shape, Aust. J. Phys., 41: 237.Google Scholar