Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:45:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Morphology and alteration of asbestiform grunerite and anthophyllite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

B. A. Cressey
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford
E. J. W. Whittaker
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Mineralogy, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford
J. L. Hutchison
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgy and Science of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford

Abstract

Sections perpendicular to [001] of ion-thinned specimens of amosite (fibrous grunerite) from Penge, Transvaal and anthophyllite from Paakila, Finland and Söndeled, Norway, have been examined by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Observations on the nature of grain boundaries and alteration are compared with those of other workers on other fibrous amphiboles. Fibrous crystals grow with their fibre (c) axes approximately parallel to one another but they have considerable rotational disorder about that axis. Grain boundaries are generally irregular in shape and only follow low-index planes for short sections. In all specimens the amphibole has undergone some alteration to sheet silicates along grain boundaries, fractures, cleavages, and multiple-chain lamellae. Anthophyllite alteration products are talc, serpentine and chlorite, and amosite alteration products approximate to iron analogues of talc and serpentine. Talc layers are generally planar and their orientation is strongly controlled by the amphibole structure, whereas serpentine and chlorite layers often curve and their orientations are less frequently related to that of the amphibole. Comparison of specimens which appear finely fibrous in hand specimen with those which appear coarser, acicular or massive suggests that the nature of fibres produced by crushing is mainly controlled by the grain boundaries in the former type, but other factors such as fractures, cleavages, and defects are more important for the latter types.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1982

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

Alario Franco, M., Hutchison, J. L., Jefferson, D. A., and Thomas, J. M. (1977 Nature, 266, 520–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, J. E. (1973 J. Mater. Sci. 8, 475–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, J. E. (1975 In Surface and defect properties of solids, Roberts, M. W. and Thomas, J. M., eds. 126–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, D. (1980 J. Microscopy, 120, 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressey, B. A., Whittaker, E. J. W., and Hutchison, J. L. (1980 IMA 12th General Meeting, Orleans, Abstracts, 94.Google Scholar
Gruner, J. W. (1944 Am. Mineral. 29, 363–72.Google Scholar
Hall, A. L. (1930 South Africa Geol. Surv. Mere. 12 'Asbestos in the Union of South Africa'.Google Scholar
Hutchison, J. L., Irusteta, M. C., and Whittaker, E. J. W. (1975 Acta Crystallogr. 31A, 794801. [MA 76-2344].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, D. R. (1980 Am. Mineral. 65, 1075–86.Google Scholar
Veblen, D. R. and Burnham, C. W. (1976 Geol. Soc. Am. Abstracts with programs, 8, 1153.Google Scholar
Veblen, D. R. (1978 Am. Mineral. 63, 1000–9.Google Scholar
Veblen, D. R. and Buseck, P. R. (1979a Science, 206, 13981400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, D. R. (1979b Am. Mineral. 64, 687700.[MA 80-1239].Google Scholar
Veblen, D. R. (1980 Ibid. 65, 599623.Google Scholar
Veblen, D. R. and Burnham, C. W. (1977 Science, 198 359–65 [MA 78-3473].0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, E. J. W., Cressey, B. A., and Hutchison, J. L. (1981 Mineral Mag. 44, 2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoltai, T. (1979 Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 330, 621–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar