U.S. Geological Survey home page

USGS Spectral Library Version 7 Sample Description

Kokaly, R.F., Clark, R.N., Swayze, G.A., Livo, K.E., Hoefen, T.M., Pearson, N.C., Wise, R.A., Benzel, W.M., Lowers, H.A., Driscoll, R.L., and Klein, A.J., 2017, USGS Spectral Library Version 7: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1035, 61 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1035
For more information on the library, see: local link web link

TITLE: Jarosite GDS99 K 200C Syn DESCRIPT

DOCUMENTATION_FORMAT: MINERAL

SAMPLE_ID: GDS99

MINERAL_TYPE: Sulfate

MINERAL: Jarosite (K-jarosite) (Synthetic) (Alunite group)

FORMULA: K(Fe+3)3(SO4)2(OH)6

FORMULA_HTML: KFe+33(SO4)2(OH)6

COLLECTION_LOCALITY: Synthetic

ORIGINAL_DONOR: Roger Stroffregen, SMU

CURRENT_SAMPLE_LOCATION: USGS Denver Spectroscopy Laboratory

ULTIMATE_SAMPLE_LOCATION: USGS Denver Spectroscopy Laboratory

SAMPLE_DESCRIPTION:

Sample synthesized at 200C

IMAGE_OF_SAMPLE:
Photo of sample

END_SAMPLE_DESCRIPTION.

XRD_ANALYSIS:

40 kV - 30 mA, 7.3-6.5 keV
Reference: JCPDS #22-827 (jarosite)
Found: Jarosite

Comment: Sharp patterns (GDS99 is exceptional) indicate good crystallinity and compositional homogeneity. All reflections are accounted for by the JCPDS card. However, the samples are not identical. GDS98 has cell hexagonal dimensions a = 7.313(1) and c = 17.060(4) Angstroms whereas GDS99 has a = 7.302(1) and c = 17.214(2) Angstroms. The difference in c is significant and suggests a composition difference between the two samples. Are there differences in the optical spectra?"

J.S. Huebner, J. Pickrell, and J. Randow, 1993, written communication.

END_XRD_ANALYSIS.

COMPOSITIONAL_ANALYSIS_TYPE: None # XRF, EPMA, ICP(Trace), WChem
COMPOSITION_TRACE:

COMPOSITION_DISCUSSION:

END_COMPOSITION_DISCUSSION.

MICROSCOPIC_EXAMINATION:

END_MICROSCOPIC_EXAMINATION.

SPECTROSCOPIC_DISCUSSION:

END_SPECTROSCOPIC_DISCUSSION.

SPECTRAL_PURITY: 1a2a3a4_ # 1= 0.2-3, 2= 1.5-6, 3= 6-25, 4= 20-150 microns