4.7 Article

Petrology, mineralogy, and geochemistry of submarine coals and petrified forest in the Sozopol Bay, Bulgaria

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 3-4, Pages 212-225

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2011.06.013

Keywords

Coal; Petrified trunks; Petrology; Minerals; Trace elements; Microorganisms

Funding

  1. Bulgarian Science Fund [VU-NZ10/06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mineralogy, petrology, and geochemistry of submarine coals and petrified tree trunks from the Sozopol Bay were investigated. The coals are lignites of Lower-Middle Miocene age. The petrified trunks are 40 cm up to 2 m high, some of which are in growth position and others are fallen. The main minerals in the coal are silicates of detrital origin (clay minerals) and authigenic pyrite. Authigenic sulfur and amber are present as well. In the Sozopol coals stored for 30 years, a neoformed mineral assemblage comprising mainly of gypsum, iron sulfates, sulfates of varying Fe, Na, Al, K, and Mg content, and halite has been observed. The formation of the sulfates was induced by bacterial activity as well. Germanium, Li, Rb, Ti, V. Mo, Cr, Mn, Co, and Ni are enriched in the coals as compared with the Clarke values of the world brown coals. In most of the samples studied, the contents of Ga, B, Y, W, Cu, Zn, Pb, P. and Zr are elevated as well. The element distribution is influenced by the lithotype composition. Most elements have a mixed mode of occurrence. Germanium, V. Ti, Cr, B, Na, and Ni (and to a lesser extent Sr and Cu) are organically associated, while K. Li, Rb, and Fe have a distinct inorganic mode of occurrence. Molybdenum follows strictly the Fe distribution. It is suggested that the main sources of the trace elements were the volcanic rocks in the sediment source area, from which the elements were leached in the peat bog. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available