4.4 Article

Quantitative XRD analysis of {110} twin density in biotic aragonites

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
Volume 180, Issue 3, Pages 458-468

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.09.004

Keywords

{110} Twin; Aragonite; Biomineralization; DIFFaX; Transmission electron microscopy; X-ray diffraction

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [17GS0311, 22248037, 22228006]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22248037, 22228006] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

{1 1 0} Twin densities in biotic aragonite have been estimated quantitatively from the peak widths of specific reflections in powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns, as well as direct confirmation of the twins using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Influence of the twin density on the peak widths in the XRD pattern was simulated using DIFFaX program, regarding (110) twin as interstratification of two types of aragonite unit layers with mirrored relationship. The simulation suggested that the twin density can be estimated from the difference of the peak widths between 111 and 021, or between 221 and 211 reflections. Biotic aragonite in the crossed-lamellar microstructure (three species) and nacreous microstructure (four species) of molluscan shells, fish otoliths (two species), and a coral were investigated. The XRD analyses indicated that aragonite crystals in the crossed-lamellar microstructure of the three species contain high density of the twins, which is consistent with the TEM examination. On the other hand, aragonite in the nacre of the four species showed almost no difference of the peak widths between the paired reflections, indicating low twin densities. The results for the fish otoliths were varied between the species. Such variation of the twin density in biotic aragonites may reflect different schemes of crystal growth in biomineralization. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available