4.7 Article

Barite precipitation following celestite dissolution in a porous medium: A SEM/BSE and μ-XRD/XRF study

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 182, 期 -, 页码 131-144

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.03.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nagra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reaction cell experiment was designed to examine mineral dissolution/precipitation processes both at the macroscopic and pore scale. A rectangular flow cell was filled with a reactive porous layer lying between two porous layers composed of quartz sand (SiO2). The reactive layer consisted of celestite (or celestine, SrSO4) with a bimodal grain size distribution (<63 mu m and 125-400 mu m). A barium chloride solution was then injected into the flow cell, leading to fast dissolution and replacement of celestite by barite (or baryte, BaSO4). Due to the higher molar volume of barite compared to celestite, the porosity decreased in the reactive layer. We concentrated on the refinement of post-mortem analysis and the investigation of the dissolution/precipitation mechanisms at the pore scale (10-100 mu m). The sequential evolution of mineral transformations occurring in the reactive layer was determined. Our analytical techniques, combining scanning electron microscopy and synchrotron X-ray microdiffraction/microfluorescence, showed that the small celestite grain fraction dissolved rapidly to form nano-crystalline barite filling the pore space, while large celestite grains were covered with a thin rim of epitaxial microcrystalline barite. Two distinct nucleation mechanisms for barite precipitation were involved: homogeneous nucleation (nucleation of barite in the pore space) and heterogeneous nucleation (nucleation on the surface of a solid substrate). Classical nucleation theory, using well-established and estimated parameters (e.g. effective interfacial tension) describing barite nucleation, was applied to explain the mineralogical changes occurring in our system. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据