4.7 Article

Mechanism and kinetics of hydrothermal replacement of magnetite by hematite

期刊

GEOSCIENCE FRONTIERS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 29-41

出版社

CHINA UNIV GEOSCIENCES, BEIJING
DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2018.05.015

关键词

Mineral replacement reaction; Hematite; Magnetite; Kinetics; Non-redox; Redox

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP140102765]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The replacement of magnetite by hematite was studied through a series of experiments under mild hydrothermal conditions (140-220 degrees C, vapour saturated pressures) to quantify the kinetics of the transformation and the relative effects of redox and non-redox processes on the transformation. The results indicate that oxygen is not an essential factor in the replacement reaction of magnetite by hematite, but the addition of excess oxidant does trigger the oxidation reaction, and increases the kinetics of the transformation. However, even under high O-2 (aq) environments, some of the replacement still occurred via Fe2+ leaching from magnetite. The kinetics of the replacement reaction depends upon temperature and solution parameters such as pH and the concentrations of ligands, all of which are factors that control the solubility of magnetite and affect the transport of Fe2+ (and the oxidant) to and from the reaction front. Reaction rates are fast at similar to 200 degrees C, and in nature transport properties of Fe and, in the case of the redox-controlled replacement, the oxidant will be the rate-limiting control on the reaction progress. Using an Avrami treatment of the kinetic data and the Arrhenius equation, the activation energy for the transformation under non-redox conditions was calculated to be 26 +/- 6 kJ mol(-1). This value is in agreement with the reported activation energy for the dissolution of magnetite, which is the rate-limiting process for the transformation under non-redox conditions. (C) 2018, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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