4.5 Article

Structural model for the biogenic Mn oxide produced by Pseudomonas putida

期刊

AMERICAN MINERALOGIST
卷 91, 期 4, 页码 489-502

出版社

MINERALOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2138/am.2006.1925

关键词

geomicrobiology; Pseudomonas putida; Mn oxide; XAS; biogenic Mn oxide; XRD data; crystal structure; new minerals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Mn K-edge extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy were combined to elaborate a structural model for phyllomanganates (layer-type Mn oxides) lacking 3D ordering (turbostratic stacking). These techniques were applied to a sample produced by a common soil and freshwater bacterium (Pseudomonas putida), and to two synthetic analogs, delta-MnO2 and acid birnessite, obtained by the reduction of potassium permanganate with MnCl2 and HCl, respectively. To interpret the diffraction and spectroscopic data, we applied an XRD simulation technique utilized previously for well-crystallized birnessite varieties, complementing this approach with single-scattering-path simulations of the Mn K-edge EXAFS spectra. Our structural analyses revealed that all three Mn oxides have an hexagonal layer symmetry with layers comprising edge-sharing Mn4+O6 octahedra and cation vacancies, but no layer Mn3+O6 octahedra. The proportion of cation vacancies in the layers ranged from 6 to 17%, these vacancies being charge-compensated in the interlayer by protons, alkali metals, and Mn atoms, in amounts that vary with the phyllomanganate species and synthesis medium. Both vacancies and interlayer Mn were most abundant in the biogenic oxide. The diffracting crystallites contained three to six randomly stacked layers and have coherent scattering domains of 19-42 angstrom in the c* direction, and of 60-85 angstrom in the a-b plane. Thus, the Mn oxides investigated here are nanoparticles that bear significant permanent structural charge resulting from cation layer vacancies and variable surface charge from unsaturated O atoms at layer edges.

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

4.5
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