Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T23:38:35.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

New minerals tsangpoite Ca5(PO4)2(SiO4) and matyhite Ca9(Ca0.5□0.5)Fe(PO4)7 from the D'Orbigny angrite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Shyh-Lung Hwang*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan, ROC
Pouyan Shen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Optoelectronic Science, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC
Hao-Tsu Chu
Affiliation:
Central Geological Survey, PO Box 968, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Tzen-Fu Yui
Affiliation:
Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Maria-Euginia Varela
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencias Astronómicas de la Tierra y del Espacio (ICATE)Avenida España 1512 sur, J5402DSP, San Juan, Argentina
Yoshiyuki Iizuka
Affiliation:
Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
*
*Author for correspondence: Shyh-Lung Hwang, Email: slhwang@gms.ndhu.edu.tw
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tsangpoite, ideally Ca5(PO4)2(SiO4), the hexagonal polymorph of silicocarnotite, and matyhite, ideally Ca9(Ca0.5□0.5)Fe(PO4)7, the Fe-analogue of Ca-merrillite, were identified from the D'Orbigny angrite meteorite by electron probe microanalysis, electron microscopy and micro-Raman spectroscopy. On the basis of electron diffraction, the symmetry of tsangpoite was shown to be hexagonal, P63/m or P63, with a = 9.489(4) Å, c = 6.991(6) Å, V = 545.1(6) Å3 and Z = 2 for 12 oxygen atoms per formula unit, and that of matyhite was shown to be trigonal, R3c, with a = 10.456 (7) Å, c = 37.408(34) Å, V = 3541.6 (4.8) Å3 and Z = 6 for 28 oxygen atoms per formula unit. On the basis of their constant association with the grain-boundary assemblage: Fe sulfide + ulvöspinel + Al–Ti-bearing hedenbergite + fayalite–kirschsteinite intergrowth, the formation of tsangpoite and matyhite, along with kuratite (the Fe-analogue of rhönite), can be readily rationalised as crystallisation from residue magmas at the final stage of the D'Orbigny meteorite formation. Alternatively, the close petrographic relations between tsangpoite/matyhite and the resorbed Fe sulfide rimmed by fayalite + kirschsteinite symplectite, such as the nucleation of tsangpoite in association with magnetite ± other phases within Fe sulfide and the common outward growth of needle-like tsangpoite or plate-like matyhite from the fayalite–kirschsteinite symplectic rim of Fe sulfide into hedenbergite, infer that these new minerals and the grain-boundary assemblage might represent metasomatic products resulting from reactions between an intruding metasomatic agent and the porous olivine–plagioclase plate + fayalite-kirschsteinite overgrowth + augite + Fe sulfide aggregates. Still further thermochemical and kinetics evidence is required to clarify the exact formation mechanisms/conditions of the euhedral tsangpoite, matyhite and kuratite at the grain boundary of the D'Orbigny angrite.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2018 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Group of subparallel tsangpoite crystals that nucleated at FeS and grew tangentially to the wall of the Fa–Kir overgrowth: (a) viewed transversely; and (b) viewed nearly end-on. (c) The constant presence of segmental FeS + magnetite + Fe along the central tube of tsangpoite; and (d) group of dendritical matyhite plates that grew from the Fa–Kir symplectite margin of FeS. Image details: transmitted light, parallel Nicols.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Back-scatter electron micrographs showing the oxidation assemblage: FeS => Tsa + Mag + FeO ± celsian ± Al–Ti–Fe Spl within the ‘intact’ FeS at (a) contact of anorthite and Fa + Kir overgrowths (Fa + Kir overgrowths not shown), (b) contact of anorthite and ulvöspinel or (c) the impinged Fa–Kir overgrowths, and abundant tsangpoite crystals within (d,e) residue FeS, or (d–h) the Fa + Kir symplectite after FeS in the proximity of hedenbergite, as well as (g–i) the dissociation/decomposition of the Fa–Kir symplectite and the formation of well-defined tsangpoite domains in front of resorbed FeS. Note the partial melting-like Mag + FeO domain in (a–c), the bimodal size distribution of tsangpoite in (d–i), the tsangpoite + kuratite association in (g), as well as the dissociation-like feature of resorbed FeS in (h,i). Abbreviations according to Whitney and Evans (2010); Tsa – tsangpoite.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Back-scatter electron micrographs showing: (a,b) imperfect hexagonal cross-section with longitudinal groove of tsangpoite in Fa–Kir symplectite; (b,c) groups of subparallel tsangpoite crystals with similar cross-section morphologies exposed in hedenbergite; (d) a highly defective skeletal tsangpoite crystal viewed transversally; and (e,f) two subparallel oblique tsangpoite crystals originated from the same FeS crystal with central tube filled by FeS + Mag + Fe.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Back-scatter electron micrographs showing the formation of matyhite plates (a,b) within Fa–Kir symplectite; (c) tangential to the contact between Fa–Kir symplectite and hedenbergite; and (d–f) the dissolution/decomposition of Fa–Kir symplectite and the consequential exposure of dendritical matyhite plates in hedenbergite. Note the frequent inclusion of abundant FeS droplets and/or spherical voids in matyhite (c–f).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Back-scatter electron micrographs showing the concurrent presence of (a–d) tsangpoite at the core and matyhite (outlined in red) at the rim of resorbed Fe sulfide; and (e,f) tsangpoite at the core and matyhite (outlined in red) at the areas of contact with Fa–Kir overgrowth of a partially altered Fe sulfide. The skeletal morphology of tsangpoite crystal was noted in (c,d) and the occasional contact between tsangpoite and post-dated matyhite was noted in (f).

Figure 5

Table 1. Observed and calculated d spacings (Å) for tsangpoite and related phases.

Figure 6

Table 2. Lattice parameters of tsangpoite, α-Ca2SiO4, silico-phosphate and hydroxylapatite.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. The representative electron-diffraction patterns of (a–c) tsangpoite, and (d–f) matyhite in the principal zone axes.

Figure 8

Table 3. Observed and calculated d spacings (Å) for matyhite* and related phases.

Figure 9

Table 4. Lattice parameters of merrillite-group minerals, whitlockite, and synthetic β-tricalcium phosphate.

Figure 10

Fig. 7. TEM micrographs of tsangpoite showing (a) imperfect hexagonal [0001] cross-sections, (a,b) the constant presence of fayalite at the contact between tsangpoite and Fa + Kir overgrowth, (c) the presence of magnetite and FeS at the central tube, (d) the coalescence-like microstructure within the open [0001]-oriented groove filled by FeS + hedenbergite, as well as the association of (e) tsangpoite + matyhite (TEM section from Fig. 5f) and (f) tsangpoite + kuratite (TEM section from Fig. 2g). The two branches of tsangpoite grown around FeS in (f) are facetted by {1$\bar 1 $00} and {1$\bar 1 $02} planes. The Si-depleted thin boundary layer between tsangpoite and matyhite is shown in insert of (e).

Figure 11

Fig. 8. TEM micrographs of matyhite dendritic plates showing: (a) the most commonly observed thick {0001} plates within hedenbergite; (b) the less commonly observed thick {11$\bar {\rm 2} $0} plates with abundant voids of various shapes within hedenbergite; (c) a bundle of thin ~{11$\bar {\rm 2} $6} plates with flat surfaces and associated hedenbergite + FeS embedded by multiple kuratite crystals; (d) a bundle of thin ~{11$\bar {\rm 2} $6} plates with very rugged surfaces and surface voids within a single kuratite crystal; (e) a thin ~{10$\bar 1 $4} plate of matyhite with subgrain structure enclosed by kuratite and attached to olivine at the edge; and (f) a bundle of thin ~{10$\bar 1 $4} plates with subgrain structure and voids within Fa + Kir symplectite. Some voids in (b,d,f) are indicated by arrows.

Figure 12

Fig. 9. Raman spectra of (a) tsangpoite and (b) matyhite with an additional peak due to the hedenbergite (Hd) matrix.

Figure 13

Table 5. Representative compositions (wt.%) of tsangpoite from the D'Orbigny angrite

Figure 14

Table 6. Comparison of compositions (wt.%) of tsangpoite from this work and the literature in various angrites.

Figure 15

Table 7. Representative compositions (wt.%) of matyhite from the D'Orbigny angrite.

Figure 16

Table 8. Comparison of compositions (wt.%) of matyhite in various angrites from this work and the literature.

Figure 17

Fig. 10. Ternary diagram illustrating the composition variations of extra-terrestrial merrillites versus Ca-merrillite, matyhite, Na-merrillite, ferromerrillite, and REE-merrillite (modified from fig. 7 in Shearer et al., 2015).

Supplementary material: File

Hwang et al. supplementary material 1

Hwang et al. supplementary material

Download Hwang et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 2.7 MB