The main source of fluorine in various lithologies and rocks are still controversial. During formation of fluorite deposits, the main source of fluorine is unclear.
Dear Mr. Jafar;
Thank you for your recommendation
Best regards
Mansour
Dear Mr. Azizi:
You raised a rather complex question because you referred to various types of lithologies. By and large, the most common carrier has to be looked for among the apatite-group phosphate minerals and rock-forming silicates with hydroyxyl groups which may be substituted for by fluorine. In this case micaceous phyllosilicates play a significant part. Both mineral group may be present in all three lithological realms, in magmatic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Fluorite, although more abundant in fluorine is restricted to mineralized parts or mineral deposits found in magmatic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. It is an attempt to provide you with a general answer to a general question. I hope it will help you.
With kind regards
H.G.Dill
Dear Prof. Dill,
Thank you very much for your general and complete answer. The most important point in your answer is " By and large, the most common carrier has to be looked for among the apatite-group phosphate minerals and rock-forming silicates with hydroyxyl groups which may be substituted for by fluorine ", which is very useful for me to find a general answer for this question. Based on your opinion, i think the fluorine contents of a geological environment can be interpreted by available F-bearing minerals such as apatite, fluorapatite and etc. This is very important point for me.
Best regards,
Mansour
Dear Mansour Rezaei Azizi,
Yes, the fluorine contents of a geological environment can be interpreted by available F-bearing minerals such as apatite, fluorapatite and etc. However, when comparing phyllosilicates it is important to take into account that the amount of fluorine they incorporate replacing OH does not depends only on the F fugacity of the environment. It also depends on the composition and structural features of the phyllosilicate. A dioctahedral mica (muscovite, for example) has more difficulty in incorporating F than a trioctahedral mica (biotite, for example). A Fe-rich biotite (annite) has much more difficulty than a Mg-rich biotite (phlogopite), because of a phenomenon called F-Fe avoidance. But there is also the F-Al avoidance which makes a phyllosilicate with more tetrahedral Al more difficult to incorporate F than one with less tetrahedral Al. That is, considering, for example, a muscovite with 30% F at the OH site and a phlogopite with 30% F at the OH site, the muscovite certainly formed in an environment with much (very much) more F than the phlogopite.
Dear Dr. Neto
Thank you for your appropriate answer.
Best wishes
Mansour
Dear Costa-de-Moura
Thank you very much for your complete answer.
Best wishes
Mansour
Dear Costa-de-Moura
Thank you very much indeed for your complete answer.
Best regards
Mansour
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Soil Science
- Soil Analysis