Investigates cation ordering in columbite-supergroup minerals, suggesting methods for characterization.
In most cases, columbite-supergroup minerals are characterized by partial ordering of cations, which makes their identification based only on chemical composition and powder diffraction data difficult. Columbite-supergroup minerals with partially ordered cations were studied by means of electron microprobe analyses, powder and single-crystal X-ray diffraction, including crystal structure refinement in ixiolite-type and wolframine-type models. The samples originate from the Sakhanaiskiy granite massif, Eastern Siberia, Russia, (Sample 1) and from the Heftetjern pegmatite, Telemark, Norway (Sample 2). Their representative empirical formulae are (Fe2+0.81Mn2+0.53)Σ1.34Fe3+0.07(Ti0.23Zr0.11Sn0.02)Σ0.36(Nb1.45Ta0.26)Σ1.71W0.52O8 (Sample 1) and (Mn2+0.28Fe2+0.25)Σ0.53Sc1.08(Sn0.32Ti0.04)Σ0.36(Ta1.41Nb0.52)Σ1.93W0.10O8 (Sample 2). Based on these data and the results of the crystal structure refinement, the studied samples can be considered as columbite-supergroup minerals in which cations are partially ordered in accordance with the wolframite mechanism. An approach is suggested according to which the degree of cation ordering in such columbite-supergroup minerals can be estimated based on the electron contents refined for different sites in a monoclinic model. According to this criterion, the degree of cation ordering of Samples 1 and 2 is 91% and 26%, respectively. Despite a significant degree of cation disordering, transition from the wolframite to ixiolite model results in a significant enhancement of the R-factor of the structure refinement (from 0.0365 to 0.0764 and from 0.0207 to 0.0610, respectively).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chukanov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: