Previous studies of the defect structure of kaolinite have examined samples having a restricted level of defects. This study examined nine kaolinite samples having a large diversity of defect contents, as indicated by Hinckley indexes ranging from 1.44 to 0.18. The samples were chosen so as to cover this range in as regular a manner as possible. The types and abundances of the defects were determined by examining the X-ray powder diffraction profiles for the 02,11 and 20,13 bands. The diffraction intensities were measured by counting for a fixed time in steps of 0.01°2 θ . Analysis of these diffraction profiles indicated that (1) the major defect is the existence of a translation between adjacent layers, which is not the usual (approximately a /3), but is related to that translation by the pseudo-mirror plane coincident with the long diagonal of the unit cell; (2) the existence of a few C layers among the B layer stacking is a minor defect; (3) many of the samples could be accurately modeled only by assuming the existence of two kaolinite phases; (4) the existence of only a few C layers in some samples does not support the idea of a continuous series from kaolinite to dickite through disordered intermediates; and (5) the Hinckley indexes of several samples depend on the relative proportions of the two types of kaolinite in the mixture. The nine kaolinite samples fall into three groups: those having a low to moderate abundance of defects (Hinckley index > 0.43) are mixtures of two types of kaolinite (one almost free of defects, the other richer in defects); those having low Hinckley indexes (0.43 to 0.18) are single phases with different proportions of defects; and those which contain a single type of kaolinite, unlike the others in the nature of the interlayer translations and the greater abundance of C layers. The agreement between calculated and observed X-ray diffraction profiles is excellent for all specimens, except one sample (from Charentes) for which the fit is acceptable but not perfect.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Plançon et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: