Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The low-temperature heat capacities of natural near end-member minerals (about 95 mol%, except tinzenite of about 34 mol% on average) of the axinite group, previously characterized in detail by means of powder and single-crystal X-ray diffraction, electron microprobe, and Mössbauer spectroscopy, were measured by heat-pulse calorimetry using the Physical Properties Measurement System (Quantum Design) at temperatures between 5(2) and 300 K. From these data, the following entropy values [in J/(mol·K)] of the natural samples at 298.15 K were derived: S 298,magnesioaxinite = 696.3 ± 1.1, S 298,ferroaxinite = 743.5 ± 3.5, S 298,manganaxinite = 737.5 ± 2.6, and S 298,tinzenite = 758.1 ± 2.8. For the end-member compositions, the corrected heat capacities at 298.15 K and standard third-law entropies of the axinites are [all in J/(mol·K)]: CP o magnesioaxinite = 827.5 ± 1.5 and S o magnesioaxinite = 693.7 ± 1.1, CP o ferroaxinite = 841.8 ± 3.3 and S o ferroaxinite = 749.6 ± 3.5, CP o manganaxinite = 849.1 ± 2.5 and S o manganaxinite = 737.8 ± 2.6, and CP o tinzenite = 841.6 ± 2.6, S o tinzenite = 754.0 ± 2.8. The standard entropies of manganaxinite and tinzenite include contributions of 1.9 and 4.3 J/(mol·K) for the range 0-5 K evaluated based on a Schottky anomaly fitted to the low-T C P values of these axinites. The lowest measured heat capacities of ferroaxinite indicate that a lambda-type C P anomaly should exist between 0 and 2 K. Its likely contribution to the standard entropy was estimated as ~5.2 J/(mol·K). A low-temperature C P anomaly below 15 K for ferroaxinite is well-explained by ferromagnetic ordering, whereas for manganaxinite by uncompensated antiferromagnetic ordering, and for tinzenite by pure antiferromagnetic ordering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filip et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: