Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T14:53:27.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Similarities and differences among selected gemmological varieties of chalcedony: chemistry, mineralogy and microstructure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2024

Sara Monico*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
Marco Cantaluppi
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
Valeria Diella
Affiliation:
National Research Council, Institute of Environmental Geology and Geoengineering (IGAG), Section of Milan, via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
G. Diego Gatta
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
Ilaria Adamo
Affiliation:
Istituto Gemmologico Italiano (IGI), Piazza San Sepolcro 1, 20123 Milan, Italy
Patrizia Fumagalli
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
Nicoletta Marinoni
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences “Ardito Desio”, University of Milan, Via Botticelli 23, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Corresponding author: Sara Monico; Email: sara.monico1@unimi.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study describes a new variety of chalcedony with a unique inhomogeneous bluish green hue, named aquaprase. It was discovered in Africa and is considered to be a valuable addition to the gem trade. A multi-methodological approach was used to examine its chemistry, mineralogy and microstructure, which were then compared to those of chrysoprase and agate, two of the most popular varieties of chalcedony. Optical microscopy revealed a complex microstructural heterogeneity in the different colour intensity areas/bands of aquaprase and agate, whereas chrysoprase exhibited a more homogeneous coexistence of micro- and cryptocrystalline quartz. High-resolution synchrotron XRD was essential for highlighting the complex assemblage of various types of α-quartz in aquaprase and agate (which differ in terms of crystal size and/or cell parameters). Micro-Raman spectroscopy revealed α-quartz and moganite in all three varieties of chalcedony and the presence of the nickel-bearing layered silicate mineral, willemseite, in chrysoprase, which is responsible for its green colouration. The chemical analysis displayed a homogeneous composition of agate, as well as high levels of nickel content in the chrysoprase variety. Aquaprase showed significant amounts (ppm by weight) of trace elements (Al, Mg, Na, K, Ca, Ti, U and Fe) characteristic of its formation environment, as well as high values of Cr, which are thought to be the cause of its bluish green colouration.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Mineralogical Society of the United Kingdom and Ireland
Figure 0

Figure 1. Eight rough and cut gemstone specimens. Aquaprase samples have been labelled as AQ_x, chrysoprase as CR_x and agate as AG_x, respectively, and x refers to the sample number.

Figure 1

Table 1. Chalcedony varieties, provenance and colour of the samples studied.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Optical micrographs: (a) panoramic picture of the AQ_01 aquaprase sample; and (b) details: fibrous quartz between cryptocrystalline and microcrystalline quartz (XPL, grey scale).Mineral abbreviations (Warr, 2021): MQz: macrocrystalline quartz; mQz: microcrystalline quartz; cQz: cryptocrystalline quartz; fQz: fibrous quartz; incl: inclusions.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Optical micrographs. Details of the AQ_01 aquaprase sample: (a) length-fast spherulitic chalcedony in the cryptocrystalline quartz matrix (XPL, grey scale); (b) + gypsum plate.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Optical micrographs. (a) A panoramic picture of the CR_01 chrysoprase sample and (b) a panoramic picture of the AG_01 agate sample (XPL, grey scale).

Figure 5

Figure 5. X-ray diffraction of powdered chalcedony samples. From top to bottom: aquaprase (bluish green and colourless fractions), chrysoprase and agate.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Comparison between the quartz peak (101) of the bluish green fraction (top) and of the colourless fraction (bottom) of the aquaprase sample AQ_02.

Figure 7

Table 2. Results obtained from Rietveld refinement of the diffraction patterns of aquaprase, chrysoprase and agate samples, using MAUD software.

Figure 8

Figure 7. MAUD software interface: main quartz diffraction peaks (101) and (100) and moganite peak (011) in the aquaprase pattern. Only by using three varieties of quartz (with different degree of crystallinity and unit cell parameters) and moganite, it is possible to obtain the best fit of the aquaprase pattern.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Normalised Raman spectra detail of the AQ_01 aquaprase sample, CR_01 chrysoprase sample and AG_01 agate (400-700 cm–1), with the main signals of quartz and moganite.

Figure 10

Figure 9. BSE images of (a) AQ_01, (b) CR_01 and (c) AG_01. Scale bar corresponds to 200 μm.

Figure 11

Table 3. Selected compositional formulas, based on the electron microprobe analyses, of different samples (calculated on 2 oxygen apfu).

Figure 12

Figure 10. Element distribution maps of CR_01 chrysoprase sample: (a) BSE image; (b) Ni content; and (c) Mg content. Scale bar corresponds to 100 μm.

Figure 13

Table 4. Average trace-element composition (ppm) as detected by LA-ICP-MS of aquaprase (3 samples), chrysoprase (2 samples) and agate (2 samples) investigated.

Figure 14

Figure 11. Correlation among main elements revealed in the aquaprase variety (> 1 wt. ppm): (a) Al vs Mg and Al vs Cr; (b) Cr vs Fe and Cr vs Ni.

Supplementary material: File

Monico et al. supplementary material

Monico et al. supplementary material
Download Monico et al. supplementary material(File)
File 515.5 KB