Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:14:16.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Methods for Determination of the Layer Charge of Smectites: A Critical Assessment of Existing Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

G. E. Christidis*
Affiliation:
School of Mineral Resources Engineering, Technical University of Crete, 73100 Chania, Greece
G. D. Chryssikos
Affiliation:
National Hellenic Research Foundation, Theoretical and Physical Chemistry Institute, 11635 Athens, Greece
A. Derkowski
Affiliation:
Institute of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-002 Krakow, Poland
R. Dohrmann
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt Für Geowissenschaften Und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany LBEG, State Authority of Mining, Energy and Geology, Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany
D. D. Eberl
Affiliation:
349 Mountain Meadows Rd, Boulder, CO 80302, USA
E. Joussein
Affiliation:
E2Lim (UR 24 133) Université de Limoges, 123 Avenue Albert Thomas, 87060 Limoges Cedex, France
S. Kaufhold
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt Für Geowissenschaften Und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Layer charge is an important property of 2:1 phyllosilicates originating from isomorphic substitutions in the structure, from vacancies in the octahedral sheet and from unsatisfied bonds at the edges of the crystals. It is of particular interest in the case of smectites because it affects important properties of this mineral. Several methods have been proposed for determining the layer charge of smectites, namely the structural formula method (SFM), the alkylammonium method (AAM), the NH4-method, the K-saturation method, and the O-D method. Most of these methods have been used extensively in the past and they all have advantages and shortcomings. The SFM and the AAM are based on different principles and are considered as primary methods. They have been used for a long time but they are time consuming and they provide contrasting layer charge values, with the AAM yielding consistently lower layer charge values than the SFM, especially for low-charge smectites. The remaining methods have been developed more recently and have been calibrated over their primary counterparts. They are applied easily and are capable of producing a large amount of data within a short time. In this sense they can be used both for geological interpretations and for assessment of bentonite deposits at an industrial scale.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors.
Figure 0

Table 1 Determination of a structural formulae using the fixed negative charge approach

Figure 1

Table 2 Determination of a structural formula using the fixed positive charge approach

Figure 2

Fig. 1 Excess octahedral cations (e/huc) calculated with the fixed anionic charge approach vs a difference in layer charge calculated by the two approaches and b the difference in Si atoms calculated by the two approaches

Figure 3

Fig. 2 Schematic representation of the AAM procedure

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Effects of various washing steps on the d001 spacing of a Bavarian bentonite (n = 13; left); right: photographs of glass slides with dried drops of various washing solutions (water/ethanol) in their respective centers. Upper: excess AA present with a cloudy, veil-like appearance; lower: sample after repeated washing, no excess AA is detectable

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of the basic concept for determination of the layer charge using the AAM method. The AAM-chains are shown as linear; they are, in fact, zigzag-shaped

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Examples of peak migration curves in the AAM method: a low- and high-charge; b broad and sharp charge distributions

Figure 7

Fig. 6 Left: schematic representation of the option to classify smectites based on AAM results; right: measured data of a more homogeneously charged smectite (red) and a more heterogeneously (close to bimodally) charged smectite (blue)

Figure 8

Fig. 7 Example of the relationship between the CEC calculated from NH4.+ methods and the CEC measured by the classical method. The samples are from soil series and from various kaolinite-smectite mechanical mixtures. Data adapted and modified from Petit et al. (1998)

Figure 9

Fig. 8 Example of a normalized IR spectrum (see text) of smectite SAz-1 mixed with various weight percentages of kaolinite KGa-1 (0%, light blue line; 25%, red line; 50%, purple line; 75%, blue line) in the regions of the ν4 NH4+ bands and νSi-O

Figure 10

Fig. 9 a XRD patterns of K-saturated, EG-solvated smectites with low, intermediate, and high layer charge. b XRD traces of EG-solvated SAz-1 montmorillonite saturated with K, and back-saturated with Na and Ca ions

Figure 11

Fig. 10 Simulation of XRD traces of K-saturated and EG-solvated smectites using the LayerCharge program. Red = experimental XRD trace, blue = computed XRD trace (data from Makri, 2011)

Figure 12

Fig. 11 Correction of the layer charge for smectites with a predominantly tetrahedral charge

Figure 13

Fig. 12. Schematic representation of the dangling O–Hw/O–Dw bonds in the interlayer of smectite (drawing not to scale). For details, see text

Figure 14

Fig. 13 Separation of structural OH (OHs) and H2O (as D2O) absorbance spectra of STx-1 montmorillonite (in as-received interlayer cation form) by in situ deuteration at ambient temperature. The position of the sharp νΟ–Dw mode (highlighted red) is determined by the 2nd derivative minima (4 cm–1 resolution, Δν = 2 cm.–1, Savitzky-Golay 13 pt smoothing, as in Kuligiewicz et al., 2015b). The ATR spectrum of the sample prior to deuteration is included for comparison (shaded gray)

Figure 15

Fig. 14 Position of the νO–Dw 2.nd derivative minima of SWy-2, STx-1, SAz-1, and SCa-3 montmorillonites in their as-received cation forms (cf. Figure 13)

Figure 16

Table 3 LC(SFM) and LC(AAM) measured by the OD method (Eqs. 1 and 2, respectively), independent AAM data (full method, Kaufhold et al., 2018; Olis et al., 1990; Kaufhold et al. unpublished data), and their residuals for 38 bentonites from the Kaufhold collection

Figure 17

Fig. 15 Validation of the νΟ–Dw AAM predictions against the independent reference values of bentonite samples from the Kaufhold collection. The normal probability plot of the residuals indicates σ = 0.016 and μ = 0.003 e/huc, in excellent agreement with the original calibration (Kuligiewicz et al., 2015b)