2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2012.01.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationships between Fe redistribution and Po2 during mineral dissolution under low O2 conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
1
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1 clearly indicates that the calculated /-P O 2 relationships are essentially the same between the present study (curves) and Yokota et al (2013) (open symbols). Because Yokota et al (2013) have already confirmed the validity of their model by the consistency of the /-P O 2 relationships between the model estimates and mineral dissolution results (Sugimori et al, 2012), the present model is also valid for the calculation of the /-P O 2 relationship. By assuming steady-state weathering, the present model can avoid complicated assumptions (e.g., primary mineral distribution within a weathering profile) and time-consuming calculations (e.g., the Fe(II) concentration calculations for a number of layers in one weathering profile) which are necessary for the model by Yokota et al (2013).…”
Section: Formulation For the Calculation Of /supporting
confidence: 62%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1 clearly indicates that the calculated /-P O 2 relationships are essentially the same between the present study (curves) and Yokota et al (2013) (open symbols). Because Yokota et al (2013) have already confirmed the validity of their model by the consistency of the /-P O 2 relationships between the model estimates and mineral dissolution results (Sugimori et al, 2012), the present model is also valid for the calculation of the /-P O 2 relationship. By assuming steady-state weathering, the present model can avoid complicated assumptions (e.g., primary mineral distribution within a weathering profile) and time-consuming calculations (e.g., the Fe(II) concentration calculations for a number of layers in one weathering profile) which are necessary for the model by Yokota et al (2013).…”
Section: Formulation For the Calculation Of /supporting
confidence: 62%
“…Fe(II)-bearing primary minerals such as biotite and chlorite release Fe(II) in solution by weathering. Depending on weathering conditions such as Fe(II) oxidation kinetics and water flow rate, some portion of the dissolved Fe(II) is oxidized to Fe(III), which will form Fe(III)-(oxyhydr)oxides and remain in the weathering profile (e.g., Murakami et al, 2004Murakami et al, , 2011Sugimori et al, 2008Sugimori et al, , 2009Sugimori et al, , 2012 because of the low solubility of Fe(III) (e.g., Stefánsson, 2007). The remaining (unoxidized) portion of the dissolved Fe(II) flows out of the profile and/ or forms Fe(II)-bearing smectite that will remain in the weathering profile (Rye and Holland, 2000;Murakami et al, 2004) depending on weathering conditions.…”
Section: P O 2 Estimation Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2(a)). Using similar reasoning, Sugimori et al (2012) observed that some Fe(II) that were released from olivine were oxidized and precipitated as Fe(III) oxides/hydroxides. The line g & 3.8 can be ascribed to high-spin Fe(III) ions held in the inner-sphere in octahedral sites with rhombic symmetry (Guskos et al 2002;Carbone et al 2005;Mota et al 2009).…”
Section: X-ray Diffractometrymentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Potentially, this explains why non‐linear olivine dissolution rates are not typically reported. However, experiments by Sugimori, Kanzaki, and Murakami (), which specifically focused on whether or not Fe 2+ oxidation affects olivine dissolution rates, suggest that Fe 3+ oxide precipitates do not affect bulk dissolution rates. Potentially, the discrepancy between the results of this study and those of Sugimori et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%