Structure and reactivity of the dolomite (104)–water interface: New insights into the dolomite problem

Strategizing Carbon-Neutral Mines: A Case for Pilot Projects

“…This is particularly important in the case of Mg 2+ because it is usually bound in an octahedrally-coordinated inner hydration shell of six water molecules, and the exchange rate of water molecules in this shell is much slower than other cations such as Ca 2+ [114][115][116][117]. An alternative precipitation mechanism involves intracellular precipitation of amorphous carbonates, as demonstrated by a recently discovered cyanobacterial species of the order Gloeobacterales [118].…”

In situ nanoscale observations of the dissolution of dolomite cleavage surfaces

“…Direct observations of mineral growth and dissolution by real-time nanometer-resolution imaging techniques such as in situ Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM), Lateral Force Microscopy (LFM) and Vertical Scanning Interferometry (VSI) have proven to be critical for determining the mechanism and kinetics of mineral dissolution, as they facilitate a precise and representative analysis of mineral-water interactions (see for example Lü ttge et al, 2003;Higgins and Hu, 2005;Ruiz-Agudo et al, 2009). Despite the existence of several macroscopic studies dealing with dolomite dissolution, very little work has been done towards the understanding of the reactivity of dolomite interfaces at the molecular scale (Lü ttge et al, 2003;Higgins and Hu, 2005;Hu et al, 2005;;Fenter et al, 2007;Higgins et al, 2007;Kaczmarek and Sibley, 2007;Ruiz-Agudo et al, 2011). Although these nanoscale resolution studies have provided new insights into the kinetics and mechanisms of dolomite dissolution there is still a significant lack of understanding of the molecular-scale reaction mechanisms of dolomite, particularly in comparison to other common carbonates such as calcite .…”

Review of Dolomite as Precursor of Geopolymer Materials

“…These differences are sufficient to cause the significant differences between the two minerals in geopolymerization as observed. The consistently lower compressive strength achieved by dolomite-containing systems is therefore most likely attributed to either a lower dissolved calcium level (calcite=53.5 while dolomite=33.4) or differences in surface properties of calcite and dolomite (the dolomite used here has a particle size roughly twice that of the calcite) [31,32], which may affect the binding of the minerals to geopolymer gel. Fig.2 shows the XRD diffractogram of metakaolin-dolomite geopolymers.…”