New IMA CNMNC guidelines on combustion products from burning coal dumps
New IMA CNMNC guidelines on combustion products from burning coal dumpsNew IMA CNMNC guidelines on combustion products from burning coal dumpsJan Parafiniuk and Frédéric Hatert
Jan Parafiniukand Frédéric Hatert
Jan Parafiniuk
Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Petrology, University of
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Laboratoire de Minéralogie, Université de Liège B18,
4000 Liège, Belgium
Abstract
New IMA CNMNC guidelines were established for minerals
crystallizing on burning coal dumps. These phases are now acceptable as
minerals, if it can be proven that the fire responsible for the formation of
these phases is the result of natural events. In that case, these substances
have to be treated as normal new mineral species, and their complete
characterization has to be submitted to the CNMNC via the new mineral proposal
form. The authors are specifically asked, however, to give strong arguments
in the proposal clearly demonstrating the non-anthropogenic origin of the
burning process.
Received: 17 Oct 2019 – Accepted: 13 Nov 2019 – Published: 19 Feb 2020
1 Introduction
In the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC)
of the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) procedures and
guidelines on mineral nomenclature, Nickel and Grice (1998) state that
substances formed by combustion are not generally regarded as minerals. A
contentious issue is the occurrence of substances in the combustion products
of coal mines, waste dumps or peat bogs. The origin of a particular fire is
often difficult to determine, and therefore the possibility of human
intervention cannot be entirely eliminated, nor can the possibility of human artefacts contributing to the combustion products. It has therefore been decided that, as a general rule, products of combustion are not to be considered as minerals in the future.
The application of these simple and rather arbitrary guidelines in practice
creates many doubts and difficulties. In order to avoid constructing
artificial obstacles to the development of mineralogical studies, these
guidelines are discussed below, and new recommendations are established, in
agreement with the CNMNC (approved nomenclature proposal IMA 16-F).
2 Spontaneous burning of coal dumps
Burning coal dumps, located near collieries all around the world, are the
source for many combustion products, which are not regarded as mineral
species by the current CNMNC guidelines. However, the weathering of
bituminous coal remnants, deposited on coal dumps with barren rocks, often
leads to spontaneous combustion of coal, and therefore the fire thus
initiated is a purely natural phenomenon. This process of relatively rapid
oxidation of bituminous coal, leading to the heating up of coal piles stored
for long periods of time and occasionally causing their self-ignition, is
widely known. Products of such natural fires, if they form from
non-anthropogenic material, meet the general criteria for defining mineral
species and should be regarded as such.
On the other hand, initiation of fire in those environments can also be the
result of human activity, such as for example deposition of hot slag, accidents,
or human carelessness. In those conditions, combustion products are of an
artificial nature, and they should not be regarded as valid mineral species.
Undoubtedly, the crystallization of many phases on burning coal heaps,
studied by mineralogists in the USA, Russia, Germany, the Czech Republic,
Poland, and other countries, is a natural process. In these burning coal
heaps, the fire is usually located deep inside the heap, and it is therefore
hard to imagine human agency in igniting such a fire. Products of these
fires are assemblages of high-temperature phases, typical of the so-called
“combustion metamorphism”, as well as exhalative phases forming on the
cold dump surfaces from hot fire gases escaping the dump (Sokol et al., 2005;
Stratcher et al., 2010, 2012, 2014). Surface fires, which could sometimes be induced by
human activity, do not produce any sublimate mineral accumulation and are
generally of poor interest from a mineralogical point of view. Fire gases
are then dispersed into the atmosphere, and their condensation cannot
produce sublimate phases.
Certainly there may arise situations where it would be difficult to
unambiguously determine the origin of a particular fire. In those
situations, it is the responsibility of the authors of new mineral proposals
to clearly explain, with strong arguments, the reasons why these phases
should be considered non-anthropogenic.
3 Combustion products approved by the CNMNC
Other difficulties result from the literal application of the current CNMNC
guidelines. Indeed, several mineral species formed by combustion were
approved before the guidelines of Nickel and Grice (1998), such as for example
acetamide, CH3CONH2 (Srebrodol'skiy, 1975), and downeyite,
SeO2 (Finkelman and Mrose, 1977). It is not easy to accept a
situation where phases described before the introduction of the guidelines
are accepted as minerals, whereas similar phases found later are not valid
species. Moreover, the CNMNC recently accepted as minerals
ammoniomagnesiovoltaite,
(NH4)2(SO4)12⋅18H2O, which
crystallized on a burning coal dump (Szakáll et al., 2012), as well as
carlsonite, (NH4)5(SO4)6⋅7H2O, and huizingite-(Al),
(NH4)9Al3(SO4)8(OH)2⋅4H2O (Kampf et al.,
2016), which were produced from an oil shale fire.
It is also unfair that phases known from burning heaps may be described
under mineral names only after being found in the genetically similar
environment of volcanic exhalations or other environments, e.g. the Hatrurim
Formation. An example of such an unfortunate situation may be the case of
lesukite, steklite, or novograblenovite – phases known already from burning
coal dumps, which were recognized as minerals only after having been found in
volcanic exhalations. These minerals are formed in both environments in
analogous circumstances, and they even form bigger and better developed
aggregates on dumps than in volcanic exhalations, where they are rarely
found. A submission of the phase known from the burning coal dumps as
“redikortsevite” was rejected by CNMNC as being of anthropogenic origin, and the new
mineral novograblenovite was accepted 3 years later for the same phase
found in Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia (Okrugin et al., 2019). Today mineralogists
studying burning coal dumps are not motivated to submit proposals for new
minerals even though they are certain that they meet the necessary criteria
(Witzke, 1997).
Following the rules set by Nickel and Grice (1998) closely, phases
described from the Hatrurim Formation, which are natural products of
combustion (e.g. Sharygin et al., 2012; Galuskin et al., 2015a, b; Sokol et al., 2015), should
not be accepted as minerals either. This leads to an abnormal situation in
which the combustion metamorphism should be excluded from mineralogy, even
though this phenomenon is perfectly natural in character.
4 Anthropogenic origin of minerals from ore mine dumps and from museum samples?
A wider application of the current CNMNC approach would also result, for
example, in excluding some weathering phases (sulfates, arsenates, etc.)
which crystallize during the oxidation of sulfides on ore mine heaps. In
this case, indeed, a human influence on the oxidation process cannot be
excluded. As we know, sulfide oxidation is usually accelerated by bacterial
activity and it is difficult to prove that these bacteria have not been
introduced by humans.
It is clear that the colliery dumps are of anthropogenic origin because,
even if they consist of natural rock material, they have been created as a
result of human activity. However, excluding those dumps as mineral-forming
environments would have far-reaching consequences. Indeed, phases forming on
ore mine dumps, in tunnels and in mining excavations, in quarries, and even
on museum specimens, were also extracted from their natural environment by
human activities, and they would consequently be excluded as well from the
valid mineral species list. According to Hazen et al. (2017), these substances represent more than 75 mineral species.
Currently, secondary oxidation substances are accepted as valid minerals,
and that practice should be uphold for the sake of clarity. It should remain
as an uncontested rule that the phases accepted as minerals should form
spontaneously from non-artificial materials. As long as environments such as
burning dumps are not created intentionally in order to form new phases,
they should be considered places where minerals are formed. Wholesale
rejection of those environments does not solve the problem either. For
example, how to precisely distinguish phases formed in the weathering zones
of ore deposits but found on the dump, from phases which were formed on the
dump itself? There will always be situations where arbitrary criteria will
be needed, and establishing those criteria will remain a duty of the CNMNC.
5 New CNMNC guidelines for mineral substances formed on burning coal dumps
We hereby recommend treating the minerals formed by the combustion of the
dumps of the collieries as the newly formed minerals found in the dumps and
galleries of active or abandoned mines, thus admitting that the crystalline
phases found in burning coal dumps can be the subjects of proposals to be
presented to IMA CNMNC for approval. Similar to the formation of
newly formed minerals, these species may in fact occur in mines and coal
deposits that ignite by spontaneous combustion (oxidation reaction) or other
natural causes (lightning/thunderbolt). It has to be proven that the
burning (the combustion) took place naturally and was not due to human
intervention, even accidentally or inadvertently. If this is
not ascertainable, the combustion is considered anthropogenic and the
crystalline phases cannot be approved as valid mineral species. The authors
who present the new crystalline phases from burning coal dumps to IMA CNMNC
for the approval as minerals, must prove at the same time that the fire
occurred as a result of natural events (self-ignition or lightning) and,
beyond a shadow of doubt, was not of anthropogenic origin.
Author contributions
JP wrote the first version of the proposal, and FH handled the proposal as vice chairman of the CNMNC. FH then re-organized the proposal and submitted it to the journal.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the CNMNC members for their constructive comments on the proposal.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Sergey Krivovichev and reviewed by Marco Pasero and Ferdinando Bosi.
References
Finkelman, R. B. and Mrose, M. E.: Downeyite, the first verified natural
occurrence of SeO2, Am. Mineral., 62, 316–320, 1977.
Galuskin, E. V., Gfeller, F., Armbruster, T., Galuskina, I. O., Vapnik, Y.,
Dulski, M., Murashko, M., Dzierzanowski, P. Sharygin, V. V., Krivovivhev,
S. V., and Wirth, R.: Mayenite supergroup, part III: Fluormayenite,
Ca12Al14O32[□4F2], and fluorkyuygenite,
Ca12Al14O32[(H2O)4F2], two new minerals from pyrometamorphic rocks of the Hatrurim Complex, South Levant, Eur. J. Mineral., 27, 123–136, 2015a.
Galuskin, E. V., Gfeller, F., Galuskina, I. O., Pakhomova, A., Armbruster, T.,
Vapnik, Y., Wlodyka, R., Dzierzanowski, P., and Murashko, M.: New minerals
with a modular structure derived from hatrurite from the pyrometamorphic
rocks of the Hatrurim Complex, Part II, Zadovite,
BaCa6[(SiO4)(PO4)](PO4)2F and aradite, BaCa6[(SiO4)(VO4)](VO4)2F, from paralavas of the Hatrurim Basin, Negev Deseert, Israel, Mineral. Mag., 79, 1073–1087, 2015b.
Hazen, R. M., Grew, E. S., Origlieri, M. J., and Downs, R. T.: On the mineralogy
of the “Anthropocene Epoch”, Am. Mineral., 102, 595–611, 2017.
Kampf, A. R., Richards, R. P., Nash, B. P., Murowchick, J. B., and Rakovan, J. F.: Carlsonite, (NH4)5(SO4)6. 7H2O, and huizingite-(Al),
(NH4)9Al3(SO4)8(OH)2.4H2O, two new minerals from a natural fire in an oil-bearing shale near Milan, Ohio, Am. Mineral., 101, 2095–2107, 2016.
Nickel, E. H. and Grice, J. E.: The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral
Names: Procedure and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, 1998, Mineral.
Petrol., 64, 237–263, 1998.
Okrugin, V. M., Sharapar, S. S., Karimova, O. V., Yakubovich, O. V.,
Belakovskiy, D. I., Chikanov, N. V., Zolotarev, A. A., Gurzhiy, V. V.,
Zinovieva, N. G., Shirayaev, A. A., and Kartashov, P. M.: The new mineral
novograblenovite, (NH4,K)MgCl3⋅6H2O from the
Tolbachik volcano, Kamchatka, Rusia: mineral description and crystal
structure, Mineral. Mag., 83, 223–231, 2019.
Sharygin, V. V., Lazic, B., Armbruster, T., Murashko, M. N., Wirth, R.,
Galuskina, I. O., Galuskin, E. V., Vapnik, Y., Britvin, S. N., and Logvinova,
A. M.: Shulamitite Ca3TiFe3+AlO8 – a new perovskite-related
mineral from Hatrurim Basin, Israel, Eur. J. Mineral., 25, 97–111, 2012.
Sokol, E. V., Maksimova, N. W., Nigmatulina, E. N., Sharigin, V. V., and
Kalugin, W. M.: Combustion metamorphism, Publishing House of the SB RAS,
Novosibirsk, Russia, 2005.
Sokol, E. V., Seryotkin, Y. V., Kohk, S. N., Vapnik, Y., Nigmatulina, E. N.,
Goryainov, S. V., Belogub, E. V., and Sharygin, V. V.: Flamite,
(Ca,Na,K)2(Si,P)O4, a new mineral from ultrahigh-temperature
combustion metamorphic rocks, Hatrurim Basin, Negev desert, Israel, Mineral.
Mag., 79, 583–596, 2015.
Srebrodol'skiy, B. I.: Acetamide CH3CONH2 – A new mineral, Zap.
Vses. Mineral. Obsh., 104, 326–328, 1975 (in Russian).
Stratcher, G. B., Prakash, A., and Sokol, E. V.: Coal and peat fires: a global perspective, Volume 1: Coal-geology and combustion, Elsevier, 2010.
Stratcher, G. B., Prakash, A., and Sokol, E. V.: Coal and peat fires: a global perspective, Volume 2: Photographs and multimedia tours, Elsevier, 2012.
Stratcher, G. B., Prakash, A., and Sokol, E. V.: Coal and peat fires: a global perspective, Volume 3: Case studies – coal fires, Elsevier, 2014.
Szakáll, S., Sajó, I., Fehér, B., and Bigi, S.:
Ammoniomagnesiovoltaite, a new voltaite-related mineral species from
Pécs-Vascas, Hungary, Can. Mineral., 50, 65–72, 2012.
Witzke, T.: A new aluminium chloride mineral from Oelsnitz, Saxony, N. Jb.
Mineral. Mh., 301–308, 1997.