Next Article in Journal
An Input-Output Analysis of the Economic Role and Effects of the Mining Industry in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Pyrite Varieties at Pobeda Hydrothermal Fields, Mid-Atlantic Ridge 17°07′–17°08′ N: LA-ICP-MS Data Deciphering
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tellurium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity

by
Vladimir G. Krivovichev
1,*,
Sergey V. Krivovichev
1,2 and
Marina V. Charykova
1
1
Institute of Earth Sciences, St. Petersburg State University, University Emb. 7/9, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia
2
Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Fersmana 14, 184209 Apatity, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2020, 10(7), 623; https://doi.org/10.3390/min10070623
Submission received: 18 June 2020 / Revised: 3 July 2020 / Accepted: 10 July 2020 / Published: 12 July 2020

Abstract

:
The chemical diversity and complexity of tellurium minerals were analyzed using the concept of mineral systems and Shannon informational entropy. The study employed data for 176 Te mineral species known today. Tellurium minerals belong to six mineral systems in the range of one-to-six species-defining elements. For 176 tellurium minerals, only 36 chemical elements act as essential species-defining constituents. The numbers of minerals of main elements are calculated as follows (the number of mineral species is given in parentheses): O (89), H (48), Cu (48), Pb (43), Bi (31), S (29), Ag (20), Fe (20), Pd (16), Cl (13), and Zn (11). In accordance with their chemistry, all Te minerals are classified into five types of mineral systems: tellurium, oxides, tellurides and intermetalides, tellurites, and tellurates. A statistical analysis showed positive relationships between the chemical, structural, and crystallochemical complexities and the number of essential species-defining elements in a mineral. A positive statistically significant relationship between chemical and structural complexities was established. It is shown that oxygen-free and oxygen-bearing Te minerals differ sharply from each other in terms of chemical and structural complexity, with the first group of minerals being simpler than the second group. The oxygen-free Te minerals (tellurium, tellurides, and intermetallides) are formed under reducing conditions with the participation of hydrothermal solutions. The most structurally complex oxygen-bearing Te minerals originate either from chemical weathering and the oxidation of ore deposits or from volcanic exhalations (Nabokoite).

1. Introduction

Mineral ecology is a branch of mineralogy that investigates the factors that affect the distribution of minerals and the evolution of their complexity and diversity in space and time. The concept of mineral ecology appeared recently [1], although some of the ideas underlying the basic principles of this approach were formulated and discussed by Russian mineralogists [2,3,4,5,6]. In this paradigm, studies on the mineral evolution of individual chemical elements are of particular interest [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Among the tasks of mineral ecology is to study the distribution patterns of minerals in the Earth’s crust, their diversity and complexity, and their behavior in the human environment.
The emergence of new digital technologies for big-data analysis has revolutionized this field, leading to many important discoveries in the field of structural, chemical, and genetic relationships between various minerals, and it has formulated a new research direction based on these discoveries in mineralogy [17].
Yushkin [5] justified the expediency of formulating quantitative criteria for describing the state of the mineralogical kingdom at certain stages of its development over time, and Petrov [18], Bulkin, [19] and Yushkin [20] pointed out that the informational entropy approach can be used to measure the chemical complexity and diversity of mineralogical and geochemical systems. S. Krivovichev [21,22,23,24,25] proposed to use Shannon information entropy for the quantitative analysis of the structural complexities of minerals and outlined the main applications of this approach to understanding the structural evolution of minerals. It was also shown that the parameters of structural complexity are directly related to the configurational entropy of crystalline solids [26]. V. Krivovichev and Charykova [27,28] and Grew et al. [12] proposed an alternative approach based on the concept of mineral systems, which provides a useful tool for the systematization of mineral species (e.g., [27]) and allows one to order existing data into coherent structures that emphasize changes in the diversity of minerals and their composition over time. In addition, it was shown that using the concept of mineral systems, it is possible to compare different geological objects with each other in terms of their mineral diversity [29,30,31,32]. Shannon information entropy (chemical and structural complexities) and the concepts of mineral systems have also been applied to mineral evolution as a whole [33,34,35] and to the mineral ecology of selenium minerals, including their diversity and complexities [36,37,38].
The main goal of this work was to study the mineral ecology of Te minerals. The tellurium chemistry resembles that of sulfur and selenium due to the proximity of these elements in the periodic table. Similarly to S and Se, tellurium adopts four oxidation states: −2 (tellurides), 0 (native tellurium), +4 (tellurites), and +6 (tellurates). It is generally assumed that the crystal structures and reactivity of tellurium compounds can be extrapolated from S and Se. In reality, recent discoveries and well-founded observations have shown that this is not entirely true. This was shown in a special review of the fundamental concepts that are necessary to understand the unique features of Te chemistry, with an emphasis on the difference between sulfur and selenium [39]. Tellurium minerals are relatively rare, and, currently, only 176 mineral species are known [40] (Supplementary Table S1). In minerals, Te participates in various forms of intermetallic bonding in tellurides [41,42,43], e.g., in hessite and calaverite [44]. In O-bearing species, tellurium occurs as Te 4 + and/or Te 6 + cations. The geometric configuration of Te–O bonds around Te m + centres form [ Te m + O n ] m 2 n oxyanions [44,45]. Tetravalent Te has a stereochemically active lone pair of electrons and usually possesses an asymmetrically distorted coordination polyhedra, e.g., [ Te 4 + O 3 ] 2 , [ Te 4 + O 4 ] 4   , and [ Te 4 + O 5 ] 6 ,   sometimes with more than one coordination in the same structure [44,46]. On the contrary, Te 6 + absences a lone electron pair and occurs in minerals exclusively as [ Te 6 + O 6 ] 6 octahedra. However, natural tellurates are stable under oxidizing conditions and, unlike selenates, do not transform into tellurites, which explains the relatively large number of tellurates in nature. The structural diversity of O-bearing Te minerals is further discussed below.
It is interesting to compare the mineral and atomic abundances in the Earth’s crust for tellurium and selenium. Based on the data listed in [47], the crustal abundance by atoms for Te is less than that for Se by approximately 80 times (0.00016 and 0.013 ppm, respectively). However, the number of Te minerals exceeds that of selenium by 1.4 times (176 and 123, respectively). Thus, with a general positive trend of an increasing number of mineral species of the same element with an increase in its crustal abundance by atoms [45], tellurium differs from selenium by an anomalous mineral diversity. This difference between the atomic and mineral abundances of Te and Se is due to several reasons. Under endogenic conditions, tellurium, in contrast to selenium, is not disseminated in the sulfides and selenides and tends to form its own mineral species [41]. In addition, a certain contribution to the increase in tellurium minerals is also made by its ability to form intermetallic compounds under reducing conditions (e.g., bilibinskite, bezsmertnovite, and bogdanovite) [41].
The different behaviors of tellurium and selenium are manifested to an even greater extent by the comparison of the number of oxygen-bearing minerals (Se, 34; Te, 86) that are stable under oxidizing conditions. The latter is due to the uncommon diversity of the crystal structures of oxygen-bearing tellurium compounds [48,49,50], namely: the ability of Te O n polyhedra to polymerize, forming anionic groups in the form of oligomers, chains, layers, and complex three-dimensional frameworks. Te6+ forms [ Te 6 + O 6 ] 6 octahedra only, whereas Te 4 + has a lone electron pair and can form several types of asymmetrical [ Te 4 + O n ] polyhedra [51].
Earlier, we noted [52] a substantial difference of sulfur and selenium behavior in the near-surface oxidizing settings: Sulfur here is encountered either in a native state or in the sulfate form (oxidation state +6), very rarely in sulfite form (oxidation state +4). Conversely, selenium is encountered more often as selenites (oxidation state +4), while selenates (oxidation state +6) are quite rare with only three known mineral species. Tellurium minerals, as mentioned above, exist under oxidizing conditions as both tellurites and tellurates. Thus, selenium differs from sulfur and tellurium, which are in the VI group of the periodic table, by a diminished stability of natural compounds in the highest oxidation state. It is known from the chemical literature that this feature is generally characteristic for the chemical elements directly following elements in the periodic table with filled sublevels of a certain type (p, d, and f). This category includes, in particular, p elements of period IV (As, Se, Br, etc.)—in their electron configurations, the inner 3d10 electron shell first appears, which is absent in the elements of the preceding periods [53,54].
Previously, we have characterized selenium minerals and described their chemical and structural complexities [36,37,38]. The aim of this paper was to characterize Te minerals and to determine relations between their chemical, structural, and crystallochemical complexities, as well as to apply the data obtained to the understanding of Te mineral complexity and diversity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mineral Systems

There are only 176 Te mineral species known to date ([39], mindat.org). It has been shown previously [27,28] that any mineral can be assigned to a mineral system according to species-defining elements in its chemical formula. These species-defining elements were chosen according to the IMA (International Mineralogical Association) rules for the definition of a new mineral species [55,56,57,58,59,60], taking into account the discussion of some problems in Russian literature [61].
The chemical formulae of Te minerals used to compose mineral systems are taken from constantly updated lists published by Marco Pasero [39] at the website of Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature, and Classification IMA (CNMNC IMA). We identified the mineral system for each tellurium mineral of the set of species-defining elements; e.g., for the above-mentioned goldfieldite, this is the three-component system STeCu. When attributing a mineral to some system, we only took the species-defining elements into account, ignoring all other isomorphous components, even geochemically important ones [27,28]. A chemical system is identified in accordance with the thermochemical sequence of chemical elements (Figure 1) [27]. For example, yecoraite, Fe3+3Bi5O9(Te4+O3)(Te6+O4)2·9H2O, belongs to the system OHTeBiFe, while tsnigriite, Ag9SbTe3S3, belongs to the system STeSbAg.

2.2. Chemical, Structural and Crystallochemical Complexities

To quantify the chemical, structural and crystallochemical complexities of Te minerals, a total of pieces of 176 chemical composition data, and 117 data sets on crystal structure were reviewed. The level of structural complexity per atom (strIG) and per unit cell (strIG,total) [21,22,23,24,25,26] were calculated using the following equations [36]:
I G str = i = 1 k p i   log 2   p i   ( bits / atom )
I G , total str = v i = 1 k p i   log 2   p i   ( bits / cell )
where k is the number of different crystallographic orbits (Wyckoff sites) in the structure and pi is the random choice probability for an atom from the ith crystallographic orbit, that is:
pi = mi/v
where mi is a multiplicity of a crystallographic orbit (i.e., the number of atoms of a specific Wyckoff site in the reduced unit cell) and v is the total number of atoms in the reduced unit cell.
For several hydrated crystal structures of Te minerals, the proton positions have not been determined. In these cases, the H-correction procedure has been applied [62]. All structure complexity calculations have been performed by means of the TOPOS program package [63].
The chemical complexities of tellurium minerals were evaluated by the amount of chemical information per atom (chemIG) and per formula unit, f.u. (chemIG,total) [35,36]. The chemical information was calculated as follows [36]:
I G chem = i = 1 k p i   log 2   p i   ( bits / atom )
I G , total chem = e i = 1 k p i   log 2   p i   ( bits / cell )
where k is the number of species-defining chemical elements and pi is the random choice probability for an atom of the ith element, that is:
pi = ci/e
where e is the total number of species-defining elements in the chemical formula:
e = i = 1 k c i  
For the calculations of chemical complexities, the ideal chemical formulas of minerals were used (see also [27,28]).
Additionally, we calculated the crystal chemical complexities (chem+strIG and chem+strIG,total) as the sum of chemical and structural complexities:
chem+strIG = chemIG + strIG (bits/atom)
chem+strIG,total = chemIG,total + strIG,total (bits/f.u., cell)

3. Results

3.1. Classification of Tellurium Minerals

Our approach allowed us to systematize mineral species by their chemical composition and to organize the available data in such a way that they complemented traditional classification schemes [61,64,65]. A certain advantage of our approach to mineral classification is its formal and unambiguous nature, although we are aware that some significant information was lost here.
As in selenium minerals classification [36], tellurium minerals are divided into five groups: native tellurium, oxides, tellurides and intermetallides, tellurites, and tellurates (anhydrous, hydrous, and with additional anions). In each of these groups, minerals can be classified by mineral systems (or the minimum number of species-forming elements). In accordance with this value, six Te mineral systems can be distinguished, with them containing from one to six species-defining elements. Native tellurium belongs to the one-component mineral system, while minerals consisting of two elements (altaite, kotulskite, hessite, etc.) belong to two-component systems, minerals containing three elements (petzite, monchetundraite, sopcheite, etc.) belong to three-component systems, etc. Our approach allowed us to distinguish the formulae of “chemically pure” minerals that contain only species-defining elements [27,28,33,34]. In this system, each mineral occupies a unique position determined by the number of species-defining elements. This also facilitates the use of digital technologies for organizing, storing, and retrieving thermodynamic data for a particular mineral [36,37,38]. The classification of the Te mineral systems is given in Supplementary Table S2.

3.2. Distribution of Te Minerals in Accordance with the Number of Species-Defining Elements

Tellurium minerals formed mainly in hydrothermal deposits (e.g., Bonanza Mining District, Saguache County, CO, USA [66]; Moctezuma mines, Mexico [67,68]; Alekseevskoye Mine, Sakha Republic, Russia [69]; Aginskoe deposit and Kamchatka Oblast’, Russia [70,71]), the oxidation zones of ore mineral deposits (e.g., Otto Mountain, USA [49,50]; and Tombstone, AZ, USA [72]) and very rare as products of volcanic fumaroles [73]. Tellurides are also found in magmatic Cu–Ni–PGM (platinum-group-metal) sulfide deposits (e.g., Noril’sk [74] and Kola Peninsula [75] in Russia; Bushveld in South Africa [76]; and Sudbury in Canada [77]), where they have a hydrothermal origin.
Similarly to the selenium minerals [36,37,38], we divided tellurium minerals into two groups based on their mineral composition: oxygen-free (native tellurium, tellurium intermetallides, and tellurides; 86 minerals in total) and oxygen-bearing (tellurium oxides, tellurites, and tellurates; 89 minerals, in total). Oxygen-free tellurium minerals are quite well studied and widespread in endogenic deposits of various genetic types. In rare sulfosalts, tellurium is a crystal chemical analog of As (e.g., in goldfieldite Cu10(TeS3)4S, a mineral of the tetrahedrite group; see [78,79]). In near-surface settings, tellurium (similarly to chalcophile elements) is easily oxidized, forming oxides and oxysalts when it is in an oxidation state of +4 and/or +6.
The data are given in Table 1 and Figure 2. The arithmetic mean of species-defining elements in O-free Te minerals was significantly lower ( X ¯ = 2.8 ;   σ X ¯ = 0.09 ) than in O-bearing minerals ( X ¯ = 4.4 ;   σ X ¯ = 0.11 ). According to Student’s test, the differences in the number of species-forming elements for both groups of Te minerals were statistically significant (the confidence level is more than 99.99%)
The distribution of all tellurium minerals versus the mineral systems (number of species-defining elements), N, was found to be close to normal (Figure 2a). The largest number of minerals was found to consist of two and three species-defining elements (36 and 58 minerals, respectively). It is worthy to note that all minerals containing six species-defining elements were found to be O-bearing. The distributions of Te minerals between O-free and O-bearing groups depending on the number of species-defining elements, N, were also normal (Table 1 and Figure 2b). The number of species-forming elements in minerals ranged from one to six, and the maximum number of minerals was found to be formed by two and three species-forming elements.
For tellurium minerals, 36 chemical elements were found to be species-defining elements. These elements were divided into three groups: (1) Elements that occur only in O-free minerals, (2) elements that occur in O-free and O-bearing minerals, and (3) elements that occur only in O-bearing tellurium minerals (Table 2).
The difference between chemical compositions of O-free and O-bearing tellurium minerals is more clearly illustrated by the diagram shown in Figure 3.

3.3. Chemical, Structural and Crystallochemical Complexities of Tellurium Minerals

According to Equations (1)–(9), the complexity indicators of tellurium minerals belonging to different mineral systems (or the number (N) of different species-defining chemical elements) were calculated. The average chemical, structural, and crystal–chemical complexities of minerals and associated statistical parameters are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4. The dependencies of different complexities from N were approximated by the following functions (the corresponding curves are plotted in Figure 3):
chemIG = 1.900 − 3.743 × exp(−N/1.472)]   (R2 = 0.997)
strIG = 3.580 − 7.239 × exp(−N/1.397)    (R2 = 0.979)
chemIG,total = 1.622 × exp(N/1.459)     (R2 = 0.999)
strIG,total = −54.512 + 53.873 × N      (R2 = 0.985)
chem+strIG = 5.520 − 11.089 × exp(−N/1.396)] (R2 = 0.979)
chem+strIG,total = −80.254 + 69.784 × N    (R2 = 0.980)
The obtained data indicated the presence of a statistically significant (a confidence level of more than 99%) and positive relationship between the chemical, structural, and crystallochemical (chemical + structural) complexities of tellurium minerals and the number of species-defining chemical elements in their mineral formula.
To compare the complexity of tellurium minerals formed in various geochemical environments, they were divided into two groups: (1) oxygen-free minerals (tellurides and native tellurium) formed in endogenous conditions and (2) oxygen-bearing (oxides and oxysalts) formed in exogenous conditions as a result of chemical weathering and fumarolic activity. A statistical analysis showed (Table 4) that the average arithmetic values of structural, chemical, and crystallochemical complexities for O-free tellurium minerals are significantly lower than for O-bearing species. The Student’s test [80] showed that the differences are statistically significant (see Table 4).

4. Conclusions

The obtained statistical correlations between the complexities (chem, str, and str + chem) of tellurium minerals showed that the minerals become more complex during the chemical weathering of primary ores. These indicators regularly and statistically significantly increase from the endogenic to exogenic associations, and they reflect the character and direction of mineral matter’s variations in the evolution of mineral systems and can be used when analyzing their evolutionary patterns. This is in good agreement with the general trend of chemical differentiation of matter with the evolution of the Earth, which was pointed out in [1,2,3,4,5], where general patterns in the evolution of mineral species on Earth were established, including the complexity of the composition, structure, and diversity of minerals over geological time. In our case, this trend manifested itself as a complexity of later mineral assemblages compared to the primary ones. In addition, the average number of chemical elements in a mineral increases from primary to secondary minerals, which is consistent with the results of the information considerations presented here. On the example of selenium minerals [36], it was shown that the change in the complexity of minerals follows the same trend: more complex minerals occur over time, and simple ones are replaced. This trend of O-bearing minerals being more complex now seems an empirical rule that applies for many elements. That was found also for cobalt minerals [13].
Current work has shown that this conclusion is also true for the minerals of other elements, since the increase in their complexity over time reflects the general trend in the evolution of natural matter. Chemical differentiation leads to an increase in the complexity and diversity of tellurium minerals, which favor the formation of local concentrations of some rare elements and the creation of new geochemical environments.
In conclusion, let us note that our approach makes it possible to move from comparing the tellurium minerals of primary and secondary genesis from a qualitative to a quantitative basis. This gives a more vivid representation of the studied objects and can also reveal the ability of individual chemical elements to form their own mineral species.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/10/7/623/s1, Table S1: Tellurium minerals: Number of species-defining’s elements (N) chemical formula, and number of localities (NL); Table S2: Classification of mineral systems of tellurium minerals according to number of species-defining elements (N) an chemical composition.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.G.K. and S.V.K.; methodology, V.G.K. and S.V.K.; investigation, V.G.K., S.V.K. and M.V.C.; writing—original draft preparation, V.G.K.; writing—review and editing, V.G.K., S.V.K. and M.V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The following funding is acknowledged: Russian Science Foundation (award No. 19-17-00038 to S.V.K.).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and insightful remarks.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hazen, R.M.; Grew, E.S.; Downs, R.T.; Golden, J.; Hystad, G. Mineral ecology: Chance and necessity in the mineral diversity of terrestrial planets. Can. Mineral. 2015, 53, 295–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhabin, A.G. Is there evolution of mineral species on Earth? Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1979, 247, 199–202. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhabin, A.G. Problems of the mineral phylogeny. In New Ideas in Genetic Mineralogy; Nauka: Leningrad, Russia, 1983; pp. 7–12. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  4. Yushkin, N.P. Evolutionary ideas in modern mineralogy. Zap. Vsesoyuznogo Mineral. Obs. 1982, 111, 432–442. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  5. Yushkin, N.P. (Ed.) Minerals, Mineral Formation, Structure, Diversity and Evolution of the Mineral World, the Role of Minerals in the Origin of Life, Biomineral Interactions; Intitute of Geology of Komi Science Centre RAS: Syktyvkar, Russia, 2008; pp. 455–459. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  6. Krivovichev, S.V. Complexity, diversity and evolution of the mineral world: From Vernadsky to the present day. In Vernadsky and XXI Century: Geosphere, Biosphere, Noosphere and Symmetry; St. Ivan Rilski: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013; pp. 26–32. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  7. Hazen, R.M.; Ewing, R.C.; Sverjensky, D.A. Evolution of uranium and thorium minerals. Am. Mineral. 2009, 94, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hazen, R.M.; Golden, J.; Downs, R.T.; Hystad, G.; Grew, E.S.; Azzolini, D.; Sverjensky, D.A. Mercury (Hg) mineral evolution: A mineralogical record of supercontinental assembly, changing ocean geochemistry, and the emerging terrestrial biosphere. Am. Mineral. 2012, 97, 1013–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hazen, R.M.; Hummer, D.R.; Hystad, G.; Downs, R.T.; Golden, J.J. Carbon mineral ecology: Predicting the undiscovered minerals of carbon. Am. Mineral. 2016, 101, 889–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grew, E.S.; Hazen, R.M. Beryllium mineral evolution. Am. Mineral. 2014, 99, 999–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grew, E.S.; Hystad, G.; Hazen, R.M.; Krivovichev, S.V.; Gorelova, L.A. How many boron minerals occur in Earth’s upper crust? Am. Mineral. 2017, 102, 1573–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grew, E.S.; Krivovichev, S.V.; Hazen, R.M.; Hystad, G. Evolution of structural complexity in boron minerals. Can. Mineral. 2016, 54, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hazen, R.M.; Hystad, G.; Golden, J.J.; Hummer, D.R.; Liu, C.; Downs, R.T.; Morrison, S.M.; Grew, E.S. Cobalt mineral ecology. Am. Mineral. 2017, 102, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, C.; Hystad, G.; Golden, J.J.; Hummer, D.R.; Downs, R.T.; Morrison, S.M.; Ralph, J.P.; Hazen, R.M. Chromium mineral ecology. Am. Mineral. 2017, 102, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, C.; Eleish, A.; Hystad, G.; Golden, J.J.; Downs, R.T.; Morrison, S.M.; Hummer, D.R.; Ralph, J.P.; Fox, P.; Hazen, R.M. Analysis and visualization of vanadium mineral diversity and distribution. Am. Mineral. 2018, 103, 1080–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Grew, E.S.; Hystad, G.; Toapanta, M.P.; Eleish, A.; Ostroverkhova, A.; Golden, J.; Hazen, R.M. Lithium mineral evolution and ecology: Comparison with boron and beryllium. Eur. J. Mineral. 2019, 31, 755–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hazen, R.M.; Downs, R.T.; Eleish, A.; Fox, P.; Gagné, O.C.; Golden, J.J.; Grew, E.S.; Hummer, D.R.; Hystad, G.; Krivovichev, S.V.; et al. Data-Driven Discovery in Mineralogy: Recent Advances in Data Resources, Analysis, and Visualization. Engineering 2019, 5, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Petrov, T.G. On the measure of complexity of geochemical systems from the viewpoint of information theory. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1970, 191, 924–926. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  19. Bulkin, G.A. Complexity of geochemical systems and their equilibrium. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1972, 204, 956–959. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  20. Yushkin, N.P. Theory and Methods of Mineralogy; Nauka: Leningrad, Russia, 1977. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  21. Krivovichev, S.V. Topological complexity of crystal structures: Quantitative approach. Acta Crystallogr. 2012, 68, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Krivovichev, S.V. Structural complexity of minerals: Information storage and processing in the mineral world. Mineral. Mag. 2013, 77, 275–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Krivovichev, S.V. Which inorganic structures are the most complex? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Krivovichev, S.V. Structural complexity of minerals and mineral parageneses: Information and its evolution in the mineral world. In Highlights in Mineralogical Crystallography; Danisi, R., Armbruster, T., Eds.; Walter de Gruyter GmbH: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 31–73. [Google Scholar]
  25. Krivovichev, S.V. Ladders of information: What contributes to the structural complexity in inorganic crystals. Z. Krist.-Cryst. Mater. 2018, 233, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Krivovichev, S.V. Structural complexity and configurational entropy of crystalline solids. Acta Crystallogr. 2016, 72, 274–276. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Classification of Mineral Systems; St. Petersburg University Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2013; 196p. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  28. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Number of Minerals of Various Chemical elements: Statistics 2012 (a New Approach to an Old Problem). Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2013, 142, 36–42, (In Russian; English translation: Geol. Ore Depos. 2014, 56, 553–559). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Mineral Systems, Their Types, and Distribution in Nature. I.; Khibiny, Lovozero, and the Mont Saint-Hilaire. Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2015, 144, 1–12, (In Russian; English translation: Geol. Ore Depos. 2016, 58, 551–558). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Mineral and Physicochemical Systems of Evaporites: Geochemical and Thermodynamic Aspects. Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2016, 145, 30–43, (In Russian; English translation: Geol. Ore Depos. 2017, 59, 575–583). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Mineral Systems, Their Types, and Distribution in Nature: 2. Products of Contemporary Fumarole Activity at Tolbachik Volcano (Russia) and Vulcano (Italy). Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2017, 146, 15–28, (In Russian; English translation: Geol. Ore Depos. 2017, 59, 677–686). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Mineral Systems, Their Types, and Distribution in Nature: 3. Otto Mountain (USA) and Dragon (Bolivia) Deposits. Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2018, 147, 14–27, (In Russian; English translation: Geol. Ore Depos. 2019, 61, 589–597). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V.; Krivovichev, S.V. The concept of mineral systems and its application to the study of mineral diversity and evolution. Eur. J. Mineral. 2018, 30, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V.; Krivovichev, S.V. Mineral systems based on the number of species-defining chemical elements in minerals: Their diversity, complexity, distribution and mineral evolution of Earth’s crust—A review. Zap. Ross. Mineral. Obs. 2020, 149, 1–22. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  35. Krivovichev, S.V.; Krivovichev, V.G.; Hazen, R.M. Structural and chemical complexity of minerals: Correlations and time evolution. Eur. J. Mineral. 2018, 30, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Krivovichev, V.G.; Krivovichev, S.V.; Charykova, M.V. Selenium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity. Minerals 2019, 9, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Charykova, M.V.; Krivovichev, V.G. Mineral systems and the thermodynamics of selenites and selenates in the oxidation zone of sulfide ores—A review. Mineral. Petrol. 2017, 111, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V.; Vishnevsky, A.V. The thermodynamics of selenium minerals in near-surface environments. Minerals 2017, 7, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Chivers, T.; Laitinen, R. Tellurium: A maverick among the chalcogens. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 1725–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pasero, M. The New IMA List of Minerals. 2020. Available online: http://ima-cnmnc.nrm.se/imalist.htm (accessed on 15 March 2020).
  41. Ivanov, V.V.; Yushko-Zakharova, O.E. Tellurium, Geologicheskii Spravochnik po Siderofil’nym i Khalkofil’nym Elementam; (Geological Reference Book of Chalcophile and Siderophile Elements); Nedra: Moscow, Russia, 1989; pp. 353–424. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Bindi, L.; Biagioni, C. A crystallographic excursion in the extraordinary world of minerals: The case of Cu- and Ag-rich sulfosalts. Acta Crystallogr. 2018, 74, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Helmy, H.M.; Ballhaus, C.; Berndt, J.; Bockrath, C. Wohlgemuth-Ueberwasser, C. Formation of Pt, Pd and Ni tellurides: Experiments in sulfide–telluride systems. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 2007, 153, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Missen, O.P.; Rama, R.; Mills, S.J.; Etschmanna, B.; Reith, F.; Shuster, J.; Smithe, D.J.; Bruggera, J. Love is in the Earth: A review of tellurium (bio)geochemistry in surface environments. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 204, 103150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Christy, A.G.; Mills, S.J.; Kampf, A.R.; Housley, R.M.; Thorne, B.; Marty, J. The relationship between mineral composition, crystal structure and paragenetic sequence: The case of secondary Te mineralization at the Bird Nest drift, Otto Mountain, California, USA. Mineral. Mag. 2016, 80, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Mills, S.J.; Christy, A.G. Revised values of the bond-valence parameters for TeIV-O, TeVI-O and TeIV-Cl. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 2013, 69, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Christy, A.G. Anomalous mineralogical diversity in the Periodic Table, and its causes. Mineral. Mag. 2015, 79, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Housley, R.M.; Kampf, A.R.; Mills, S.J.; Marty, J.; Thorne, B. The remarkable occurrence of rare secondary minerals at Otto Mountain near Baker, California—Including seven new species. Rocks. Miner. 2011, 86, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Christy, A.G.; Mills, S.J.; Kampf, A.R. A review of the structural architecture of tellurium oxycompounds. Mineral. Mag. 2016, 80, 415–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hazen, R.M.; Hystad, G.; Downs, R.T.; Golden, J.J.; Pires, A.J.; Grew, E.S. Earth’s “missing” minerals. Am. Mineral. 2015, 100, 2344–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Christy, A.G.; Mills, S.J. Effect of lone-pair stereoactivity on polyhedral volume and structural flexibility: Application to TeIVO6 octahedra. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 2013, 69, 446–456. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krivovichev, V.G.; Charykova, M.V. Termodinamika Mineral’nykh Ravnovesii v Sistemakh s Toksichnymi Komponentami. I. Selen; (Thermodynamics of Mineral Equilibria in Systems with Toxic Components. I. Selenium); St. Petersburg University Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2006; 132p. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  53. Huheey, J.E. Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1983; 936p. [Google Scholar]
  54. Korolkov, D.V.; Skorobogatov, G.A. Theoretical Chemistry; St. Petersburg University Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2004; 655р. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  55. Mandarino, J.A.; Nickel, E.H.; Cesbron, F. Rules of procedure of the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names, International Mineralogical Association. Can. Mineral. 1984, 22, 367–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nickel, E.H. The definition of a mineral. Can. Miner. 1995, 33, 689–690. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nickel, E.H.; Grice, J.D. The IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names: Procedures and Guidelines on Mineral Nomenclature. Can. Miner. 1998, 36, 91–926. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nickel, E.H.; Mandarino, J.A. Procedures involving the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names and guidelines on mineral nomenclature. Am. Miner. 1987, 72, 1031–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Hawthorne, F.C. The use of end-member charge-arrangements in defining new mineral species and heterovalent substitutions in complex minerals. Can. Mineral. 2002, 40, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hatert, F.; Burke, E.A.J. The IMA-CNMNC dominant-constituent rule revised and extended. Can. Mineral. 2008, 46, 717–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Bulakh, A.G.; Zolotarev, A.A.; Krivovichev, V.G. Structures, Isomorphism, Formulae, Classification of Minerals; St. Petersburg University Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2014; 133p. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  62. Pankova, Y.A.; Gorelova, L.A.; Krivovichev, S.V.; Pekov, I.V. The crystal structure of ginorite, Ca2[B14O20(OH)6](H2O)5, and the analysis of dimensional reduction and structural complexity in the CaO-B2O3-H2O system. Eur. J. Mineral. 2018, 30, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Blatov, V.A.; Shevchenko, A.P.; Proserpio, D.M. Applied topological analysis of crystal structures with the program package ToposPro. Cryst. Growth Des. 2014, 14, 3576–3586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mills, S.J.; Hatert, F.; Nickel, E.H.; Ferraris, G. The standardisation of mineral group hierarchies: Application to recent nomenclature proposals. Eur. J. Mineral. 2009, 21, 1073–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Strunz, H.; Nickel, E.H. Strunz Mineralogical Tables, 9th ed.; Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Berlin/Stuttgart, Germany, 2001; 870p. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bindi, L.; Cipriani, C. Mazzettiite, Ag3HgPbSbTe5, a new mineral species from Findley Gulch, Saguache County, Colorado, USA. Can. Mineral. 2004, 42, 1739–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Stanley, C.J.; Criddle, A.J.; Chisholm, J.E. Benleonardite, a new mineral from the Bambolla mine, Moctezuma, Sonora, Mexico. Mineral. Mag. 1986, 50, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Williams, S.A. Cuzticite and eztlite, two new tellurium minerals from Moctezuma, Mexico. Mineral. Mag. 1982, 46, 257–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lipovetskii, A.G.; Borodaev, Y.S.; Zav’yalov, E.N. Aleksite, PbBi2Te2S2, a new mineral. Zap. Vsesoyuznogo Mineral. Obs. 1978, 107, 315–321. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  70. Spiridonov, E.M.; Chvileva, T.N. Bezsmertnovite Au4Cu(Te,Pb); a new mineral from the zone of oxidation of deposits of the Far East. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1979, 249, 185–189. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  71. Spiridonov, E.M.; Bezsmertnaya, M.S.; Chileva, T.N.; Bezsmertny, V.V. Bilibinskite, Au3Cu2PbTe2, a new mineral of gold-telluride deposits. Zap. Vsesoyuznogo Mineral. Obs. 1978, 107, 310–315. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tait, K.T.; Dicecco, V.; Ball, N.A.; Hawthorne, F.C.; Kampf, A.R. Backite, Pb2Al(TeO6)Cl, a new tellurate mineral from the Grand Central mine, Tombstone Hills, Cochise County, Arizona: Description and crystal structure. Can. Mineral. 2015, 52, 935–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Popova, V.I.; Popov, V.A.; Rudashevskiy, N.S.; Glavatskikh, S.F.; Polyakov, V.O.; Bushmakin, A.F. Nabokoite Cu7TeO4(SO4)5·KCl and atlasovite Cu6Fe3+Bi3+O4(SO4)5·KCl. New minerals of volcanic exhalations. Zap. Vsesoyuznogo Mineral. Obs. 1987, 116, 358–367. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kovalenker, V.A.; Begizov, V.D.; Evstigneeva, T.L.; Troneva, N.V.; Ryabikin, V.A. Maslovite, PtBiTe: A new mineral from the October copper-nickel deposit. Geol. Rudn. Mestorozhdenii 1979, 21, 94–104. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  75. Subbotin, V.V.; Vymazalová, A.; Laufek, F.; Savchenko, Y.E.; Stanley, C.J.; Gabov, D.A.; Plášil, J. Mitrofanovite, Pt3Te4, a new mineral from the East Chuarvy deposit, Fedorovo-Pana intrusion, Kola Peninsula, Russia. Mineral. Mag. 2019, 83, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kingston, G.A. The occurrence of platinoid bismuthotellurides in the Merensky Reef at Rustenburg platinum mine in the western Bushveld. Mineral. Mag. 1966, 35, 815–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hawley, J.E.; Berry, L.G. Michenerite and froodite, palladium bismuthide minerals [Ontario]. Can. Mineral. 1958, 6, 200–209. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kalbskopf, R. Synthese und kristallstruktur von Cu12–xTe4S13, dem tellur-endglied der fahlerze. Tscherm. Miner. Petrogr. Mitt. 1974, 21, 1–10. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Makovicky, E.; Karup-Moller, S. Exploratory studies of substitutions in the tetrahedrite/tennantite—Goldfieldite solid solution. Can. Mineral. 2017, 55, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wall, F.J. Statistical Data Analysis Handbook; McGraw-Hill Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1986; 546p. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Thermochemical sequence of chemical elements. Arrows indicate the order of chemical elements used to identify a mineral system.
Figure 1. Thermochemical sequence of chemical elements. Arrows indicate the order of chemical elements used to identify a mineral system.
Minerals 10 00623 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of Te minerals among mineral systems based on the number of the species-defining elements: (a) All minerals, (b) O-free (1, solid line), and O-bearing (2, dashed line) minerals.
Figure 2. Distribution of Te minerals among mineral systems based on the number of the species-defining elements: (a) All minerals, (b) O-free (1, solid line), and O-bearing (2, dashed line) minerals.
Minerals 10 00623 g002
Figure 3. The species-defining elements (N) of three groups of Te minerals and the concentration coefficient Ki = O-free/O-bearing (see Table 2).
Figure 3. The species-defining elements (N) of three groups of Te minerals and the concentration coefficient Ki = O-free/O-bearing (see Table 2).
Minerals 10 00623 g003
Figure 4. Dependence of chemical, structural, and crystal–chemical complexities of tellurium minerals on the number of species-defining chemical elements (N). The complexity per atom (a) and per unit cell or per formula unit (b).
Figure 4. Dependence of chemical, structural, and crystal–chemical complexities of tellurium minerals on the number of species-defining chemical elements (N). The complexity per atom (a) and per unit cell or per formula unit (b).
Minerals 10 00623 g004
Table 1. The mineral systems (N) of Te minerals.
Table 1. The mineral systems (N) of Te minerals.
NAll MineralsO-FreeO-Bearing
mipimipimipi
110.611.2--
23318.73135.622.3
36134.74248.31921.3
43529.989.22730.3
53017.055.72528.1
6169.1--1618.0
Total176100.087100.089100.0
Note: N—the mineral systems (the number of the species-defining elements); m—number of minerals; p i = ( m i / i = 1 6 m i ) · 100 probability, %.
Table 2. The species-defining elements of Te minerals separated into three groups: (1) All minerals, (2) O-free, and (3) O-bearing minerals.
Table 2. The species-defining elements of Te minerals separated into three groups: (1) All minerals, (2) O-free, and (3) O-bearing minerals.
GroupsElementsAllO-FreeO-Bearing* Ki
1Ag2020--
Pd1616--
Au1313--
Se88--
Ir, Pt33, each--
Sn22--
Co, Ge, Tl11--
2Sb8717.00
Ni7616.00
Hg5414.00
Bi312473.43
S2918111.64
As6331.00
Pb4314290.48
Cu4813330.39
Cl132110.18
Fe202180.11
3O89-89-
H48-48-
Zn11-11-
Ca8-8-
Mg7-7-
Mn6-6-
U4-4-
C4-4-
Al2-2-
K2-2-
P, Cr, Mo, Si, Ti, V, W1-1, each-
* Ki = O-free/O-bearing.
Table 3. Chemical, structural, and crystallochemical (chem + str) complexities of tellurium minerals according to the number of species-defining chemical elements (N) *.
Table 3. Chemical, structural, and crystallochemical (chem + str) complexities of tellurium minerals according to the number of species-defining chemical elements (N) *.
NmchemIGmistrIGchem+strIG
[bits/atom][bits/f.u.][bits/atom][bits/cell][bits/atom][bits/f.u.cell]
X ¯ σ X ¯ X ¯ σ X ¯ X ¯ σ X ¯ X ¯ σ X ¯ X ¯ σ X ¯ X ¯ σ X ¯
110 0 10 0
2360.960.027.01.67292.070.2472.125.93.30.382.027.9
3581.380.0212.81.17372.440.1681.213.33.80.194.913.9
4351.630.0326.22.68183.100.21168.334.14.70.2190.435.4
5291.790.0350.16.62213.570.18199.436.45.30.2245.241.6
6161.900.04101.818.77113.580.22283.341.25.50.2371.539.4
* mi = number of minerals taken into account; X ¯ = arithmetic mean; σ X ¯ = standard error of arithmetic mean.
Table 4. Chemical, structural, and crystallochemical complexities of two groups (O-free and O-bearing) tellurium minerals *.
Table 4. Chemical, structural, and crystallochemical complexities of two groups (O-free and O-bearing) tellurium minerals *.
ComplexitiesO-freeO-bearingStudent’s t-test
mi X ¯ σ X ¯ mi X ¯ σ X ¯ tp
chemIG [bits/atom]871.280.05891.620.03−6.92<0.0001
strIG [bits/atom]562.190.16633.200.12−5.10<0.0001
chemIG.total [bits/f.u.]8711.41.18945.95.2−6.38<0.0001
strIG.total [bits/cell]5669.315.663183.918.5−4.65<0.0001
chem+strIG [bits/atom]563.690.20634.820.14−4.71<0.0001
chem+strIG.total [bits/f.u.,cell]5681.216.663223.821.1−5.19<0.0001
* mi = number of minerals taken into account; X ¯ = arithmetic mean; σ X ¯ = standard error of arithmetic mean; p—probability value or p-value.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krivovichev, V.G.; Krivovichev, S.V.; Charykova, M.V. Tellurium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity. Minerals 2020, 10, 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10070623

AMA Style

Krivovichev VG, Krivovichev SV, Charykova MV. Tellurium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity. Minerals. 2020; 10(7):623. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10070623

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krivovichev, Vladimir G., Sergey V. Krivovichev, and Marina V. Charykova. 2020. "Tellurium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity" Minerals 10, no. 7: 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10070623

APA Style

Krivovichev, V. G., Krivovichev, S. V., & Charykova, M. V. (2020). Tellurium Minerals: Structural and Chemical Diversity and Complexity. Minerals, 10(7), 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10070623

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop