GEOMORPHOLOGY REPORT - CRC LEME
GEOMORPHOLOGY REPORT - CRC LEME
GEOMORPHOLOGY REPORT - CRC LEME
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
when sampling. This is also reflected in the higher pH of the Terrace and Uplands units<br />
(Table 3).<br />
The K, U, and Th concentrations generally reflect that seen in airborne gamma ray<br />
radiometric data illustrated in Appendix 4, with higher concentrations of the three<br />
radioelements in the units found within the Murray River Trench, and lower concentrations in<br />
the Uplands.<br />
6.4 XRD mineralogy<br />
6.4.1 Methods<br />
X-Ray defraction is an effective way of accurately determining mineralogy. Mineralogy is<br />
important to the study the mineral suite can influence conductivity and clay types effect<br />
porosity and permeability and surface recharge behaviour.<br />
Samples were analysed using both semi-quantitative XRD and qualitative PIMA methods.<br />
Samples for XRD were scanned on a Siemens D500 Diffractometer, from 2° to 70° 2θ, in 1°<br />
increments, 2 seconds per degree, using a Cu anode X-ray tube. Minerals were identified<br />
using Bruker Diffrac plus and Siroquant V3 was used to quantify minerals. The samples are<br />
characterised by simple scans, containing predominant Quartz peaks with accessory mica<br />
(probably Muscovite), feldspar and clay (probably Kaolin). Specific feldspars have been<br />
identified according to best-fit of peaks. Further petrological work would be required to<br />
conclusively identify feldspars.<br />
6.4.2 Results<br />
XRD shows that the samples all contain quartz, muscovite, and microcline. Kaolinite and<br />
albite are present in almost all. These results are consistent with the samples being composed<br />
of two sediment types, a slightly feldspathic micaceous quartz sand and kaolinitic quartz silt<br />
with very fine-grained detrital muscovite.<br />
The relationship between distribution of clay species and provenance would be worth further<br />
investigation (c.f. Ginegle and de Deckker 2004). However it is beyond the scope of this<br />
investigation as it would require clay-specific mineral separates to be prepared.<br />
Table 3. Mean values of selected XRF analyses<br />
Geomorphic<br />
Unit<br />
Fm1<br />
Fm2<br />
Fm3<br />
T<br />
U<br />
Depth Al2O CaO Cl Fe2O3 K2O Na2O S (%) SiO2 Th (%) U (%)<br />
(m) 3 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)<br />
(%)<br />
0.0-0.1 10.75 0.44 0.548 3.24 2.07 0.46 0.460 72.26 0.01960 0.00722<br />
0.1-0.2 10.13 0.38 0.367 2.83 2.09 0.49 0.281 76.99 0.01160 0.00410<br />
0.2-0.3 9.60 0.36 0.361 2.66 1.97 0.50 0.195 78.64 0.01320 0.00494<br />
0.0-0.1 14.31 0.47 1.296 4.74 2.22 0.50 0.283 64.75 0.01400 0.00670<br />
0.1-0.2 13.91 0.45 0.955 4.51 2.19 0.57 0.206 66.91 0.02050 0.00535<br />
0.2-0.3 14.10 0.45 0.822 4.59 2.18 0.58 0.199 66.44 0.02000 0.00540<br />
0.0-0.1 10.36 0.49 0.172 2.93 2.20 0.58 0.160 75.47 0.01925 0.00708<br />
0.1-0.2 11.02 0.50 0.371 3.23 2.21 0.58 0.151 74.62 0.01325 0.00565<br />
0.2-0.3 11.52 0.53 0.639 3.45 2.24 0.61 0.163 73.54 0.01750 0.00465<br />
0.0-0.1 12.64 1.81 2.440 4.63 1.99 0.51 0.329 66.52 0.01460 0.00084<br />
0.1-0.2 10.99 1.83 2.303 3.98 1.77 0.51 0.300 70.38 0.01720 0.00556<br />
0.2-0.3 10.63 1.67 3.319 3.85 1.74 0.62 0.280 71.86 0.01140 0.00292<br />
0.0-0.1 5.23 3.48 0.082 1.92 0.99 0.00 0.244 79.92 0.01025 0.00243<br />
0.1-0.2 4.97 3.71 0.473 1.81 0.93 0.07 0.209 81.08 0.01375 0.00388<br />
0.2-0.3 4.91 5.65 0.532 1.80 0.87 0.07 0.296 76.15 0.00650 0.00213<br />
20