Mineralogical Magazine (2019), 83, 799–808
doi:10.1180/mgm.2019.34

ArticleLussierite, a new sodium uranyl sulfate mineral with bidentate
UO7–SO4 linkage from the Blue Lizard mine, San Juan County,
Utah, USA
Anthony R. Kampf1*, Travis A. Olds2†, Jakub Plášil3, Barbara P. Nash4 and Joe Marty5

1

Mineral Sciences Department, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA; 2Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; 3Institute of Physics ASCR, v.v.i., Na Slovance 1999/2, 18221
Prague 8, Czech Republic; 4Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA; and 55199 East Silver Oak Road, Salt Lake City,UT 84108, USA

Abstract
The new mineral lussierite (IMA2018-101), Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2(H2O)3, was found in the Blue Lizard mine, San Juan County,
Utah, USA, where it occurs as pale green–yellow prisms or blades in a secondary assemblage with belakovskiite, ferrinatrite, halite, ivsite,metavoltine and thénardite. The streak is white and the fluorescence is bright cyan under 365 nm ultraviolet light. Crystals are transparent with vitreous lustre. The tenacity is brittle, the Mohs hardness is 2½, the fracture is irregular and no cleavage was observed.
The mineral is easily soluble in H2O and has a measured density of 2.87(2) g cm–3. Lussierite is optically biaxial (+), with α = 1.493(1),β = 1.505(1) and γ = 1.518(1) (white light); 2Vmeas. = 88(1)°; dispersion is r > v, moderate; pleochroism: X = colourless, Y and Z = green
yellow (X < Y ≈ Z); optical orientation: X = b, Z ∧ a = 44° in obtuse β. Electron microprobe analyses (wavelength-dispersive spectroscopymode) provided Na10(U0.99O2)(S1.00O4)6·3H2O (+0.06 H for charge balance). The five strongest X-ray powder diffraction lines are [dobsÅ(I )(hkl)]: 6.69(95)(111,130), 4.814(100)(150,002,060), 3.461(83)(171,202), 2.955(81)(113,330) and 2.882(74)(191,311,191,0·10·0).
Lussierite is monoclinic, Cc, a = 9.3134(4), b = 28.7501(11), c = 9.6346(7) Å, β = 93.442(7)°, V = 2575.1(2) Å3 and Z = 4. The structure(R1 = 0.0298 for 5202 I > 2σI ) contains a [(UO2)(SO4)4]6– uranyl sulfate cluster in which one SO4 tetrahedron shares an edge (bidentate
linkage) with the UO7 pentagonal bipyramid. The uranyl sulfate clusters occur in layers and are linked through a complex network of bonds
involving Na+ cations, isolated SO4 tetrahedra and isolated H2O groups.
Keywords: lussierite, new mineral, uranyl sulfate, crystal structure, Blue Lizard mine, Red Canyon, Utah, USA(Received 22 March 2019; accepted 23 April 2019; Accepted Manuscript published online: 3 June 2019; Associate Editor: Daniel Atencio)

Introduction
The Blue Lizard mine in Red Canyon, Utah, USA, has proven to
be a remarkable source of new minerals, especially sodium uranyl
sulfates. Lussierite, Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2(H2O)3, is the 13th
new sodium uranyl sulfate mineral to be described from themine and several more potentially new sodium uranyl sulfate
minerals are currently under study. The astounding diversity
and relatively high structural complexity of sodium uranyl sulfate
minerals has been highlighted recently by Gurzhiy and Plášil(2019). A large number of stable combinatorial linkages of uranyl
and sulfate tetrahedra are possible, with the topological arrangements appearing to be strongly affected by at least three parameters: pH (Plášil et al., 2014); cation content; and watercontent. In general, sodium uranyl sulfate minerals follow thesame structure topology trends as do other uranyl minerals(Lussier et al., 2016), where uranyl polyhedra preferentially*Author for correspondence: Anthony R. Kampf, Email: akampf@nhm.org†
Current address: Section of Minerals, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes
Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Cite this article: Kampf A.R., Olds T.A., Plášil J., Nash B.P. and Marty J. (2019)
Lussierite, a new sodium uranyl sulfate mineral with bidentate UO7–SO4 linkage fromthe Blue Lizard mine, San Juan County, Utah, USA. Mineralogical Magazine 83,
799–808. https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2019.34

polymerise into extended structures via linkages of their equatorial vertices, most often forming infinite chain or infinite sheet
topologies. However, cluster topologies, such as that found in lussierite, are relatively abundant among the sodium uranyl sulfate
minerals, for reasons that are not completely clear.
Understanding the hierarchical arrangements of these structuresand how conditions of formation influence the crystallised topologies is important to understanding the crystal–chemical natureof U–S systems, and for uranyl mineralogy as a whole.
Lussierite (/lu: ’si: ei ait/) is named in honour of Canadianmineralogist Aaron J. Lussier (born 1980). Dr. Lussier received
his Ph.D. in mineralogy and crystallography from the
University of Manitoba in 2012, studying zonation in tourmalinefrom granitic pegmatites and the occurrence of tetrahedrally coordinated aluminium and boron in tourmaline (Lussier, 2012).
Dr. Lussier held a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship at the
University of Notre Dame from 2012 to 2015, investigating
the crystal–chemistry of actinide elements with support fromthe Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council(NSERC). He is currently a Research Scientist at the CanadianMuseum of Nature and Councilor of the Mineralogical
Association of Canada since 2017. Dr. Lussier has been involvedin the descriptions of four new minerals, fluor-elbaite (Bosi et al.,© Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

8002013), ferro-ferri-nybøite (Lussier et al., 2014), maruyamaite(Hawthorne et al., 2016) and shinkolobweite (Olds et al., 2017).
He has authored or co-authored several articles that advanceour understanding of actinide mineralogy and crystal chemistry,
and was senior author of a comprehensive review of the structuresof uranyl compounds: “A revised and expanded structure hierarchy of natural and synthetic hexavalent uranium compounds”(Lussier et al., 2016). Dr. Lussier has given permission for thismineral to be named in his honour.
The new mineral and name were approved by the Commission
on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification of theInternational Mineralogical Association (IMA2018-101, Kampf
et al., 2018). The description is based on one holotype and two
cotype specimens deposited in the collections of the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition
Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA, catalogue numbers
73518 (holotype), 73519 (cotype) and 73520 (cotype).
Occurrence
Lussierite was found underground in the Blue Lizard mine
(37°33′ 26′′ N, 110°17′ 44′′ W), Red Canyon, White Canyon
District, San Juan County, Utah, USA. The mine is ∼72 km
west of the town of Blanding, Utah, and ∼22 km southeast of
Good Hope Bay on Lake Powell. The following information on
the mine and its geology is taken largely from Chenoweth (1993).
The uranium deposits in Red Canyon occur within the
Shinarump member of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, inchannels incised into the reddish-brown siltstones of theunderlying Lower Triassic Moenkopi Formation. The
Shinarump member consists of medium- to coarse-grained sandstone, conglomeratic sandstone beds and thick siltstone lenses.
Ore minerals were deposited as replacements of wood and otherorganic material and as disseminations in the enclosing
sandstone. Since the mine closed in 1978, oxidation of primaryores in the humid underground environment has produced a variety of secondary minerals, mainly sulfates, as efflorescent crustson the surfaces of mine walls.
Lussierite is a rare mineral in the secondary mineral assemblages of the Blue Lizard mine. It occurs on a thick crust of gypsum overlaying matrix comprised mostly of subhedral to

Fig. 1. Sprays of greenish yellow lussierite prisms with opaque white thénardite. The
field of view is 1.7 mm across.

Anthony R. Kampf et al.

Fig. 2. Lussierite blades in incandescent (left) and 365 nm ultraviolet (right) illumination. The field of view is 0.84 mm across.

euhedral, equant quartz crystals that are recrystallised counterparts of the original grains of the sandstone. Other secondary
phases found in close association with lussierite are belakovskiite,
ferrinatrite, halite, ivsite, metavoltine, thénardite and at least threeother potentially new minerals. Lussierite is the 19th new mineral
to be described from the Blue Lizard mine, all within the last 6
years (cf. Kampf et al., 2017), and numerous more new phases
await characterisation.

Physical and optical properties
Lussierite crystals are prisms or blades, elongate on [001] andsometimes flattened on {010}, up to ∼0.5 mm long. Prisms tend
to occur in sprays (Fig. 1) or randomly scattered individuals;
blades tend to occur in parallel growths (Fig. 2). Crystals exhibit
the prism forms {010}, {110} and {110}, and have angled, wedgelike terminations composed of a series of {1k1} forms: {111},

Fig. 3. Crystal drawing of lussierite; clinographic projection in non-standard
orientation.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

Mineralogical Magazine

801

Fig. 4. The baseline-corrected Raman spectrum of lussierite recorded with a 532 nm laser.

{131}, {151}, {171} and {1·17·1} (Fig. 3). Twinning was notobserved visually, but the structure refinement indicates twinningby merohedry, as is typical of noncentrosymmetric crystals.
The mineral is light greenish yellow with a white streak andfluoresces bright cyan under 365 nm ultraviolet illumination(Fig. 2). Crystals are transparent and have a vitreous lustre. The
tenacity is brittle, the Mohs hardness is 2½ (based on scratch
tests), the fracture is irregular and no cleavage was observed.
The density measured by flotation in methylene iodide–tolueneis 2.87(2) g cm–3. The calculated density is 2.907 g cm–3 for theempirical formula and 2.912 g cm–3 for the ideal formula. At
room temperature, the mineral is easily soluble in H2O.
Optically, lussierite is biaxial (+), with α = 1.493(1), β = 1.505(1)and γ = 1.518(1) (measured in white light). The 2V measured directly on a spindle stage is 88(1)°; the calculated 2V is 88.4°.
Dispersion is r > v, moderate. The mineral is pleochroic:

Table 1. Chemical composition of lussierite.
Constituent

Mean

Range

S.D.

Na2O
Na2O*
UO3
SO3
H2O*
Total

(24.83)
28.31
25.79
43.89
5.00
102.9923.98–25.84

0.68

Albite25.41–26.04
43.17–44.41

0.24
0.46

Synthetic UO2Celestine

S.D. – standard deviation; * based on the structure.

Standard

X = colourless, Y and Z = green yellow; X < Y ≈ Z. The opticalorientation is X = b, Z ∧ a = 44° in obtuse β. The Gladstone–
Dale compatibility, 1 – (KP/KC), is –0.001 (superior) based on
the empirical formula using k(UO3) = 0.118, as provided by
Mandarino (1976).
Raman spectroscopy
Raman spectroscopy was conducted on a Horiba XploRA PLUS
both with 532 nm and 785 nm diode lasers. Some fluorescence
was observed with the 532 nm laser, but it was relatively minor,
so this spectrum is reported. The spectrum was recorded from4000 to 100 cm–1 (Fig. 4) using a 50 µm laser slit, 1800 gr/mm
diffraction grating, 100× (0.9 N.A.) objective and 15.2 mW laser
power at the sample, with a beam diameter of ∼1.2 µm.
A broad band of weak intensity in the range ∼3600–3200 cm–1
is attributed to the stretching vibrations of H2O molecules.
According to the correlation given by Libowitzky (1999), theapproximate O–H···O hydrogen bond lengths range between 3.2
and 2.8 Å. There are a few broad weak bands located between∼1700–1450 cm–1, in the region expected for the ν2 (δ) bending
vibrations of H2O molecules; however, we conclude that theobserved features are more likely to be due to fluorescencebecause they were not observed in the spectrum recorded using
the 785 nm diode laser.
Several past studies of uranyl sulfates informed our assignments of bands to specific Raman modes (cf. Plášil et al., 2010;Čejka, 1999). In the lussierite spectrum, the split, triply degenerate

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

802

Anthony R. Kampf et al.

Table 2. Powder X-ray data (d in Å) for lussierite. Only calculated lines with I ≥ 3 are listed.
Iobs

dobs

dcalc

Icalc

hkl

50
39
63
17
95
15
68

14.41
8.87
8.00
7.20
6.69
6.31
5.75

100

4.814

26
49
29
25

4.579
4.419
4.323
4.117

27

3.958

18
7
46

3.829
3.687
3.569

83
25

3.461
3.381

32

3.154

14
14

3.086
3.007

74

2.882

58
11

2.799
2.734

26

2.691

21
18

2.654
2.588

9

2.535

11

2.441

28

2.398

10

2.356

16

2.288

14

2.219

12

2.174

29

2.141

20

2.098

14.37518.8456
7.9933
7.18756.7041, 6.6728
6.33285.75735.59654.8902, 4.8086, 4.7917
4.64834.56024.4228, 4.4158
4.3298, 4.3045
4.1270, 4.1083
3.99673.9835, 3.9339
3.90323.82383.68193.5938, 3.5548
3.52853.48413.4709, 3.4471
3.3942, 3.3758
3.36643.3521
3.3364
3.1664
3.12893.11093.10813.0810, 3.0706
3.0211, 2.9864
2.9602, 2.9485
2.93942.92772.8984, 2.8845, 2.8750, 2.8663
2.84312.79822.7546, 2.7279, 2.7207
2.69972.68752.66912.6616, 2.6430
2.5887, 2.5802
2.54092.53592.52792.51612.46832.4520, 2.4439
2.42842.42452.4099, 2.3958
2.39232.38782.37142.3685, 2.3544, 2.3520
2.32422.32072.2937, 2.2908, 2.2801
2.26222.23152.2243, 2.2146, 2.2114
2.18992.1826, 2.1649, 2.1580
2.15222.1490, 2.1436, 2.1403, 2.1311, 2.1288
2.12012.1059, 2.0948, 2.0934, 2.0911, 2.0851

70
59
78
28
57, 6323
69
9
26, 8, 100832
13, 5217, 229, 25
620, 141023
1725, 388
929, 81
11, 10
7
7
3
42
10
4
8
9, 12
12, 11
63, 107
17
16, 57, 13, 16
10
75
13, 4, 9425
710, 2416, 18
7
3
10
3
6
7, 5
4
6
11, 133
6
3
6, 3, 94
3
8, 9, 87
6
4, 4, 5
5
7, 3, 113
3, 8, 5, 3, 14
4
10, 3, 8, 3, 7

020
110
021
040

1 1 1, 1 3 0
111
041

131
1 5 0, 0 0 2, 0 6 0
200
022
2 2 0, 1 5 1

1 1 2, 1 5 1
1 1 2, 2 2 1042

1 3 2, 2 2 1
240
132

241
0 8 0, 2 4 1

171

152
1 7 1, 2 0 2
0 6 2, 1 5 2
081

222
260
222
023
261

242
3 1 0, 1 1 3
1 9 0, 3 1 1
1 1 3, 3 3 0

133
043

1 9 1, 3 1 1, 0 10 0, 1 9 1
280

262
0 10 1, 3 5 0, 1 5 3
281
262

223

3 5 1, 1 5 3
3 5 1, 3 3 2

243
192
223
1 11 0
173
3 3 2, 1 11 1
352
1 11 1
1 7 3, 0 12 0083

2 10 1024
3 7 1, 1 1 4, 2 10 1
400
352

1 3 4, 3 1 3, 0 4 4

421
134
3 9 0, 1 11 2, 4 4 0

204
4 4 1, 2 2 4, 3 1 3
2 10 20 6 4, 4 0 2, 0 10 3, 1 5 4, 4 4 1,
422

1 13 1, 2 4 4, 1 13 1, 4 6 0, 2 0 4(Continued )Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

Mineralogical Magazine

803

Table 2. (Continued.)
Iobs

dobs

9

2.054

6
18

2.014
1.995

18
24

1.956
1.923

26

1.902

20

1.872

23

1.845

29
16

1.809
1.784

35
33

1.762
1.728

16

1.684

15

1.630

12
13
11
13
17
23

1.602
1.574
1.558
1.537
1.502
1.477

10

1.449

16

1.421

dcalc

Icalc

hkl

2.06352.05362.04502.02542.0055, 1.9983, 1.9951, 1.9917
1.9744
1.9714
1.96381.9567, 1.9516, 1.9412
1.9277, 1.9204, 1.9178, 1.9146
1.91191.9022
1.8994
1.8941
1.88861.8809, 1.8772, 1.8710, 1.8700
1.86551.8581, 1.8425, 1.8410
1.82531.8202
1.8155, 1.8133, 1.8095, 1.8035, 1.8019, 1.7981
1.7916, 1.7807, 1.7774, 1.7751
1.7736
1.7663, 1.7642, 1.7609, 1.7579, 1.7559
1.7415, 1.7355, 1.7292, 1.7281, 1.7258, 1.7243, 1.7236
1.7056
1.6971, 1.6918, 1.6840, 1.6741
1.66901.6682
1.65721.64511.6366, 1.6309, 1.6301, 1.6285
1.62311.62181.6069, 1.5988, 1.5975, 1.5935, 1.5895
1.5740, 1.5728
1.5674, 1.5666, 1.5657, 1.5554
1.5435, 1.5402, 1.5373, 1.5353
1.5105, 1.5082, 1.4987, 1.4969, 1.4932
1.4880, 1.4844, 1.4829, 1.4780, 1.4737, 1.4722, 1.4704
1.46491.46311.4496, 1.4491, 1.4440
1.43011.4228, 1.4211, 1.4173, 1.4138

3
11
3
10
4, 8, 7, 6
4
4
3
5, 14, 7
12, 4, 3, 10
4
23
3
3
4
7, 4, 5, 5
3
8, 18, 43
4
4, 5, 9, 6, 6, 8
7, 7, 4, 5
3
6, 8, 5, 21, 3
6, 8, 6, 5, 3, 3, 20
35, 5, 6, 3
3
4
3
3
3, 4, 3, 3
4
4
3, 4, 5, 7, 3
3, 6
5, 3, 3, 7
5, 4, 3, 7
4, 3, 3, 3, 4
6, 6, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3
3
3
3, 3, 53
3, 5, 7, 3224
0 14 0402
353

3 7 3, 0 8 4, 
1 11 3, 2 6 4

2 10 3
3 11 1
1 11 3
4 6 2, 4 8 0, 3 11 1
2 12 2, 4 2 3, 3 3 4, 3 7 3
264

115

194
481
0 14 24 6 2, 1 15 0, 4 4 3, 2 8 4
393
0 4 5, 5 1 1, 
482
530
3 11 24 2 3, 3 3 4, 
1 5 5, 2 8 4, 5 1 1, 1 13 3

4 10 1, 3 13 1, 4 8 2, 1 13 3443
0 16 1, 2 14 2, 2 4 5, 
5 5 1, 1 15 2
1 15 2, 2 14 2, 1 7 5, 2 2 5, 3 11 3, 1 11 4, 
404

483
0 12 4, 2 4 5, 5 7 1, 5 3 2
394
4 12 0
2 16 1
2 16 1
1 17 1, 4 8 3, 3 15 0, 
1 15 3404
464

4 10 3, 3 9 4, 4 12 2, 
3 13 3, 3 1 5

1 3 6, 2 12 4
0 16 3, 2 8 5, 5 1 3, 4 12 2
1 3 6, 1 11 5, 4 6 4, 2 2 6
2 18 0, 3 11 4, 2 16 3, 
5 3 4, 6 2 2
2 0 6, 3 7 5, 
4 14 2, 1 19 1, 1 19 1, 2 16 3, 1 17 3573
2 14 46 0 2, 4 14 2, 1 13 5

3 17 26 8 0, 2 6 6, 
5 13 1, 4 16 1

ν3 (SO4)2– antisymmetric stretching vibrations occur as weakerbands at 1210 (with a shoulder at 1195), 1180, 1150 and
1130 cm–1. Weak bands at 1070 and 1040 cm–1 can be also related
to ν3 (SO4)2–; the increased number of observed bands related toantisymmetric stretching vibrations is due to the fact that there
are six symmetrically non-equivalent SO4 tetrahedra in the structure. The medium-strong bands at 998 and 989 cm–1 are unambiguously assignable to the ν1 (SO4)2– symmetric stretchingvibrations. The weak band at 933 cm–1 is related with the ν3(UO2)2+ antisymmetric stretching vibrations. The ν1 (UO2)2+
symmetric stretching vibration is present as a very strong bandat 813 cm–1. Bartlett and Cooney (1989) provided an empirical
relationship to derive the approximate U–OUr bond lengths
from the band positions assigned to the (UO2)2+ stretching vibrations, which gives 1.80 Å (ν1) and 1.76 Å (ν3), in accordance with
U–OUr bond lengths from the X-ray data (1.77 Å and 1.78 Å).
Weak bands observed at 651 (with a shoulder at 645) and620 cm–1 (with a shoulder at 627) are attributed to the split, triply
degenerate ν4 (δ) (SO4)2– bending vibrations, and those at 500,

459, 450 and 427 cm–1 to the split doubly degenerate ν2 (δ)(SO4)2– bending vibrations. A weak band at 374 cm–1 is either
due to ν (U–Oeq) stretching vibrations or Na–O stretches (e.g.
Volkovich et al., 1998; Plášil et al., 2010; Kampf et al., 2015).
Bands at 267 and 225 cm–1 arise from ν2 (δ) U–O–U bending
modes. The bands at the lowest frequencies are attributable to further unassigned phonons.
Composition
Chemical analyses (6 points on 3 crystals) were performed using a
Cameca SX-50 electron microprobe operating at an accelerating
voltage of 15 kV, with a beam current of 10 nA and 20 µm spot
diameter. Matrix effects were accounted for using the PAP correction routine (Pouchou and Pichoir, 1985). The sample exhibited
substantial damage from the electron beam. The phase is very susceptible to Na migration under the electron beam. Efforts to correct for this with very short count times or translating the sample
under the beam during analysis, as well as zero-time corrections

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

804

Anthony R. Kampf et al.

Table 3. Data collection and structure refinement details for lussierite.
Crystal data
Structural formula
Crystal system, space group
Temperature (K)a, b, c (Å)β (°)
V (Å3)
Z
Density (for above formula)(g cm–3)
Absorption coefficient (mm–1)
Data collection
Diffractometer
X-ray radiation/power
F(000)
Crystal size (μm)
θ range (°)
No. of measured, independentand observed [I >2σI ]reflections
Rint
Index ranges
Completeness to θ = 27.48°
Refinement
Refinement method
No. parameters/restraints
GoF
Final R indices [I > 2σI ]R indices (all data)
Absolute structure parameter
Largest diff. peak/hole (e – A–3)

Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2(H2O)3
Monoclinic, Cc
293(2)
9.3134(4), 28.7501(11), 9.6346(7)93.442(7)2575.1(2)
4
2.916
7.083
Rigaku R-Axis Rapid II
MoKα (λ = 0.71075 Å)/50 kV, 40 mA
2144
290 × 80 × 50
3.05 to 27.48
11365, 5423, 5202

0.044
–11 ≤ h ≤ 12, –36 ≤ k ≤ 36, –12 ≤ l ≤ 11
98.3%
Full-matrix least-squares on F 2
416/2
1.077
R1 = 0.0298, wR2 = 0.0674
R1 = 0.0320, wR2 = 0.0694
0.302(6)+2.28/–0.64

Rint = Σ|Fo2–Fo2(mean)|/Σ[Fo2]. GoF = S = {Σ[w(Fo2–F2c )2]/(n–p)}1/2. R1 = Σ||Fo|–|Fc||/Σ|Fo|. wR2 = {Σ[w(Fo2–F2c )2]/Σ[w(Fo2)2]}1/2; w = 1/[σ2(Fo2)+(aP)2+bP] where a is 0.0225, b is 0 and P is [2F2c +Max
(Fo2,0)]/3.

were only partially successful. Analyses exhibited large variations
in Na content, always yielding values significantly below thoseindicated by the structure refinement, which was consistent
with stoichiometric Na (see below). Consequently, we have usedthe calculated Na content corresponding to 10 Na atoms per formula unit (apfu). U and S exhibited time-dependent ingrowthduring analysis for which a correction was applied. No other elements (including N) were detected by energy- or wavelengthdispersive spectroscopy. Due to the limited amount of material
available, the H2O content could not be measured and is instead
calculated by stoichiometry based on 6 S and 29 O apfu as indicated by the structure. The loss of loosely bound H2O under vacuum apparently results in higher concentrations for the remaining
constituents than are to be expected for the fully hydrated phaseand is probably the cause of the high analytical total. Analytical
data are given in Table 1. The empirical formula (calculated on
the basis of 29 O apfu) is Na10(U0.99O2)(S1.00O4)6·3H2O (+0.06
H for charge balance). The ideal formula is Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2(H2O)3, which requires Na2O 27.42, UO3 25.31, SO342.50, H2O 4.78, total 100 wt.%.
X-ray crystallography and structure refinement
Powder X-ray studies were carried out using a Rigaku R-Axis
Rapid II curved imaging plate microdiffractometer, with monochromatic MoKα radiation. A Gandolfi-like motion on the wand ω axes was used to randomise the samples and observed dvalues and intensities were derived by profile fitting using JADE
2010 software (Materials Data, Inc.). The observed powder data
for lussierite, presented in Table 2, show good agreement with

Table 4. Atom coordinates and equivalent isotropic displacement parameters(Å2) for lussierite.

U
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Na1
Na2
Na3
Na4
Na5
Na6
Na7
Na8
Na9
Na10
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19
O20
O21
O22
O23
O24
O25
O26
O27 (H2O)
O28 (H2O)
O29 (H2O)

x/a

y/b

z/c

Ueq

0.65915(5)0.8933(3)0.3898(3)0.8123(3)0.5583(3)0.9928(3)0.8072(3)0.6512(12)0.7943(6)0.5386(5)0.5531(5)0.6584(5)0.7800(5)0.6997(5)0.8919(5)0.8471(5)0.5614(5)0.6866(9)0.6352(10)0.9563(10)0.7933(11)0.4898(8)0.4082(8)0.7344(8)0.9517(9)0.9618(7)0.7443(9)0.4280(8)0.4081(9)0.9636(12)0.7370(10)0.7551(14)0.6702(9)0.6198(9)0.4417(9)0.0000(9)0.3983(10)0.9115(10)0.5448(9)0.6177(8)0.7088(8)0.7985(12)0.7837(11)0.6849(8)0.5253(11)0.7765(10)0.82751(2)0.84073(11)0.83781(11)0.83512(8)0.96841(7)0.96595(8)0.66357(8)0.32356(12)0.74727(18)0.74998(18)0.86097(17)0.93550(16)0.95919(15)0.56780(16)0.93482(15)0.56283(14)0.63823(17)0.2332(2)0.8889(2)0.6791(3)0.8340(3)0.8070(2)0.6630(2)0.8380(2)0.8848(3)0.8015(2)0.6724(2)0.8866(3)0.8230(2)0.8331(4)0.7969(3)0.8785(3)0.9469(3)0.9814(3)0.9345(2)0.4894(2)0.5566(3)0.9728(3)0.4893(2)0.4347(3)0.6959(3)0.6638(3)0.6174(3)0.4074(2)0.7494(3)0.5142(3)0.16668(5)0.4052(3)0.8969(3)0.8192(2)0.5704(2)0.9928(2)0.8161(2)0.6568(11)0.5754(5)0.7852(5)0.5815(5)0.9100(4)0.2874(4)0.9538(4)0.6456(4)0.5975(4)0.5710(5)0.6807(10)0.1568(10)0.7857(10)0.9713(8)0.9896(7)0.7519(6)0.4170(7)0.4544(8)0.4765(7)0.4356(9)0.9186(7)0.7531(7)0.8037(12)0.7518(8)0.7633(10)0.4916(8)0.7077(7)0.5849(8)0.9995(7)0.5896(8)0.8598(8)0.5477(8)0.9743(7)0.7469(7)0.9656(9)0.7591(10)0.7034(7)0.5195(9)0.7812(8)0.01384(9)0.0146(5)0.0156(6)0.0149(5)0.0170(4)0.0167(4)0.0151(5)0.0229(10)0.0338(12)0.0309(11)0.0320(11)0.0282(10)0.0295(9)0.0355(10)0.0301(9)0.0304(9)0.0321(10)0.027(2)0.027(2)0.042(2)0.040(2)0.0271(16)0.0220(15)0.0227(15)0.0320(19)0.0237(15)0.0313(18)0.0258(18)0.0254(16)0.063(3)0.044(2)0.053(3)0.0363(19)0.039(2)0.0345(18)0.0275(16)0.044(2)0.044(2)0.0301(18)0.0289(16)0.0302(17)0.046(2)0.041(2)0.0261(16)0.043(2)0.0323(18)the pattern calculated from the structure refinement. The unit-cellparameters refined from the powder data using JADE 2010
with whole pattern fitting are a = 9.3134(4), b = 28.7501(11),c = 9.6346(7) Å, β = 93.442(7)° and V = 2575.1(2) Å3.
Single-crystal X-ray studies were done using the same diffractometer and radiation used for the powder studies. The Rigaku
CrystalClear software package was used for processing the structure data, including the application of an empirical absorption
correction using the multi-scan method with ABSCOR (Higashi,2001). The structure was solved in space group Cc using
SIR2011 (Burla et al., 2012). SHELXL-2016 (Sheldrick, 2015)
was used for the refinement of the structure. The structure wasnoted to be the same as that determined for synthetic
Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2·3H2O by Burns and Hayden (2002).
Consequently, equivalent atoms were assigned the same numbersin the lussierite structure. Both structures exhibit merohedral
twinning, but have different dominant twin components. All non-Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

Mineralogical Magazine

805

Table 5. Anisotropic displacement parameters for lussierite.

U
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Na1
Na2
Na3
Na4
Na5
Na6
Na7
Na8
Na9
Na10
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19
O20
O21
O22
O23
O24
O25
O26
O27
O28
O29

U 11

U 22

U 33

U 23

U 13

U 12

0.01461(16)0.0154(13)0.0163(14)0.0161(12)0.0229(13)0.0210(12)0.0157(13)0.018(2)0.043(3)0.032(3)0.033(3)0.034(3)0.043(3)0.046(3)0.045(3)0.040(3)0.029(3)0.025(6)0.036(6)0.023(5)0.050(6)0.035(4)0.021(4)0.022(4)0.041(6)0.021(4)0.016(4)0.035(5)0.034(5)0.024(6)0.063(6)0.095(9)0.043(5)0.061(6)0.038(5)0.038(5)0.064(6)0.060(6)0.042(5)0.032(4)0.029(4)0.056(7)0.059(7)0.033(5)0.058(6)0.041(5)0.01500(14)0.0177(12)0.0171(12)0.0174(11)0.0136(10)0.0141(11)0.0174(11)0.0294(18)0.025(3)0.020(3)0.033(3)0.027(2)0.023(2)0.032(3)0.026(2)0.026(2)0.039(3)0.020(3)0.018(3)0.055(6)0.055(6)0.015(3)0.034(4)0.027(4)0.021(4)0.023(4)0.042(5)0.015(4)0.028(4)0.126(11)0.036(5)0.027(5)0.033(5)0.032(4)0.022(4)0.020(4)0.033(5)0.048(5)0.013(4)0.026(4)0.031(4)0.065(6)0.017(4)0.021(3)0.034(5)0.022(4)0.01176(14)0.0107(12)0.0130(12)0.0113(11)0.0146(10)0.0153(10)0.0122(11)0.022(3)0.036(3)0.042(2)0.031(2)0.025(2)0.023(2)0.030(2)0.019(2)0.026(2)0.029(2)0.036(5)0.027(4)0.047(5)0.013(4)0.030(4)0.011(3)0.019(3)0.034(4)0.027(4)0.036(4)0.026(4)0.014(3)0.042(6)0.033(4)0.036(5)0.034(4)0.022(4)0.043(5)0.025(4)0.039(5)0.021(4)0.037(4)0.028(4)0.031(4)0.019(5)0.049(5)0.024(4)0.035(4)0.035(4)0.00140(16)0.0006(10)−0.0012(9)−0.0012(8)0.0009(8)−0.0004(8)−0.0011(8)−0.002(2)−0.0009(19)0.0042(19)−0.001(2)0.0010(16)0.0008(16)0.0014(19)−0.0034(15)0.0013(16)−0.009(2)−0.007(3)0.001(3)−0.020(4)0.007(3)0.000(3)0.004(3)−0.005(3)−0.011(3)0.010(3)−0.005(3)0.003(3)−0.005(3)−0.009(5)−0.016(4)0.011(4)0.002(3)−0.004(3)0.008(3)−0.004(3)0.008(4)−0.009(3)0.006(3)−0.007(3)0.010(3)−0.002(4)−0.009(4)0.003(3)0.005(3)−0.001(4)−0.00053(9)0.0001(9)−0.0023(9)0.0030(8)0.0021(8)0.0037(8)0.0019(8)0.0005(18)0.022(2)0.0169(19)0.0054(18)0.0064(17)0.0084(16)0.0132(19)0.0077(16)0.0086(16)0.0064(17)0.000(4)−0.004(4)0.010(4)0.001(4)−0.011(3)0.004(3)0.004(3)0.000(4)0.002(3)0.003(3)−0.006(3)0.003(3)0.012(4)0.015(4)0.001(5)0.013(3)−0.011(3)0.000(3)0.004(3)0.029(4)−0.014(4)0.014(3)−0.002(3)0.007(3)0.009(4)0.012(4)0.000(3)−0.020(4)0.008(3)−0.00018(18)0.0017(10)−0.0002(10)−0.0010(9)0.0005(9)0.0006(9)0.0017(9)−0.004(2)−0.004(2)0.003(2)0.003(2)0.0041(17)−0.0001(19)−0.009(2)−0.0049(18)0.0089(19)−0.002(2)−0.003(3)0.000(3)−0.003(4)−0.011(4)0.005(3)0.002(3)−0.002(3)−0.011(4)0.001(3)0.003(3)0.000(3)0.003(3)0.001(5)−0.029(4)0.008(5)0.015(4)−0.009(4)−0.010(3)−0.006(3)0.017(4)0.024(4)0.003(4)0.011(3)0.014(3)0.026(5)−0.002(4)0.004(3)−0.004(4)−0.002(4)hydrogen atoms were successfully refined with full occupancies
and anisotropic displacement parameters. Because the electron
microprobe analysis provided much lower than stoichiometricNa, an attempt was made to refine the occupancies of the Nasites; however, all refined to very close to full occupancy anddid not improve the R factor. Difference-Fourier maps failed toreveal possible H sites. Data collection and refinement details
are given in Table 3, atom coordinates and equivalent isotropic
displacement parameters in Table 4, anisotropic displacement
parameters in Table 5, selected bond distances in Table 6 and abond-valence analysis in Table 7. The crystallographic information files have been deposited with the Principal Editor of
Mineralogical Magazine and are available as Supplementarymaterial (see below).
During the course of checking numerous lussierite crystals,
one crystal examined provided the cell: a = 9.3141(7), b =86.264(5), c = 9.6317(7) Å and β = 93.391(7)°. The structure ofthis crystal, also solved in space group Cc, indicates it to be the

3M polytype: lussierite-3M. The structure refinement was significantly poorer than that noted above (only the U atoms could be
refined anisotropically). Notably, the powder X-ray diffraction
pattern calculated from this structure fits the observed lussierite
powder X-ray diffraction pattern equally well.
Description of the structure
The U site in the structure of lussierite is surrounded by seven O
atom sites forming a squat pentagonal bipyramid. This is a typicalcoordination for U6+ in which the two short apical bonds ofthe bipyramid constitute the uranyl group (cf. Burns, 2005).
The two apical O atoms of the bipyramid (OUr) form shortbonds with the U, and this unit comprises the UO2+
2 uranylgroup. The five equatorial O atoms (Oeq) complete the U coordination and link to four different SO4 tetrahedra in the structure.
Three of these SO4 tetrahedra (S1, S2 and S3) share single
equatorial O atoms, while one (S6) shares two of its O atoms

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

806

Anthony R. Kampf et al.

Table 6. Selected bond distances (Å) for lussierite.
U–O1
U–O2
U–O3
U–O4
U–O5
U–O6
U–O7
<U–OUr><U–Oeq>1.769(7)1.782(6)2.276(9)2.328(9)2.328(7)2.429(7)2.489(7)
1.776
2.370

S1–O8
S1–O9
S1–O7
S1–O6
<S1–O>

1.447(8)1.449(7)1.494(8)1.496(7)1.472

S2–O10S2–O11S2–O12
S2–O5<S2–O>

1.456(9)1.460(8)1.470(7)1.532(7)
1.480

S3–O13S3–O14S3–O15
S3–O4<S3–O>

1.427(11)1.437(8)1.446(9)1.487(8)1.449

S4–O17
S4–O16S4–O18S4–O19<S4–O>

1.458(7)1.463(8)1.472(8)1.480(7)1.468

S5–O22
S5–O21
S5–O20S5–O23
<S5–O>

1.462(7)1.463(7)1.470(8)1.489(7)1.471

S6–O24S6–O25S6–O26
S6–O3<S6–O>

1.439(7)1.448(9)1.448(8)1.505(9)1.460

Na1–O13
Na1–O25
Na1–O27
Na1–O9
Na1–O12
Na1–O1Na1–O10<Na1–O>

2.330(15)2.390(14)2.470(8)2.483(12)2.514(13)2.626(8)2.775(12)2.513

Na2–O14
Na2–O24
Na2–O9
Na2–O28
Na2–O10
Na2–O5<Na2–O>2.306(9)2.389(9)2.438(8)2.532(11)2.567(9)2.573(9)2.468

Na3–O24
Na3–O14
Na3–O12
Na3–O9Na3–O28
Na3–O5
Na3–O6<Na3–O>2.267(9)2.326(10)2.436(9)2.501(9)2.555(10)2.623(9)2.791(9)2.500

Na4–O18
Na4–O12
Na4–O7
Na4–O15
Na4–O25
Na4–O16
Na4–O14<Na4–O>2.356(9)2.452(9)2.473(9)2.543(11)2.657(11)2.855(10)2.947(11)2.612

Na5–O19
Na5–O17
Na5–O15
Na5–O11
Na5–O21
Na5–O2
Na5–O20<Na5–O>2.339(9)2.363(8)2.377(12)2.571(9)2.660(12)2.748(10)2.752(10)2.544

Na6–O16
Na6–O20
Na6–O17
Na6–O21
Na6–O2<Na6–O>2.298(9)2.303(8)2.366(9)2.389(9)2.698(8)2.411

Na7–O22
Na7–O29
Na7–O26
Na7–O18
Na7–O27
Na7–O8
Na7–O25<Na7–O>2.398(9)2.406(9)2.518(10)2.518(9)2.519(8)2.682(9)2.911(11)2.565

Na8–O21
Na8–O22
Na8–O15
Na8–O8Na8–O16
Na8–O27
Na8–O17<Na8–O>2.332(8)2.353(9)2.389(12)2.428(8)2.493(9)2.863(9)2.958(10)2.545

Na9–O19
Na9–O26
Na9–O29
Na9–O23
Na9–O11<Na9–O>2.309(8)2.312(9)2.378(9)2.382(8)2.409(8)2.358

Na10–O23
Na10–O10
Na10–O6
Na10–O24
Na10–O26
Na10–O4
Na10–O13
Na10–O20<Na10–O>

2.367(9)2.416(10)2.425(8)2.688(9)2.736(11)2.740(11)2.803(12)2.808(10)2.623

Fig. 5. The [(UO2)(SO4)4]6– uranyl sulfate cluster in the structure of lussierite.

with the U1 bipyramid, thereby linking along a polyhedral edge.
Such a bidentate linkage between a UO7 pentagonal bipyramid
and a SO4 tetrahedron has been previously reported in the Na
uranyl sulfate minerals klaprothite, péligotite and ottohahnite,which also occur at the Blue Lizard mine (Kampf et al., 2017).
The [(UO2)(SO4)4]6– uranyl sulfate cluster (Fig. 5) is the fundamental building block (FBB) in the structure of lussierite. It isalso the FBB in the structures of klaprothite and péligotite;while in the structure of ottohahnite, four of these uranyl sulfate
clusters are combined through shared SO4 tetrahedra to form alarger [(UO2)4(SO4)10]12– cluster.
The uranyl sulfate clusters occur in layers parallel to {010} andare linked through a complex network of bonds involving 10
different Na+ cations, two isolated SO4 tetrahedra (S4 and S5)
and three H2O groups (Fig. 6). Na–O coordination varies from
5 to 8. Isolated SO4 tetrahedra are rare in the structures of uranyl
sulfates; however, they have been observed, for example, inTable 7. Bond-valence analysis for lussierite. Values are expressed in valence units.*
U
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
O9
O10
O11
O12
O13
O14
O15
O16
O17
O18
O19
O20
O21
O22
O23
O24
O25
O26
O27
O28
O29
Sum

1.80
1.75
0.61
0.55
0.55
0.44
0.39

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

Na1

Na2

Na3

Na4

Na5

Na6

0.08

0.09

Na8

Na9

Na10

0.11
1.38
1.45

0.08

1.29

0.12

1.41
1.42
1.60
1.59

0.11
0.07

0.18
0.16
0.10

0.15
0.08

1.56
1.55
1.51

0.17
0.13

0.18

0.14
0.22

0.17

0.16

0.22

0.05
0.13
0.06

0.18
0.07

0.23
1.54
1.55
1.50
1.47

0.20
0.20

0.14
0.22
0.08
0.10

0.23
0.24
0.19

0.19

6.06

6.02

6.20

0.19

1.05

0.22
0.21
0.19

0.20
0.09

0.23

0.08

0.20
1.04

0.96

0.26
0.10

0.16
6.37

0.07
0.19

1.63
1.59
1.59

5.91

0.19
0.15
0.05

0.24
0.20

0.21
1.51
1.54
1.54
1.44

6.02

0.17

0.15
0.12

1.68
1.64
1.60

6.10

Na7

0.14

0.13

0.98

1.11

0.88

1.00

0.96

0.06
0.14
0.14

0.06

0.18
0.94

1.06

Sum
1.91
1.92
2.00
2.08
2.08
2.11
1.97
1.87
2.06
1.94
1.85
1.99
1.97
2.15
2.12
1.99
2.01
1.85
1.92
1.89
2.05
1.94
1.83
2.17
1.94
2.05
0.36
0.27
0.38

*All bond valence parameters are from Gagné and Hawthorne (2015). Hydrogen bonds are not included. Note that O27, O28 and O29 are O atoms of H2O groups.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

Mineralogical Magazine

807

Fig. 6. The crystal structure of lussierite. The unit cell is indicated by dashed lines. The Na atoms are shown as small turquoise spheres (labelled with small numbers). The O atoms of H2O groups are shown as white spheres (labelled with large numbers). Na–O bonds are drawn as sticks.

belakovskiite, which contains [(UO2)(SO4)4(H2O)]6– FBBs (withmonodentate U–S linkage) (Kampf et al., 2014).
Acknowledgements. Reviewer Igor V. Pekov, Structures Editor Peter
Leverett and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for their constructive comments on the manuscript. A portion of this study was funded by the John Jago
Trelawney Endowment to the Mineral Sciences Department of the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County. This research was also financially
supported by the Czech Science Foundation (project GACR 17–09161S to JP).
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article,
please visit https://doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2019.34.

References
Bartlett J.R. and Cooney R.P. (1989) On the determination of uranium-oxygenbond lengths in dioxouranium(VI) compounds by Raman spectroscopy.
Journal of Molecular Structure, 193, 295–300.
Bosi F., Andreozzi G.B., Skogby H., Lussier A.J., Abdu Y.A. and Hawthorne F.C.
(2013) Fluor-elbaite, Na(Li1.5Al1.5)Al6(Si6O18)(BO3)3(OH)3F, a new mineral
species of the tourmaline supergroup. American Mineralogist, 98, 297–303.
Burla M.C., Caliandro R., Camalli M., Carrozzini B., Cascarano G.L.,
Giacovazzo C., Mallamo M., Mazzone A., Polidori G. and Spagna R.
(2012) SIR2011: a new package for crystal structure determination andrefinement. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 45, 357–361.
Burns P.C. (2005) U6+ minerals and inorganic compounds: insights into an
expanded structural hierarchy of crystal structures. The Canadian
Mineralogist, 43, 1839–1894.
Burns P.C. and Hayden L.A. (2002) A uranyl sulfate cluster in Na10[(UO2)(SO4)4](SO4)2·3H2O. Acta Crystallographica, C58, i121–i123.
Čejka J. (1999) Infrared spectroscopy and thermal analysis of the uranyl
minerals. Pp. 521–622. Uranium: Mineralogy, Geochemistry and theEnvironment (P.C. Burns and R.C. Finch, editors). Reviews in
Mineralogy, 38. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, DC.
Chenoweth W.L. (1993) The geology and production history of the uranium
deposits in the White Canyon Mining District, San Juan County, Utah.
Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication, 93–3.
Gagné O.C. and Hawthorne F.C. (2015) Comprehensive derivation of bondvalence parameters for ion pairs involving oxygen. Acta Crystallographica,
B71, 562–578.

Gurzhiy V.V. and Plášil J. (2019) Structural complexity of natural uranyl sulfates. Acta Crystallographica, B75, 39–48.
Hawthorne F.C., Lussier A.J., Ball N.A., Henry D.J., Shimizu R., Ogasawara Y.
and Ota T. (2016) Maruyamaite, K(MgAl2)(Al5Mg)Si6O18(BO3)3(OH)3O,
from the ultrahigh–pressure Kokchetav massif, northern Kazakhstan:
Description and crystal structure. American Mineralogist, 101, 355–361.
Higashi T. (2001) ABSCOR. Rigaku Corporation, Tokyo.
Kampf A.R., Plášil J., Kasatkin A.V. and Marty J. (2014) Belakovskiite,
Na7(UO2)(SO4)4(SO3OH)(H2O)3, a new uranyl sulfate mineral from theBlue Lizard mine, San Juan County, Utah, USA. Mineralogical Magazine,78, 639–649.
Kampf A.R., Plášil J., Kasatkin A.V. and Marty J. (2015) Bobcookite, NaAl
(UO2)2(SO4)4·18H2O, and wetherillite, Na2Mg(UO2)2(SO4)4·18H2O, two
new uranyl sulfate minerals from the Blue Lizard mine, San Juan County,
Utah, USA. Mineralogical Magazine, 79, 695–714.
Kampf A.R., Plášil J., Kasatkin A.V., Marty J. and Čejka J. (2017) Klaprothite,
péligotite and ottohahnite, three new minerals with bidentate UO7–SO4
linkages from the Blue Lizard mine, San Juan County, Utah, USA.
Mineralogical Magazine, 81, 753–779.
Kampf A.R., Olds T., Plášil J., Nash B.P. and Marty J. (2018) Lussierite, IMA
2018-101. CNMNC Newsletter No. 46, December 2018, page 1376;
Mineralogical Magazine, 82, 1369–1379.
Libowitzky E. (1999) Correlation of O–H stretching frequencies and O–H···Ohydrogen bond lengths in minerals. Monatshefte für Chemie, 130, 1047–1059.
Lussier A.J. (2012) Zonation in Tourmaline from Granitic Pegmatites and the
Occurrence of Tetrahedrally Coordinated Aluminum and Boron in
Tourmaline. PhD thesis, Manitoba, Canada.
Lussier A.J., Hawthorne F.C., Abdu Y.A., Ball N.A., Tait K.T., Back M.E., Steede A.H.,
3+
Taylor R. and McDonald A.M. (2014) Ferro-ferri-nybøite, NaNa2(Fe2+
3 Fe2 )
Si8O22(OH)2, a new clinoamphibole from Mont Saint-Hilaire, Québec,Canada: Description and crystal structure. The Canadian Mineralogist, 52,
1019–1026.
Lussier A.J., Lopez R.A.K. and Hawthorne F.C. (2016) A revised and expanded
structure hierarchy of natural and synthetic hexavalent uranium compounds. The Canadian Mineralogist, 54, 177–283.
Mandarino J.A. (1976) The Gladstone–Dale relationship – Part 1: derivation of
new constants. The Canadian Mineralogist, 14, 498–502.
Olds T.A., Lussier A.J., Oliver A. G., Petrˇíček V., Plášil J., Kampf A.R.,
Burns P.C., Dembowski M., Carlson S.M. and Steele I.M. (2017)
Shinkolobweite, IMA 2016-095. CNMNC Newsletter No. 36, April 2017,
page 404; Mineralogical Magazine, 81, 403–409.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user

808
Plášil J., Buixaderas E., Čejka J., Sejkora J., Jelička J., and Novk M. (2010)
Raman spectroscopic study of the uranyl sulphate mineral zippeite: low
wavenumber and U–O stretching regions. Analytical and Bioanalytical
Chemistry, 397, 2703–2715.
Plášil J., Kampf A.R., Kasatkin A.V. and Marty J. (2014) Bluelizardite,
Na7(UO2)(SO4)4Cl(H2O)2, a new uranyl sulfate mineral from the Blue
Lizard mine, San Juan County, Utah, USA. Journal of Geosciences, 59,
145–158.

Anthony R. Kampf et al.
Pouchou J.L. and Pichoir F. (1985) “PAP” (wρZ) procedure for improved quantitative microanalysis. Pp. 104–106 in: Microbeam Analysis (J.T. Armstrong,
editor). San Francisco Press, San Francisco, California, USA.
Sheldrick G.M. (2015) Crystal structure refinement with SHELX. Acta
Crystallographica, C71, 3–8.
Volkovich V.A., Griffiths T.R., Fray D.J. and Fields M. (1998) Vibrational spectra of alkali metal Li, Na and K uranates and consequent assignment of uranate ion site symmetry. Vibrational Spectroscopy, 17, 83–91.

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/minmag/article-pdf/83/6/799/4911493/s0026461x19000343a.pdf?casa_token=Q1Kcd44NWgoAAAAA:do9nkYCQ4Yt6274NEjBCNwOTxAORleFRrMewQwrxI3wKzudvzr8vz
by University of Arizona user