## 3 Results and Discussion
### Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (FE-SEM-EDS)  
The morphology and grain aspect of samples (Figure 2(b),d,f,h,j,l) was obtained using the secondary electron detection mode and highlights the mixture of a fine-grained base [36, 37] with crystallized grains [38, 39], specific to calcite structure (all samples), as well as the formation of plated (laminated) calcite crystals (sample 5) [40, 41]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Component** & **Sample 1** & **Sample 2** & **Sample 3** & **Sample 4** & **Sample 5** & **Sample 6** \\ \hline Na\({}_{2}\)O & nd \({}^{2}\) & 0.724 \(\pm\) 0.067 & nd \({}^{2}\) & 1.186 \(\pm\) 0.135 & nd \({}^{2}\) & 1.146 \(\pm\) 0.107 \\ MgO & 1.097 \(\pm\) 0.248 & 1.485 \(\pm\) 0.122 & 1.752 \(\pm\) 0.154 & 25.119 \(\pm\) 1.280 & 2.709 \(\pm\) 0.224 & 3.444 \(\pm\) 0.213 \\ Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.986 \(\pm\) 0.072 & 1.461 \(\pm\) 0.092 & 1.803 \(\pm\) 0.064 & 7.149 \(\pm\) 0.594 & 3.959 \(\pm\) 0.072 & 4.891 \(\pm\) 0.283 \\ SiO\({}_{2}\) & 2.915 \(\pm\) 0.049 & 4.806 \(\pm\) 0.039 & 4.462 \(\pm\) 0.058 & 13.780 \(\pm\) 0.799 & 11.436 \(\pm\) 0.872 & 13.403 \(\pm\) 0.902 \\ P\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 0.269 \(\pm\) 0.021 & 0.398 \(\pm\) 0.026 & 0.243 \(\pm\) 0.022 & 0.680 \(\pm\) 0.038 & 0.221 \(\pm\) 0.028 & 0.217 \(\pm\) 0.021 \\ SO\({}_{3}\) & 0.362 \(\pm\) 0.023 & 0.412 \(\pm\) 0.018 & 0.459 \(\pm\) 0.022 & 1.290 \(\pm\) 0.089 & 0.376 \(\pm\) 0.020 & 0.542 \(\pm\) 0.026 \\ Cl & 0.058 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.177 \(\pm\) 0.008 & 0.027 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.075 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.033 \(\pm\) 0.0034 & 0.346 \(\pm\) 0.009 \\ K\({}_{2}\)O & 0.385 \(\pm\) 0.027 & 0.491 \(\pm\) 0.032 & 0.552 \(\pm\) 0.034 & 1.698 \(\pm\) 0.077 & 0.874 \(\pm\) 0.064 & 1.127 \(\pm\) 0.038 \\ CaO & 93.375 \(\pm\) 4.036 & 89.219 \(\pm\) 3.657 & 89.937 \(\pm\) 3.061 & 45.437 \(\pm\) 2.067 & 78.740 \(\pm\) 2.966 & 72.602 \(\pm\) 2.591 \\ MnO & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & 0.097 \(\pm\) 0.041 \\ Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.499 \(\pm\) 0.042 & 0.783 \(\pm\) 0.039 & 0.661 \(\pm\) 0.042 & 0.346 \(\pm\) 0.028 & 1.627 \(\pm\) 0.085 & 1.701 \(\pm\) 0.038 \\ CuO & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & nd \({}^{2}\) & 0.049 \(\pm\) 0.002 \\ SrO & 0.055 \(\pm\) -0.005 & 0.046 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.104 \(\pm\) 0.011 & 3.192 \(\pm\) 0.641 & 0.025 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.435 \(\pm\) 0.040 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) WDXRF data obtained by EZ Scan analysis, in vacuum, for sample type oxide powder, the pellets (1.5 g sample mixed with 2 g BOREOX—FLUKANA) being covered with Myler foil (6 μm thickness). Total scanning time of the sample: 30 min. \({}^{2}\) Component which was not detected in sample (<LOD).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mineral composition of the mosaic fragments\({}^{1}\) determined by WDXRF, expressed in mass% \(\pm\) S.D.%, normalized to 100%. Figure 3: _Cont._  
The energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analyses of the elemental composition of the studied mosaics (Figure 3 and Table 3) revealed some proportions of Ca, O, and C and minor proportions of Si, K, Mg, and Al (in all studied samples), as well as Na (samples 1, 4 and 6), P (sample 4), S (samples 2-5), Cl (samples 1 and 6). The minor compositions of elements in mosaic fragments are similar for all studied mosaic fragments. Minor differences were observed due to the diversity of the different phase agglomerations, as previously reported [13; 42]. It should be noted the extraordinarily constant chemical compositions for blue and red mosaic samples (i.e., 2, 3 and 5). The high content of Ca was detected in the white and blue mosaic samples (i.e., 1 and 3). It can be explained by a higher quantity of calcite phases in those samples. Several amounts of sulfates (samples 2-5) were detected.