Difference between revisions of "Pseudomalachite"

From CAMEO
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
basic copper phosphate; false malachite; ehlite; lunnite; Pseudomalachit (Deut.) 
 
basic copper phosphate; false malachite; ehlite; lunnite; Pseudomalachit (Deut.) 
 
+
[[[SliderGallery rightalign|Pseudomalachite (HU Mineral Museum).PNG~FTIR (MFA)|Pseudomalachite IR-ATR RRUFF R040175.png~IR-ATR (RRUFF)|Pseudomalachite Raman RRUFF R040175.png~Raman (RRUFF)]]]
[[[SliderGallery rightalign|Pseudomalachite (HU Mineral Museum).PNG~FTIR (MFA)|Pseudomalachite IR-ATR RRUFF R040175.png~IR-ATR (RRUFF)|File:Pseudomalachite Raman RRUFF R040175.png~Raman (RRUFF)]]]
 
[[File:Pseudomalachite IR-ATR RRUFF R040175.png|thumb]]
 
[[File:Pseudomalachite Raman RRUFF R040175.png|thumb]]
 
 
== Physical and Chemical Properties ==
 
== Physical and Chemical Properties ==
  

Latest revision as of 12:32, 9 December 2022

Pseudomalachite

Description

Dark waxy green crystals composed of basic copper phosphate. Pseudomalachite occurs naturally in the oxidation zones for copper ores. It resembles Malachite in appearance but lacks the characeristic light/dark banding of malachite. Pseudomalachite has been found in Zaire (Shaba), Slovakia (Libethen), Germany (Bavaria), France, Russia, Canada and the U.S. (Arizona).

Synonyms and Related Terms

basic copper phosphate; false malachite; ehlite; lunnite; Pseudomalachit (Deut.) 

FTIR (MFA)

Pseudomalachite (HU Mineral Museum).PNG

IR-ATR (RRUFF)

Pseudomalachite IR-ATR RRUFF R040175.png

Raman (RRUFF)

Pseudomalachite Raman RRUFF R040175.png

Physical and Chemical Properties

  • Crystals = massive
  • Fracture = conchoidal
  • Cleavage = imperfect
  • Luster = glassy
  • Streak = bluish green
  • Unlike malachite, pseudomalachite will not react with acids.
Composition Cu5(PO4)2(OH)4
Mohs Hardness 4.0-4.5
Density 3.6-4.34 g/ml
Molecular Weight 542.68
Refractive Index 1.791; 1.856; 1.867

Resources and Citations

  • Naumova et al. Studies in Conservation 35:81-88, 1990