Corrections to White Geochemistry book online
Chapter 1.
Fig 1.1 and other periodic tables: Better specify "naturally occurring elements" in the caption, since you are excluding everything beyond Pu.
Page 5, last paragraph of section 1.3.1: imagining the sun, not imaging the sun. (Found by Colette Salyk)
Page 7, second footnote: superscript 4 on '4He' in last line.
Fig. 1.4: For some reason, B, C, Al, and Si are shown above Sc and Ti rather than above Ga and Ge. (Found by Ravi Kanda)
Page 9, second paragraph: Thus the 3d subshell is vacant in period 3 elements (plural) (Colette Salyk)
Page 10, Reference to Fig. 1.6 should be Fig 1.4.
Fig. 1.6: Try to show absolute scale in angstroms?
Page 18: Bizarre to leave abundance of Fe out of the list of common elements in the silicate Earth. Also, not sure I would define silicates as based on tetrahedral coordination...is stishovite a silicate?
Fig. 1.11 caption: in pyroxenes each tetrahedron share two oxygens (sharing only one gives you Si2O7 groups, not chains).
Page 19: Again, pyroxenes have two bridging oxygens per tetrahedron. In amphiboles, you only add half an additional bridging oxygen between tetrahedra (equal number of Q2 and Q3 silicons).
Chapter 2.
Page 23: Better not to state categorically that "equilibrium occurs when the Gibbs Free Energy of the system is lowest" unless you also include "at constant temperature and pressure".
Page 24, bottom: Might want to clarify the definition of pure substance with an example such as water, which is pure unless the process under consideration involves electrolysis, etc.
Page 30: Definitions of exact function and exact differential equation are a bit confused. As I understand it, 2.25 is an exact differential equation if 2.31 is true. From this it follows that there exists at exact function u whose derivative is gien by 2.26.
Pages 33-34: The statistical possibilities considered are "combinations", not "permutations", since the sequence of units is not considered.
Page 34: 6/64 = 0.09375.
Page 35, bottom: "We assume that each block is has..." (two verbs).
Equation 2.52: Better put a "rev" subscript on dQ here, if it is going to serve as a definition of entropy.
Page 38, section 2.4.2.2: Surely once the partition is removed all 16 states are accessible, not only the four versions of the most probable case. So the change in entropy ought to be kln16 = 4kln2.
Page 38, 2.4.2.3, second sentence: "number of states". Third sentence, parenthetical clause: "Such as the thermal insulation".
Page 39, 2.4.3, first sentence: "...inexact differential that is a function...".
Page 39, equation 2.58: This equation is only true for reversible changes. Best to state the inequality and then given the explicit limitation to reversible processes state the equality. It can then also be introduced that E reaches a minimum during the approach to equilibrium at prescribed S and V, which while not very practical sets up the later statement in terms of G, P, and T.
Box 2.1: Units on heat of evaporation? J/kg, J/mol, or extensive J for the total quantity of freon in the air conditioner (J/cycle?). Capitalize K in J/k in the two equations. Should be J/K, not J/T after 0.113 in the line after the two equations.
Page 40, between equations 2.59 and 2.60: enthalpy misspelled.
Page 40, equation 2.65: Again this form is restricted to reversible processes. If the inequality is given then it can be shown that H is a minimum at equilbrium when S and P are prescribed (as in adiabatic reversible pressure changes).
Page 41, section 2.6.1, last paragraph: "heat capacities depend on vibrational frequencies".
Page 42, after equation 2.74: Remarkably, CP-CV is positive even when alpha is negative! This is not quite captured by the present text.
Page 44, section 2.6.4.1, first paragraph: "most mean" should be either "mean" or "most probable".
Equations 2.89 and 2.90: ln is missing in (dlnQ/dT)|V.
Page 46, after equation 2.93: Spin quantum numbers have fractional values, so this is not quite right.
Page 47, last paragraph: Equation 1.125 is the wrong reference, not sure what the right one is.
Equation 2.102: The dT should be in the numerator, the T in the denominator of the integrand! Need a bigger space between the two equations (delta-S-phi and Cp run together). Best to warn the reader right off that both Maier-Kelley and Haas-Fisher are purely empirical forms and that, in particular, since both have positive powers of T they must never be extrapolated beyond the calibrated range.
Page 50: Not sure what you are getting at when you say "the coefficient of thermal expansion is 0 at absolute 0". I think the point is that the Cp integral is done at 1 bar and the volume is integral is taken at the temperature of interest.
Page 50, sections 2.8.1: Must again specify reversible: A reversible adiabatic change is one carried out at constant entropy!
Box 2.3: Better specify nearly ideal solution; if the Fe and Mg atoms tend to cluster, this estimate will not be right.
Page 52, end of section 2.8.3: Don't say "enthalpies of formation for these elements"...you mean compounds. Also, Box 2.4 should be moved to the bottom of the page.
Equation 2.120: Again, dT in numerator, T in denominator.
Box 2.5: Sign error in second equation: integral of -C/T^2 is +c/T.
Table 2.2: Berman (1988) or Holland and Powell (1998) are more accurate and internally consistent than Helgeson (1978). Andalusite misspelled. Should either spell out all minerals or expand abbreviations in the caption. Subscript 8 on chlorite formula misplaced.
Page 54, section 2.9.1: Better not to say "dU - TdS is the amount of internal energy in the system available for work", this confuses absolute energies and changes in energy (it seems to say that dU - TdS is defined as A). Perhaps just take out "in the system".
Box 2.6: Need to specify that only the volume of steam should be taken as ideal; evidently we are not using the ideal gas law for the heat capacity.
Equation 2.126 is not really the integral of 2.125. It is more like a finite difference version of Equation 2.123.
Page 56, section 2.9.3: The second boxed theorem is only true at constant T and P.
Box 2.7: The references should be to equations 2.129 and 2.130.
Page 57: The unnumbered equation at the bottom of the page does not make sense to me. I would proceed straight to equation 2.132, and then in equation 2.133 I would pull Delta-Sref*(T'-Tref) out of the integral.
Box 2.8 middle paragraph: "Since we may assume" or "Since we are assuming".
Problem 1. Would scan better if you said "adiabatic temperature gradient (dT/dP)|S".
Problem 11. ??? Where did the minus sign come from? Also, this is just a one-step application of the chain rule.
Problem 19. Andalusite misspelled again (but differently).
Chapter 3.
Page 63, section 3.2.1.3, end of first paragraph: "...we are also interested in the precipitation..."
Page 64: Boehmite misspelled the second time. Also, there are at least three phases of Al2O3 and at least 12 phases of H2O...
Figure 3.2, caption: Boehmite misspelled again. Andalusite misspelled again (yet a third way).
Page 64: The albite-orthoclase exchange is binary. I can also write the reaction K-Na = KNa-1.
Page 65, last paragraph: I would not say univariant point, but univariant lines (or curves). And I would not say "fixed pressure or fixed temperature" for a univariant but "along a one-dimensional line or curve in P-T space".
Section 3.2.3: Limiting the discussion to a phase boundary between two phases in a one-component system is not necessary. The Clapeyron equation applies to any unvariant reaction.
Page 66: "...grind anorthite and albite crystals into a fine powder and mix them..."
Page 69, section 3.4.1, second paragraph: The volume of plagioclase is the sum of the partial molar volume of its components weighted by the number of moles of each component present. Also, worth commenting that in some systems the molar volumes are nearly independent of composition and hence can be used to simply interpolate the volume of any composition.
Page 74, after equation 3.33: Better qualify mu_i is always less than or equal to mu_i_o for an ideal solution, lest the reader think this a universal law for all solutions.
Page 75, region (1): Dissolved, not dissolves.
Page 77, top: Kerrick with two k's...observations on the volume, pressure, and temperature (I presume).
Box 3.2: Integral of RT/f df, not RT/P df. Second half of Eq. 3.49 is mangled.
Page 79, last line of section 3.6.3: conentration, singular.
Page 80, Freezing point box: Between Eqns 3.59 and 3.60 the reference to equations 3.56 and 3.57 is wrong, it should be 3.58 and 3.59. The notation in this box is not consistent: sometime mu^o_H2O, sometimes mu^o_H2O_l, etc. Given the convention of putting phase in the superscript, I would use superscripts of o,l and o,ice.
Figure 3.10: No difference in grayscale evident between first and second solvation shells. There is an "and" missing in the last sentence of the caption.
Page 82, second full paragraph: "Immediately adjacent to the ion..."
Page 82, comments for enrichment: Add that electrosriction can lead to negative partial molar volumes for solutes (though you get to this in a few pages anyway). Comment that at very high pressure the dissociation of water becomes much more significant and the pH of neutral solutions shifts dramatically.
Page 83, equation 3.68: I always thought pH was defined as -log[H+] using concentration, not activity. Perhaps I'm wrong; are you sure on this?
Figure 3.11: Reference misspelled.
Equation 3.70: Should be limit as m->0, not infinity!
Page 84, sentence before equation 3.72: delete "and".
Page 86, end of first paragraph: "Table 3.2a summarzies the Debye-Huckel solvent parameters..."
Page 87, bottom: "an ionic species that forms", singular case on verb.
Page 88, middle paragraph: Inconsistent use of molality and molarity.
Page 90: Phase component not really defined. References to Eq. 3.92 is wrong, should be 3.80.
Example 3.5 and elsewhere: The A site of feldspars is not octahedral.
Page 93: Reference to equation 3.97 is wrong; the law of mass action is Equation 3.85. Apparently you added 12 equations at some point.
Box 3.6: p missing of pK2 in last equation. Also sign on pKH2O is wrong, should be +.
Page 94: Second law misstated, inequality is other way around.
Example 3.8: Question should be "what would be the activity of Mg2+ in that fluid". Question says pH 3.5 but answer is calculated using pH 4.0.
Page 98, first paragraph: Choose, not chose.
Page 100: LEO the lion, not lions. Also, my useful mnemonic is that reduction means the charge goes down. Also, the sentence after the magnetite oxidation reaction should is missing an 'is' and loses is misspelled.
Page 102, first full paragraph: Emerged or immersed?
Equation 3.103 is not balanced.
Equation 3.120 is mangled.
Page 107: Statement of equilibrium constant for solution of magnetite should have activity of Fe2+, not 3+, and should have a 2pe term, not 3pe.
Problem 8: Need parentheses around OH in formula for phlogopite.
Problem 11: Formula for K2 is wrong.
Problem 12: Concentration of _solute_ in the vapor is small.
Problem 15: Presumably you mean Fe2+ and Fe3+.
Chapter 4.
Equations 4.8 and 4.8a are redundant.
Page 120: Not clear why you say the WGi for an asymmetric solution depend on pressure after equation 4.17, since you clarify just below that they can also be split into WU, WV,and WS terms.
Figure 4.3: Sketch solvus, spinodal, and critical point on the 3-D G-X-T surface?
Page 122: First paragraph confuses the issues of partial solid solution and complete miscibility. Not clear what good is does to maintain the fiction of pure endmember solids through until after the next paragraph.
Equation 4.20: Sign error, should be -mu^0_1. Also second term should be RT(X2/X1). And then there must be a plus between this term and (dGex/dX2). Also, ideally you should not switch between G_excess in the text and G_ex with a bar in the equations.
Equation 4.21 is not right; again you need a + before the (d2G_ex/dX_2^2). Otherwise setting G_ex to zero gives zero second derivative rather than strictly positive second derivative.
Page 122: X2a and X2b are not the inflection points. The solvus and spinode have gotten all tangled up here. The solvus points, since they both lie on a common tangent, are in equilibrium with one another.
Page 123, first paragraph: "at about 650C _in_ the alkali feldspar solution".
Page 123, end of section 4.3: Again you refer to the solvus point as an inflection point, which it clearly is not. Also, you should introduce here the idea of nucleation of a phase near the opposite limb of the solvus as a way around the kinetic barrier described.
Figure 4.9 caption: The dashed lines should be described as "metastable", not sure what you mean by apparent in this context.
Page 126, last sentence of 4.4.1: where, not we.
Page 126: I wouldn't say univariant and divariant "systems" but rather "assemblages".
Figure 4.11: Caption to part (d) got lost.
Page 128: Your definition of peritectic is tricky. Which phase is eliminated as you lower temperature depends on bulk composition (if you are between fo and en then L will be eliminated, even though En=Fo+L is a peritectic). A more general definition is that the liquid is between the two solids in composition at a eutectic whereas the liquid is not between the solids at a peritectic (and hence it is possible for a solid+liquid assemblage to persist below the peritectic temperature if the bulk composition is right).
Figure 4.14: The uncertainty in the Al2SiO5 triple point is no longer due to sluggish kinetics but to the free energy difference between bulk sillimanite and fibrolite.
Page 131: Displaced equilibria also applies to reactions that are displaced by solution in the vapor phase, I think.
Page 133, section 4.5.2.2, first paragraph: "has _been_ the subject".
Figure 4.16: Shading is messed up. Either shade one-phase regions or two-phase regions but not some of each.
Figure 4.17: The caption statement that experiment show complete solid solution between the Fe end-members is not consistent with the plot. The red 700 C contour should close within the quadrilateral if this is true.
Page 138: The statement of the approach of Spencer and Lindsley repeats what you just said about two independent reactions.
Page 139, little smidge of text: Principles, not principals.
Page 142, first word: either "structures" or "structural elements".
Page 142, last paragraph of 4.6.2: Ghiorso misspelled twice. Also, I object to describing the goal of thermodynamic modelling as restricted to crystallization and cooling. It is equally applicable to melting calculations. Indeed in the batch case it is the same thing. This galls me because I had a reviewer downgrade one of my proposals because he thought Ghiorso's code could not be used for melting...
Page 142, first sentence of section 4.6.2.1: missing 'the' in "argued that simplest model".
Equation 4.61: Extra = sign. Don't need all the fussy j and k stuff in the second summation term since Wjj = 0. Same in equation 4.62.
Page 143 after equation 4.63: should be nu_p,i not nu_p,k.
Page 143 footnote: another novel spelling of Ghiorso.
Page 145 top: This discussion of the numerical method is not quite right. Evidently, the chemical potentials are not all zero at a minimum in G. They are all equal for each component in all the phases, so that G cannot be lowered by moving matter from one phase to another, but that does not mean they are zero. What vanishes at the minimum is the gradient of G with respect to the free compositional variables.
Figure 4.24 caption: Date should be 1995 on Ghiorso and Sack ref.
Page 146: MELTS is not limited to 1 GPa. A more reasonable limit is 3 GPa.
Page 147, top: Another misspelling of Ghiorso. MIXFRAC _is_ available, not _are_.
Page 147: For some reason the chemical potential relation for NaCl, Na+, and Cl- is given twice.
Page 147, after equation 4.72: I would call this a "geometric mean", not multiplicative.
Equation 4.75: Denominator missing.
Page 148, bottom: "Let's return".
Figure 4.25: Odd to put (a) on the bottom and (b) on the top.
Equation 4.95: Should not be an r in the denominator of RHS.
Page 152 last paragraph: remove 'if' from "Consider the case where if a certain fraction...".
Page 154 second paragraph: CaCl_ should be superscript -.
Page 156 top: Fletcher misspelled.
Problem 1 text and table: More trouble with the spelling of andalusite. Also sillimanite, spelled differently in both text and table.
Problem 3: Spelling of parameter.
Problem 4a: Add "intervals".
Problem 7: Gratuitous hyphen in titanomagnetite.
Problem 10: This is really labor-intensive!
Problem 11: Better put a label on the table as to which problem it goes with.
Problem 15 Table: why more entries in first column than in second?
Chapter 5.
Page 161, 3rd paragraph: "...more likely to be _in_ equilibrium...", "...where cooling is rapid enough..." (not rapidly).
Page 162 section 5.2.2 second paragraph: "subsequently precipitating", two typos. Extra space later in same line.
Equation 5.15: n_O_2, not n_O.
Equation 5.19: n_O_2 for n_O, n_N for n_H.
Page 165 just before equation 5.20: "...the average velocity..."
Equations 5.21 and 5.23: n_O_2, not n_O.
Page 165 just after equation 5.23: nitrogen, not hydrogen.
Page 166 first footnote: in the present version, van't Hoff equation is 3.96.
Page 166 second footnote: Arrhenius died in 1927, not 1827.
Figure 5.3: The two halves of the figure are not consistent, they do not agree at 300 K and 15 kJ.
Page 166 last paragraph: "In the case of..."
Table 5.1: Would be entertaining to add diamond->graphite, which is like 700 kJ/mol or something, I think.
Page 167 footnote: Also don't confuse it with the law of mass action, since the exponents in the rate equation need not be the stoichiometric coefficients in general.
Page 167 second paragraph: "Second, the values of the exponents _for the reactants_ are the stoichiometric coefficients of the _reactant_ species". Otherwise it sounds inconsistent with the First restriction.
Example 5.1: The question is stated in a confusing manner: "How the concentration of CO2 will change with time after the concentration of CO2 is changed". Better to say we assume that the equilibrium concentration of CO2 is zero and ask about the evolution after CO2 is added.
Page 168 second paragraph: I think you want a one-way reaction arrow, not an equilibrium two-way arrow. The exponent in Equation 5.30 is partly cut-off as I view it.
Example 5.2: Second reaction does not balance; want 1 H2O and 1 H+. Probably want to write the third reaction, even if it not pH dependent. Last line of the box is cut off as I view it.
Page 172: Mysterious euro symbol in first line.
Equation 5.40 and the one before it: subscripts on k+ and k_ missing in denominators.
Box 5.3: Should concede that racemization rates (like all kinetic rates) are temperature dependent, so as a chronometer it involves certain assumptions.
Page 173: It looks like the reference to Eqn 5.60 at the bottom should be to Eqn 5.43.
Page 174: Again, the van't Hoff equation is 3.96.
Figure 5.6: Some minuses missing.
Page 175: It says "activate complex" in a couple places where "activated" is intended.
Page 176: More equation numbering problems.
Page 178: Formatting issue; don't want equation 5.70 by itself on a page the rest of which is taken up by a box. Also, last line of the box is cut off as I view it.
Page 180: Equation 5.73a should show J as a vector. Then, the expression for gradient of a scalar function is incorrect, it needs to be a vector.
Page 181: Fick's 2nd law is equation 5.74, not 5.91. Also, given the way most equations are developed rather than taken as given, it would perhaps be wise to show how Fick's 2nd law arises from conservation of mass (continuity) and Fick's 1st law.
Figure 5.11: More points should be plotted so the curves are smoother and more symmetrical.
Caption to Figure 5.12: This films, not this films.
Equation 5.82: Missing a close-parenthesis.
Page 182, footnote: The reader might not know how to write an IF statement in Excel to test for a negative value. Perhaps a good opportunity to teach them (learning how to use Excel is a big part of learning to be a geochemist, no?).
Box 5.6: More equation numbering problems.
Equation 5.89: Missing "n=" under summation sign.
Equation 5.90: Should use L rather than D for Onsager rather than Fick coefficient.
Equation 5.90a: This is a strange equation. It should either be dc/dt = L d2m/dx2 or if you take an ideal solution approximation you could get back to dm/dt somehow.
Box 5.8 should refer to equation 5.91, not 5.107.
Page 185: In Watson's experiment, the quartz sphere stays solid; in the text your refer to a quartz liquid (at 1200C!).
Page 185: References to Equation 5.92 should be to 5.91. Also, no reason to put arrows over the Ci elements of the C vector.
Page 185: Your "three types of diffusion" (self, chemical and inter-) excludes the important case of multicomponent chemical diffusion, which uses the Fick-Onsager equation, a sort of combination of your treatment of chemical and interdiffusion. The non-ideality of silicate liquids, causing Na chemical potential to be slaved to Si concentration, is much more important in generating uphill diffusion in Watson's (and also, more recently, Lundstrom's) experiments, than any charge or volume counter-diffusion effects. See Liang and Richter papers.
Equation 5.97 is corrupted.
Page 189: Kirkaldy misspelled.
Page 189: Strange to define the r parameter in Stokes-Einstein as an "ionic radius" if the equation only applies to neutral species. Also, the limitation of Stokes-Einstein to diffusion of the major species controlling shear deformation should be mentioned.
Page 190: Adatom or Addatom?
Page 190: It is jarring in the discussion of steps and kinks when you switch from growth to dissolution.
Page 191, top: "Molar volume of each (pure) quartz crystal".
Page 191: If you want another demonstration of the importance of surface energy at small grainsize, you could show Navrotsky's figure based on calorimetry of nanocrystalline a- and g-Al2O3; the relative stability switches at a certain size.
Page 192: The notation DGr is confusing, since this is the part of DG that does not depend on r! About halfway down there is a typo, is says DGrl for no good reason. Also, in Figure 5.21, the red curve should go through the origin.
Page 193, top: Does viscosity really affect nucleation through the surface energy rather than through the rate of formation of nuclei? This is surprising to me. Also, I assume you don't mean "nucleation rations".
Box 5.9: Enthalpy misspelled.
Page 195: Reference to 3.133 should be to 5.116. Reference to 5.123a needs fixing.
Page 196, first paragraph of section 5.5.4: Better specify "Heats of chemical adsorption are relatively large".
Page 197: What is A? I think around equations 5.128 and 5.129 the text should only talk about the concentration of M.
Page 202, Rate equation: Missing open brace on third term; kL, [L], and kH2O not defined.
Page 207, top: "Let's turn our attention..."
Equations 5.141, 5.143, 5.144: You switched from w to v.
Equation 1.54 can't really be balanced.
Figure 5.37 caption: should refer to equation 5.160?
Problem #6: Derive 5.57 by starting with 5.57?
Chapter 6
Page 216, last paragraph: "Arrhenius defined an acid as a substance..."
Page 217: Second reaction showing amphoteric nature of Al(OH)2+ should have OH- as a reactant, not H2O.
Page 217, first paragraph of section 6.2.1.1: There is an OH+ that should be OH-. Also there is a gratuitous 's' in the italic sentence. And I think it would be useful to caution the reader against confusing balanced chemical reactions with proton balance equations (point out the use of an equals sign rather than reaction arrows).
Page 218, just before Eqn. 6.9: "...is assumed but not written..."
Page 218, just after Eqn. 6.9: Italicize TOT in TOTH.
Page 220: Reaction 6.15a does not parse; leave out H2O as a reactant. In Example 6.1, too many 'ands' in the first sentence. In second line, NaCO3 should Na2CO3. Just after equation 6.22, 'choose' and 'fourth' are misspelled.
Page 221: Table 6.1 headers, missing p on the pKCaHCO3+.
Page 223, end of section 6.2.3: Symbol CT not defined, you have been using SCO2.
Page 224, after equation 6.36: Reference should be to back to RHS of 6.36, not 6.32.
Page 225, Example 6.4: Should refer to problem 3.7, not 3.8. Also, I think both in the example and in the text of section 6.2.5.1, the reference should be to equation 6.37 for calculation of alkalinity.
Page 225, after equation 6.40: references should be to equations 6.39a and 6.39b.
Page 226, top: misspelled stoichiometry.
Example 6.5: Why is equation 6.46 given twice?
Caption to Figure 6.6: Valence misspelled (also on Page 231, three times, where figure 6.6 is described).
Page 231, just after the drawings of the complexes: the word 'concentration' is repeated twice.
Example 6.6: "...substituting into the equilibrium constant expression, we obtain..."
Page 233: Predominately should be predominantly.
Page 234: Do not want to split lines between 10- and 8 in the Pb concentration.
Page 234, first sentence of 6.4.1: 'found' and 'present' are redundant.
Page 234: There is no equation 6.51. Also, the reference at the bottom of the page should be to 6.53 (as presently numbered).
Page 236: Should point out that the effect of Na concentration on Calcite solubility is expressed in equation 6.56 by the activity coefficients of Ca and bicarbonate which, in turn, depend on ionic strength as in the Debye-Huckel law.
Figure 6.14: Why show metastable extensions in part (a) but not in part (b)?
Page 239, first line: dissolved, not dissolve. Also, first sentence of 6.43 should say 'element', not 'elements'.
Page 240: In description of Solver, mean to say "no direct solution".
Page 241, just after equation 6.75: Gratuitous "we ca" before real "we can".
Page 242, section 6.4.4: Want Ag1+, not 3+.
Page 243, before equation 6.84: Either "other metals" or "metals other than Al". Then, missing value for K1 for Fe and label on 6.84a. Also, charge on Fe(OH)4 in 6.84c should be -1, not +1. Also, the sequence of reactions 6.84 is confusing. Finally, why not show neutral Fe(OH)3[aq], the way you do for Al?
Page 244, equation 6.85 and following: better give K as 10-4.4, since that is what is given in the text and in figure 6.22.
Page 246, section 6.5.1.1: "...some hydroxyls are replaced by oxygen...", not the other way around. In section 6.5.2.2, the subscript 4's on Si in the formulas for pyrophyllite and talc are too big.
Page 249, second sentence: Delete "is".
Page 249, between 6.88 and 6.89: The equation uses KYX and the text uses K' for selectivity constant. Also, notation of 6.90 is inadequate to express the fact that X and Y may have different stoichiometric coefficients.
Page 250, intro to section 6.6: It currently says "Soils have concentrations in soils above levels one would predict..."; something is wrong there.
Caption to figure 6.29: "emmersed" should be "immersed".
Page 252, top: Either "constituent oxides' surfaces" or "constituent oxide surfaces".
Caption to Figure 5.31: "dilute" solution.
Page 253, middle paragraph: Logic is messed up in sentence about anion and cation adsorption as function of pH.
Page 254: Unnumbered equation for total Pb should not have a symbol in SPb. Also, in same equation, missing close bracket on [FeOH2+].
Page 257, after eqn. 6.114: Valence misspelled again.
Page 259, caption to 6.40: should refer to Example 6.10, not 6.9.
Page 262, problem 10: Relevance of eqn. 6.48 not clear.
Chapter 7.
Page 265, first paragraph: I don't think 'concentrational' is a word. Also, I think you leave out one of the key reasons why trace elements are useful, namely Henry's Law and the simple and predictable behavior that results from partition coefficients.
Page 267, heading of section 7.2.1: Goldschmidt misspelled.
Page 267 footnote: The Goldschmidt conferences are annual J
Figure 7.3: Too many shades of grey; hard to tell apart. Also, Th should be double-classified as a "rare-earth and related" as well as a U-series decay product.
Page 271, paragraph on sulfur partitioning: "...and other chalcophile metals and are the source of many economically important..."
Page 271: Do not want to imply that by definition carbonatites from as the result of liquid immiscibility. Wyllie's work has shown that many (all?) do not.
Page 271: Conventional to give ionic radii in ngstroms, not pm, isn't it?
Page 272, in paragraph on charges of REE: Eu can be +2, not 2+ (for consistency). Valence misspelled after Th is always +4.
End of page 272, top of page 273: Why not go ahead and tell people that a Coryell-Masuda diagram is often called a spidergram?
Figure 7.7: It is implied in the text, but should make it explicit in the caption which normalization scheme is used, since Orgueil does not plot at 1 and this may confuse people.
Page 275, third sentence of section 7.2.2.6: Valence again.
Page 276, third paragraph: I think this is the first place you have used roman numerals for valence states. Probably better to say +1 to +8.
Page 276: At end of fourth paragraph, 'silicate' not 'silicates'. At end of fifth paragraph, 'oxide' not 'oxides'.
Caption to Figure 7.9: Missing end-quote on Onias's Flow.
Page 278: Formula for apatite is wrong. Should be Ca5(PO4)3(OH,Cl,F).
Page 279: Definition of incompatible is D < 1. D << 1 defines highly incompatible.
Page 279: Using gamma for activity coefficients here seems to violate the standard set up in Chapter 3 of using lambda when units are mole fraction.
Section 7.4 general comment: You need to update all this to reflect the remarkable success of the Blundy and Wood (after Brice and Onuma) treatments. They have drawn much more attention than the Beattie formulation. They have now accounted for ionic radius effects, electrostatic effects, site population...everything but liquid composition (a significant shortcoming, but still). In particular, the symmetry of the Onuma curve seems to shows that the incompatibility of small ions is not because of "low bonding energy" but rather because of strain associated with shrinking the site to fit the small ion.
Page 282: Equation 7.14 is not right. Where did the standard state terms go? Why are there two equals signs?
Page 284: Please don't use the terms basic and acidic for silicate liquids; they are confusing and obsolete.
Example 7.1: I don't think the constant term in 7.22 reflects additional compositional effects; it is just the intercept, i.e. D at infinite temperature and NBO/T=1. Last sentence of the example: Schofield misspelled.
Page 289, just before olivine exchange reaction: "...thermodynamic data were used to calculate..."
Page 289: The paragraph explaining the symbols in equation 7.37 has somehow gotten displaced down into the next section!
Page 292: I don't think the symbol SDo for CFSE makes sense; SD would be better.
Page 294: Probably want to define pleochroism in a footnote.
Figure 7.19: Two lines are shown for the two orbitals that remain degenerate in part (a), but only one line is shown for this pair in part (c). Also, two lines are shown for the two degenerate high energy orbitals in (b), and two lines (not three) are shown for the three degenerate low energy orbitals in (b). In the two previous figures, only one line is shown for all degenerate orbitals; I would stick with that standard in this figure.
Table 7.7: Why isn't Cu2+ vertically aligned with the other 2+ ions? Why no data on Ni3+? Explain somewhere the relationship of spectroscopic transition energy in cm-1 to molar CFSE (CFSE = NAhcD); (OK I see this in one of the problems at the end)?
Figure 7.20: Components should be Mg2SiO4 and Ni2SiO4, the 2's are missing.
Page 297, first sentence of 7.6: "Igneous geochemistry" or "High-temperature geochemistry" would be preferable to "igneous temperature geochemistry." In last paragraph of introductory section, need to say either "melting and melt extraction in the Earth remain poorly understood" or "remain a poorly understood process" and also replace "observed" with "observe." Also, "emplaced", not "implaced." And, "provided" rather than "provides."
Page 297, equation 7.39: Do not put a bar over Cil, this is not an average of anything. More importantly, you need a (1-F) in the denominator, not an (F-1)!
Also, I would not wait until several pages later to define bulk partition coefficient; it would be too easy for a student to look up the batch melting equation without reading on and miss the distinction with mineral partition coefficients. At least a pointer to the definition below would be good.
Caption to figure 7.21 is totally messed up...the equation for fractional melting liquid composition in the text got superimposed on it.
Equation 7.40 is wrong. Again, no bar over Cil, this is not an average of anything. And the equation should be Cil/Cio = (1/D)[(1-F)^(1/D - 1)]. There is an incorrect "1-" term in there.
Equation 7.41, however, is perfect. You will want to point out, since it is not plotted, that accumulated fractional melting is close to batch melting for liquid (but not residue) compositions, for incompatible constant partition coefficients.
Page 299: Need to specify that mf in equation 7.43 is a mass fraction in the mode.
Please do not call P the "eutectic proportion" after 7.44; this appears to limit the non-modal melting equation to eutectic situations, which is too restrictive (e.g., it works just as well for peritectics with a negative term in the sum for P). It would be useful also to point out that in real rocks that do not melt at a univariant reaction, P is not constant either, and a numerical treatment is necessary.
Example 7.3: Missing verb "varies" in second sentence. Missing brackets on Sm concentration in third paragraph.
Page 300: A little caution about the differing definitions of F in batch, fractional, and continuous melting. For batch melting, F is the total amount of liquid produced. For fractional melting, F is both the total amount of liquid produced and the total amount extracted. As defined in the Albarde eqution for continuous melting, F is the amount extracted, which is less (especially at small F) than the amount produced.
End of page 300 is another good place to point out that, although aggregate liquids from different melting models look quite similar, the residues are wildly different.
Section 7.6.6.1: Obviously, I could say a lot on this subject. I will try to limit myself to suggestions that will make the text correct without sacrificing clarity. First, need to explicitly exclude subduction zones from a section that begins "most melting in the mantle appears to result from decompression" (though you do say this later). Second, the Langmuir analysis (also given by Hess) describes a bizarre sort of irreversible decompression path, since it conserves entropy during the metastable solid decompression and enthalpy when it brings the system to equilibrium isobarically. The result depends on the step-size, i.e. the magnitude of departure from equilibrium in the thought experiment. We can do a discussion that is almost as simple and actually describes a well-defined isentropic (i.e. adiabatic and reversible) path just by substituting DSm for DHm and integrating Cp/T instead of Cp. There is a full discussion of my objection to this approach in Asimow et al, 1997, Phil Trans Roy Soc A355: 255-281.
Between 7.53 and 7.54, Clapeyron is misspelled. Furthermore, the Clapeyron equation in its simplest form only applies to univariant reactions. I would simply leave (dT/dP)sol as an experimentally determined parameter. Furthermore, the substitution DSm = TmDHm is not right except for a congruently melting compound (it amounts to saying DGm = 0, which means the bulk system as liquid and as solid are in equilibrium with each other). Furthermore, it is not useful to switch to DHm since this parameter is strongly dependent on pressure and DSm is not. We need not get into just how hard it is to define what you mean by DSm in a multicomponent system.
On pages 301-302 you cavalierly go back and forth between energy and enthalpy several times. Replace them all with entropy. Write equation 7.56 as DS =
Integral(Tact, Tpot, Cp/T dT). Write equation 7.57 as DS = Cp ln(Tpot/Tact), which you then expand as a first-order Taylor series since for small steps Tpot ~ Tact, which yields DS ~ (Cp/Tact)(Tpot-Tact). Write equation 7.58 as DS = F DSm. Now when you equate these two you get instead of 7.61 (DT/P)S ~ (T DSm/Cp)(F/P)S. Sure, this looks a lot like 7.61, but it is valid for multicomponent systems and describes a thermodynamic path that makes sense. Don't use 7.63 at all (see previous paragraph).
The curve in Figure 7.24 is good; much better than any of the treatments that have been used such as Klein and Langmuir or McKenzie and Bickle. However, please do not say melting becomes "eutectic-like"; this is a dangerously ill-defined and connotation-rich phrase that never means quite what one wants it to mean. The general behavior that we see is that isobaric melt productivity is low on the solidus and just after the exhaustion of a phase from the residue and increases to maximum values just before phase exhaustions. Note that in the figure you have a typo: "ol+opx+loq" in place of "liq".
So now you can get an equivalent to 7.65 that I would much prefer, namely: (F/P)S = [TVa/Cp - (T/P)F]/[1/(F/T)P + TDSm/Cp]. By not using the slope of the solidus but rather the slope of a constant F contour, you get something that is not tied to batch melting and can be used for any melting process. It is correct for multicomponent systems and it describes an adiabatic reversible process.
Page 303: The estimate of 1.2%/kbar is worse than you say. Even for anhydrous partial melting it can and does vary from 0.2%/kbar to almost 3%/kbar. You can also be more specific about the effects of volatiles...they result in deep melting but at very small productivity.
Page 304: For gss 2gsm, the dihedral angle is exactly, mot approximately zero.
Page 304: I think it is a mistake to associate low porosity with near-fractional melting. Whether melting approaches batch or fractional has more to do with the rate at which the melt moves relative to diffusive equilibration times. It is perfectly possible for low porosity to mean slow melt migration, which allows equilibrium porous flow, an excellent approximation of batch (not fractional) melting. On the other hand, at high porosity the melt moves quickly and does not maintain equilibrium with the residue...now you're looking at something more like continuous melting. So I'm not comfortable with this rather conventional equality of distantly related concepts.
Section 7.6.6.3 is good; it deals with some of the issues I raised above. Note that the date on the Langmuir et al. reference should be 1992.
Page 305: I prefer "depression" of the solidus to "suppression" of the solidus.
Caption to figure 7.27: The cartoon is not so readily adapted to plume volcanism because you don't have passive spreading out in all directions radial from a point!
Equation 7.68: You use Cil in the equation and C' in the text for the same concept.
Page 307, end of first paragraph: It should be D=0, not D=O. Again, since "acid" melt is an historical term, I would simply avoid using it.
Page 308: Worth pointing out the similarity between in situ crystallization and continuous melting? Worth pointing out that equilibrium crystallization is the reverse of equilibrium melting, but not so for fractional processes?
End of page 310: "Fewer" rather than "few." Ref to figure 7.33 should be to 7.32.
Page 311 top: "Functions" plural.
Page 311, first sentence of 7.8: "Element" or "elements'", but not "elements".
Page 311: "No good constraints on the absolute value of F"...we do know the thickness of the oceanic crust, which is FB*(Pf-Po). There is more to life than trace elements...
Page 311 short paragraph beginning "This all works out nicely": "compatible elements", not "element".
Page 312, sentence beginning "Partial melting produces a much steeper slope...": there is a gratuitous 'of' in here.
Page 313, references: Two errors in the reference between Hauri and Irving.
Problem 5: Tetrahedral misspelled.
Problem 6b refers to problem one; I assume it should refer to 6a. In 6a, it is seriously confusing to use DO for octahedral CFSE and D0 (zero rather than letter O) for the spectroscopic number, since the crystal field theory fractional value goes between these two concepts.
For problem 7 I would have the student plot the solid residue concentration also, so that they can learn the lesson that you need to look at residues not liquids to tell batch melting from accumulated fractional.
Chapter 8.
Page 318 first paragraph: "...salts in the ocean had built up through geologic time at a rate proportional to their delivery by rivers." (two mistakes) I think you should also mention that Kelvin derived a similarly young age based on the heat flow from the Earth (though this one is wrong both because of radioactivity and because of solid-state convection).
Page 319 first full paragraph: By this time the precedent
for "the second point" has become lost in the depths of time.
Page 319 second full paragraph: "...two isotopes of the same element are chemically identical..." Also, need somewhere to explain nuclear notation (i.e. left superscript for A, left subscript for Z).
Page 320: That the strong force becomes weaker than the electromagnetic force at 10-14 m misses the point. At this distance the strong interaction drops to exactly zero; to exchange virtual pions over longer distance would violate the uncertainty principle because they have a rest mass of 0.15 times the proton mass. The EM force is long-range because photons have no rest mass.
Figure 8.1: The point labeled 1H obviously should be 2H...a free proton has no nuclear binding energy relative to free nucleons! Hydrogen should be at (1,0) rather than (0,1).
Page 322: Should point out that the stable configuration of two protons and two neutrons is the alpha particle or 4He, and point back to the big anomalous binding energy in Figure 8.1.
Page 323 first paragraph: Slightly confusing. It mixes the idea of even-even (no net-spin, hence integer angular momentum) with closed shells (zero angular momentum). Probably want to explain that nuclear angular momentum is significant because of nuclear magnetic resonance.
Figure 8.4 Arrow for 6.090 MeV alpha should go all the
way to the ground state line.
Page 325: Better retract or qualify your statement that the neutrino is massless...the evidence for oscillation between neutrino flavors is becoming pretty strong.
Page 325: Near end of neutrino paragraph, "statistical" not "statistically".
Page 326 very top: Go the extra mile and point out that the masses of the pion and W are the reasons why the strong and weak forces are short range.
Page 329: "...can be calculated by the statistical technique of linear regression..."
Example 8.2 third paragraph: "...the names are shown to the left of the cell."
Page 331 end of second paragraph: Too many "is"'s in the parenthetical sentence.
Figure 8.11: Label 143Nd/144Nd ratios along right-hand axis of diagram?
Example 8.4 middle paragraph: gratuitous 'a' after '2.22'. If you take my suggestion for Figure 8.11 then at the end of this example you can refer the reader back to the figure to see where the calculated numbers would plot.
Page 338 first paragraph: "...not until the development of a new analytical technique..." and might be worth adding "...which employed a conventional thermal ionization mass spectrometer but with the unusual twist of accelerating negatively charged compound oxyanions of Re and Os."
Figure 8.14a: In legend, misspelled "Pyrenees". Slightly confusing to use different scale in part (c).
Page 340 last paragraph: Delete 'in' from sentence: "However, it appears that even the thin, basaltic oceanic crust..."
Page 341 first full paragraph: Need to delete one of the two "seawater is about"'s. Then, you need to give the 187Os/188Os ratio of seawater, not the 187Os/186Os ratio, to be consistent with other numbers.
End of page 341: "for the price of one".
Page 342 top: The U in 238U got accidentally superscripted, and of course the 232Th/238U ratio is k, not m.
Equations 8.33 and 8.34: Traditional to label radiogenic 206 and 207 as (206Pb/204Pb)* rather than D206Pb/204Pb, isn't it? Between these two equations the reference to 8.38 should be to 8.33. A little after eqn. 8.34 there is a 204 that is not superscripted.
Page 342 paragraph beginning "Because the half-life": Need a verb in "All systems that begin with a common initial isotopic composition at time t0 plot along a straight line..."
Page 343 second paragraph: "Since the parent-daughter ratio..." (singular).
Page 345: I'm surprised that you leave out any discussion of the Concordia method and its applications.
Equation 8.37 only applies if there is no production of the parent, so it does not work for isotopes more than one step down the chain unless we make additional assumptions. Reference general solution in Bateman (1910)?
Page 346: No longer true that U-series isotopes are generally measured by decay counting. Mass spectrometry (at least for the longer lived members) beats decay counting hands-down.
Page 347: Oddly enough, the time to return to secular equilibrium does not depend on the decay constant of the parent, only the decay constant of the daughter.
Equation 8.48: Parentheses around 238U in denominator on RHS.
Page 350: More recently is has become possible to do better than the assumption that Ra acts just like Ba. Since we know the difference in ionic radii, we can use a lattice strain partitioning theory like that developed in the previous chapter to correct for the difference in behavior. See recent work by Kari Cooper and co-workers.
Page 350 last paragraph: Probably don't want to skip altogether the use of U-series evidence to constrain time-scales and mechanisms of melting and melt extraction from the mantle (as in McKenzie (1985), Spiegelman and Elliot, Lundstrom's work, etc.).
Page 351: H2 also escapes from the atmosphere, not H2.
Page 352: I don't think R/RA = 24 is an upper limit for OIBs. Somewhere in the mid-30's, would be more like it.
Page 352 footnote: "nucleus" misspelled.
Section 8.4.8.1: My impression of the Ne isotope story these days is that everybody buys the Honda-Ozima story (even Allegre), which is anyways the easier theory to explain. I would probably delete the Allegre et al theory.
Section 8.4.8.2: Nothing about 40Ar/39Ar? Seems like a more relevant topic than eCa.
Page 355 last paragraph: "...most common targets, yet there is no change in the isotopic abundances..."
Page 356: Mention effect of atmospheric nuclear tests in 14C?
Page 357 second paragraph: "...particularly simple hydrologic system..."; later on Table 8.6 is referred to simply as "Table".
Page 358: 129Xe is not the only daughter of an extinct nuclide whose abundance varies on earth. 244Pu is extinct also, and fission xenon abundances vary in ways not consistent entirely with 238U fission.
Problem 7: After 4.0 Ga, want a comma rather than an 'm'.
In the pairs Problem 5/Problem 8 and Problem 9/Problem 10, you give facts and hints in the second problem of each pair that would be useful in the first problem.
Chapter 9.
Page 363 first
sentence of 9.1.1: "The elements of interest..." Also, recently Fe and Cr (and others?)
have been added to the list of elements used for stable isotope applications.
Table 9.1:
Capitalize 'l' in 6Li.
Page 365
Footnote: reference to equation 8.4 should be 9.4. Also, The insertion of the difference between D
and DAB is awkward.
Page 365 first
paragraph of 9.2: "...the mass of an atom affects its vibrational motion and therefore..."
Page 365 first
paragraph of 9.2.1: "minimize" misspelled.
Page 365 first
paragraph of 9.2.1.1: "one another" not "one and other".
Page 366 bottom:
no and ni do not appear in equation 9.7 so it is an odd
place to define them.
Page 374: Not
all the curves in Figure 9.6 are for quartz-mineral pairs, as suggested by the
text. Also, "Table 9.2", not "Tables".
Page 375,
paragraph beginning "The importance of the equilibrium basis...":
Want to say "...the system may partially re-equilibrate at some lower temperature..."
Example 9.2:
Delete "of" from first sentence. Also, it says "Answer:" twice. And 11.2 permil minus 1.9
permil would be 9.3, not 9.2.
Page 378:
"Tropical and temperate
oceans", not temperature oceans.
Page 379: In the
discussion of C3 metabolism, you get 2 molecules of
3-phosphoglyceric acid, not 3. Also, I don't know what but something is wrong
with Figure 9.11, since it does not conserve carbon atoms and the structure
shown for 3-phosphoglycerate has 4 C atoms in it! I think you have an extra
carbonyl group above the central carbon atom.
Page 380: Two
misspellings of phosphoenol; it is neither phosphenol nor phosphophoenol. Also,
the text says fixed carbon is carried into the bundle-sheath cell by malate or
aspartate (misspelled?) but the figure shows malate and pyruvate.
Bottom of page
380: "...generally enriched in 13C (relative to 12C)..."
After all the
discussion of C isotopes, it seems worth mentioning something about C isotope
swings in the geologic record, especially with regard to glaciations,
neoproterozoic time, etc.
Page 381: The
paragraph on d15N numbers is confusing; e.g.
it says blue-green algae range from -2 to +4 with most between -4 and -2...
Page 382 bottom:
I wouldn't use the word 'exogene' without definition.
Page 386 first
sentence of 9.6: "applications", not "application".
Page 386: I
would credit Sam Epstein specifically with the first calcite-water
paleothermometer calibration, not "Urey's students and post-docs".
Page 388 top:
Volume of Wisconsinan ice in km3, not km2.
Page 389 top:
"Perihelion", not "perihelio".
Figure 9.24:
Precession misspelled in the figure label.
Caption to
figure 9.25: appropriate or appropriated?
Page 389 bottom and
twice on page 390 and also reference list: The J.D. Hays of Hays, Imbrie and
Shackleton is Hays, not Hayes.
It should be
mentioned somewhere in the marine sediment core Milankovitch discussion that
the chronology of the sediment cores is tuned between fixed points like magnetic
reversals by assuming one or more of the Milankovitch cycles, so the r2
is a little more impressive than it should be.
The Vostok
record now goes back 400,000 years, not just the 160,000 from the original 1987
reference. Also, though dates in
Vostok are based on ice flow, the GRIP and GISP Greenland cores have a very
accurate chronology in their upper parts from annual layer counts.
Page 393 first
sentence of 9.7 (you have a tendency to make typos in these first sentences,
don't you?): "pores" rather than "pore".
Page 395 bottom:
I count five valence states for sulfur (+6,+4,0,-1,-2).
Page 398:
Missouri misspelled. In general, I
did not find the discussion of S isotopes and Mississippi valley deposits very
enlightening.
Page 399:
Reference to figure 5.36...should be 9.36 I think.
Page 399 third
sentence of 9.8.1.2: "They partition partially or entirely..."
Page 402 top:
"...isotopic equilibrium might not be achieved during their growth..."
Page 402 middle:
"Perhaps all that can be said is that nitrogen in basalts appears to have..."
Whole chapter: I
think it would good to be consistent in reporting ranges of isotopic
compositions always from lightest number to heaviest number (i.e. -1 to +3
rather than the other way around).
Page 404 top:
After a fraction 1-f
has crystallized, not f-1
(same error in X-axis label of Figure 9.43). Then, "a
is not likely to be
much less than 0.998..."
Page 405, after
equation 9.67: "magma" misspelled in the subscript after d.
Problems 5 and
6: Equilibrium or Rayleigh condensation?
Problem 8: a,
not a, for fractionation factor.
Problem 9:
Equilibrium or Rayleigh again?
Chapter 10.
Page 421 first
paragraph (as usual): "...understanding of its origin and its relationship..."
Page 421
footnote: I think perhaps since you wrote this the age of the universe has
converged to a consensus value that works cosmologically as well as
astrometrically. Ask as astronomer.
Page 423 middle
paragraph: "...mass from a main sequence star is pulled by gravity..."
Page 423 second
to last word: "elements", not "element".
Page 424 first
paragraph: "physicists" misspelled.
Page 424 bottom:
"nucleosynthesis" missing the final 's' after "explosive".
Under
cosmological nucleosynthesis it is worth explaining the relation between the
cooling time of a hot big bang, the decay time of neutrons, and the cosmic He/H
ratio. This is one of the essential triumphs of the hot big bang theory.
Page 426 just
after the triple-a reaction: "He burning also produces
O..."
Page 427:
Probably worth taking a little space to explain thee-process better. At 109 K,
thermal photons reach the MeV level and absorbing such photons overcomes the
energy barriers between nuclei, allowing the system to evolve towards a minimum
energy state by making the most stable nuclei. It's analogous to a rapid
approach to chemical equilibrium once temperatures become high enough to
overcome kinetic barriers.
Page 427: That
the s-process is slow
compared to typical b-decay times is more significant than
that it is slow compared to the r-process
(which is fast relative to b-decays).
Page 429: The
fission limit to r-process
is at Z~90, not A~90! Also, my
understanding is that the limit to r-process neutron capture is not the b-decay
lifetime but the neutron capture cross-section going to zero.
Page 432: Pause
to recapitulate how the polygenetic theory has succeeded in explaining the
features of the cosmic abundance plot?
Footnote to page
433: I think you undersell the evidence that the Martian meteorites are Martian
here; though you are a bit more fair later on.
Page 435 top:
"monomineralic"
Page 435 first
full paragraph: "chalcophile" misspelled once.
Page 435 end of
chondrules section: Missing close parenthesis on Wood (1988.
Page 436:
Missing close parenthesis on formula of hibonite.
Page 436 second
paragraph: Delete extra 'the' in sentence "...relative depletions in the
both the most volatile REE..."
Page 436 first
paragraph in matrix section: serpentine misspelled. Next sentence after that
should start "On the whole," not "One the whole." And this
sentence is a tautology: since the bulk composition is defined by bulk
chondrites, the matrix must be complementary to the chondrules.
Page 437 third
paragraph: "psolar" should be "solar".
Table 10.1:
Header of 2nd column should be Fe/(Fe+Mg).
Table 10.3:
Should the 5 after CI be under Petrologic Type 1?
Everywhere:
Urelite may or may not be an acceptable spelling, but ureilite is much more common.
Page 441 first
achondrite paragraph: "eucrite" misspelled as "ecurite" in
one place. Shortly after this "cumulate" is misspelled
"cummulate".
Figure 10.16:
How can IA and IB irons have Fe/(Fe+Mg) of only 5% !?! Must be just the
silicate fraction thereof. Also atom % is a weird unit for Ca/Mg.
Table 10.5:
Cristobalite misspelled. Corundum misspelled. Ilmenite misspelled. Melilite
misspelled.
Page 445,
initial ratios section: One of the Nd isotope numbers is wrong; do you mean
normalized to 142Nd/144Nd?
Figure 10.19:
Allende should be labeled CV3 rather than C3. Are the Chainpur chondrules
really younger than the Chainpur matrix?
That's a bit odd, isn't it?
Figure 10.23 and
caption: "Vesta", not "Vestra".
Page 448, middle
paragraph: "Ceres...appears to be compositionally similar to CI and CM chondrites..." Then
again, in text, it is "Vesta" and you need to choose "a
spectrum" or just "spectra" but not "a spectra". In
same paragraph, "...meteorites represent an incomplete sampling..."
Caption to
Figure 10.24: Solar and planetary Ne are switched; they are OK in the text.
Page 450 second
paragraph: "...the conditions of interstellar space is are
certainly low pressure." Then last sentence of this paragraph,
"its" rather than "it's".
By page 450 you
have launched into a discussion of interstellar grains without having given the
reasoning behind presuming these objects to be presolar or interstellar.
Page 453 end of
first paragraph: "a single" is repeated.
Page 453 third
paragraph: It is no longer true that no mass-independent fractionation is known
for Sulfur, obviously (well, obvious if you've been listening to Farquhar go
on). Also you might want to reference the solution of the symmetry problem for
mass independent effects in ozone by Gao and Marcus.
Page 456 top:
"A critical temperature
(singular)". Later,
"...so the nebula
would be quite transparent".
Page 456 Third
paragraph: "...if the nebula is sufficiently dense that its gravity is
significant, then
density waves can develop..."
Page 457 second
paragraph: The third sentence ("They are often surrounded...") is a
bit mangled.
Page 457 third
paragraph: "...slowest in the beyond Neptune)"
Next paragraph:
"Jupiter, and to a lesser degree Saturn, may accumulate much of their mass..." Then, "the 'snow
line', i.e., the distance at
which temperature falls..."
Second to last
paragraph on 457: Wetherill and Stuart in parentheses.
Page 457 last
paragraph: "...called the
bow..."(Bow shock? Bow wave? Or just bow?)
Equation 10.4: Deltas
missing. Also in the reprise of Eqn. 3.98.
Equation 10.8: I
don't think the total pressure term should be here.
Figure 10.35 is
pretty obscure.
Page 462 intro
paragraph of "Constraints on Conditions in the Solar Nebula": (By the
way, why did you stop numbering sections?) "The nature of meteorites places
constraints on the
formation of the solar system..."
Page 462: Here
you claim evidence of live 41Ca; earlier you denied such anomalies
exist.
Page 463 bullet
point beginning "Oxygen isotope ratios": "...composition of most
elements investigated is
homogeneous..."
Page 465 bottom:
"Venetian" means
"from Venice".
Not sure there is an accepted adjective for "from Venus";
perhaps Venusian. Bill Kaula used to argue for "Venerean" but was
widely ridiculed for this.
Page 466 paragraph beginning
"Thus in detail...": "...which is difficult to explain simply as a temperature effect (since Fe condenses at temperatures similar to Mg silicates)." Later in same
paragraph, you want C/H ratio, not H/C ratio.
Next paragraph: "Thus
factors other than radial decrease..." Later, "the cores of Jupiter and
Saturn".
Problem 5: entropy units are J/mol/K.
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1: Might want to
indicate that any rock over 50% olivine is a peridotite.
Figure 11.2: What are the black
dots? Occasional websterite
samples? I would leave them out,
they cloud the picture.
Page 476 last paragraph:
"However, lherzolitic compositions are not unique in meeting these some of these contstraints..."
Figure 11.4: Do not use "beta
phase olivine" or "spinel Mg2SiO4"; these
minerals are now called wadsleyite and ringwoodite.
Table 11.2: I tried checking your
composition for Ringwood Pyrolite in the listed reference and it is not there;
he only summarizes other worker's pyrolites. I went and looked because I did not buy the 0.61% Na2O
you have listed.
Figure 11.6: Yuck. What is this
"oceanic geotherm": how old is the lithosphere you are drawing it
through? The lithosphere must be 200 km thick here, since no point on this
geotherm would intersect the solidus if you brought it up adiabatically. That is not very representative
of the actual ocean, most of which is young enough that you should see
asthenospheric potential temperatures at depths 100 km. I also deny that there is a field for
Ol+Cpx+Opx in the subsolidus phase diagram of natural peridotite, certainly if
Cr is present...eliminate the spinel-out curve.
Page 481 text and Figure 11.7:
Again, I consider b and g to be obsolete usage, and favor wadsleyite and ringwoodite.
Page 482 second-to-last paragraph:
"...grossly similar in composition
to the upper mantle..."
Figure 11.9: "Barberton"
misspelled.
Figure 11.11 and associated text
on Page 486: This is totally debunked.
The solidus and liquidus do not meet. Even if the upper mantle were a partial melt, chondritic
mantle does not melt eutectically.
The whole premise is garbage. See the paper by Dave Walker on this idea
and more recent experimental petrology, say by Zhang and Herzberg. However if you keep the figure, the red
half-filled circles are missing and the liquidus should not be drawn with a
negative slope.
Page 486 middle paragraph:
"Convection", not "convention".
Page 487 second paragraph: "...whereas rare Earths, such as
Sm, do not."
Caption to Figure 11.12:
"...where the liquidus exceeds the
adiabatic temperature."
Page 490 last paragraph:
"Figures 11.14 through 11.16 illustrate..."
Page 491 end of second full
paragraph: "...these basalts come from reservoirs that are less degassed than the MORB source reservoir."
Page 491: In the text Figure 11.17
is described as a REE plot but it is an extended spidergram. Oh, I see...11.17
and 11.18 are switched.
Page 492: I have never before
heard the usage P-MORB for plume-affected basalts. On the other hand, T-MORB for transitional, moderately
enriched, MORB is pretty common.
Page 493: Sentence beginning
"That the locus..." is a fragment. Remove comma and change 'indicating' to 'indicates'.
Page 493 Anderson's paragraph: Delete
extra 'mantle' from second sentence.
Page 495 third full paragraph:
Extra "consider" in first sentence. Plural 'reservoirs' in next
sentence. Just before equation 11.1, "eNd of zero".
Page 495 just before 11.8: Text
says fSm/Nd is going to be defined by 11.8 but this definition was
already given.
Page 497 first paragraph:
..."for 109 yr before
rising in a mantle plume..." Also, skepticism misspelled.
Equation 11.13: Missing 204Pb
in denominator on RHS.
Figure 11.24: Caption describes
dashed lines but they are absent in the figure.
Page 500 first paragraph: "...thermodynamics of the phase change as 660 km prevent..."; "Thus plumescome either...".
Page 500: The Zindler and Hart names DMM, HIMU, etc. refer to end members, rather than island groups (though one endmember is dominant in each of your original island groups), so the usages are not quite synonymous.
Page 501 second big paragraph: "...it converts to eclogite and is more dense then peridotite." (?)
Page 502 bottom: "...this ratio is not significantly
changed in by magmatic processes..."
Page 504: Last time I payed attention the area affected by the DUPAL anomaly was defined only by latitude and I've never heard the SOPITA (SOciety-PIitcarin-TAhiti presumably?) usage.
Figure 11.33a: Leucite Hills, not Lucite. Mt. Melbourne rather than Melboure (?).
Page 506: "Interestingly" rather than 'Interesting'. Delete second 'is' from sentence about garnet density. Last line of page: "can melt" rather than 'can melting'.
Page 507 Os paragraph: "...consistent with the idea
that this material underwent partial
melting in the past..." Then a couple sentences later: "...of this
paradox appears to be that Os is was not affected..."
Figure 11.35 caption: Second sentence does not parse.
Problem 1: Your rather than you.
Problem 3:
Perhaps the problem should suggest that the evolution started from BABI?
Problem 4. I
prefer ringwoodite to g-olivine. Also the reaction is ringwoodite = perovskite +
magnesiowustite (otherwise it does not balance). Is there enough information
here to answer this question? I
don't think so.
Problem 5. The
usage "endothermic" and "exothermic" for transitions with
negative and positive Clapeyron slopes respectively, although much loved by
geodynamicists, is stupid. It tells you what happens during subduction when you
pass down through the transition. Obviously, the heat evolved when you go the
other way is the opposite. Better stick with the sign of the Clapeyron slope to
describe these transitions.
Chapter 12
Page 512 second
sentence of "The Oceanic Crust": "...6 km or so..." Next sentence, "...poorer
in Si than the
continental crust."
Page 513 Hess
paragraph: Want to avoid confirming Hess' impression that ridges are active
features and that plate motion is driven by asthenospheric flow. Today's
consensus is the opposite.
Figure 12.2a: No
good reason to leave the W off "slow".
Figure 12.5: The
diagonal line should be labeled "minimum melting", not maximum.
Page 516 last
paragraph: The extra low-density crustal thickness is a bigger factor in the
shallow bathymetry of hot ridges than the thermal expansion of the mantle
itself.
Figure 12.6:
Dangerous to suggest that spacing of melt fraction contours is constant up to
40%; the drop is productivity at cpx-out is a major feature. Also in caption better to put the break
in slope argument in entropy terms. Caption also ignores buoyancy due to crust
in determining axial depth.
Page 517 bottom:
"principal",
not principle (twice). Also en-dashes rather than em-dashed in "crust-to-mantle".
Page 519 end of
first full paragraph: "If this is so, then the depth interval over which mantle can rise..." Also, it needs to be noted that the
Plank and Langmuir (1988) idea (unlike Klein and Langmuir's ridge picture) of a
melting "column" at arcs lacks any justification in the flow or
temperature fields we expect in the mantle wedge.
Figure 12.12: Nb
label is missing its 'b'.
Page 523:
Subducted high d18O material is not the only
way to explain high d18O in arc magmas, because
crustal contamination can do the same.
Figure 12.18:
Probably should note unconventional sequence of elements on this plot.
Page 526 top:
Stolper and Newman found that extent of melting must vary directly with the amount of H2O-rich
component, not inversely!
Figure 12.19:
What is the y-axis scale in these figures? I think this figure is perhaps a
little too cryptic for the simple point being made.
Page 527 after
eqn 12.6: "Only in the special case where r=1..."
Page 527-528
(right across the page break): Here you do mean principles, not principals.
Page 528: Want
to be careful with the expression "mixing line" when talking about
isotope ratio-ratio plots!
Caption to
Figure 12.22: "...the difference in mixing curves..."
Page 528 second to last paragraph: "...slightly
higher d18O..." or "...d18O
slightly higher..." would be better than the present word order.
Page 529:
Statements of r that
do not include parentheses or different size division symbols are vague as to
order of operations.
Figure 12.23:
The simple fractional curve for D=2 did not come out red and dashed.
Page 529 very
bottom: Equation 9.67, not 8.67.
Caption to
12.27: European Shale is abbreviated ES, not EC.
Page 533: A rock
with 3.4-4% K2O is not a tonalite.
Page 534 first
bullet point: "...their long half-lives or low abundances." Also, reference to
table 12.5, not 12.2.
Page 536 end of
Wedepohl paragraph: "...composition of the lower crust is also listed..."
Again in middle
of next paragraph 'crustal' is substituted for 'crust'.
Figure 12.31b:
Symbols for middle and lower crust are reversed!
Figure 12.33:
X-axis should be labeled 'age' rather than 'time' or numbered the other way.
Page 541 middle
paragraph: "Zircon dating has
also identified..."; "...controversial for that reasons, but their ages are now generally accepted."
Page 541
general: Although this work is new and perhaps controversial, in the update you
may want to mention the d18O measurements on Jack Hills
and other old zircons.
Page 542 start
of last paragraph: for
or over but not 'of'
the past 4 Ga or so.
Page 544
footnote: "rationalize" present tense.
Page 544 end of
first full paragraph: "rate" is repeated gratuitously.
Page 546 second
full paragraph: "Wrangellia" is the standard spelling, I think.
Page 548: I think
you need to at least gesture in the direction of Grove and Parman's cool, wet
komatiite theory.
Page 549
delamination paragraph: "...when the crust is thickened to 50 km or more..." Perhaps include a
figure from Ducea and Saleeby's xenolith work that suggests delamination of
eclogitic lower crust under the Sierras between Miocene and Pliocene time.
Page 549 erosion
paragraphs: Another aspect of this problem is that eroded sediment composition is
determined not only by solubility but by exposure. Only the upper, evolved part
of the arc is available to feed forearc accretionary complexes. Combined with
delamination, the construction of continental crust from accretionary complexes
solves both chemical and structural problems. Celal Sengor and I are working on this. Repeated cycling of
elements by arc jumps that remelt earlier accretionary prisms also provide a
much less ad hoc way
than McKenzie and O'Nions pervasive low-degree melts to enrich the continents
in incompatibles.
Problem 5:
"...whether the
mixing curve they define is
a result of..."
Problem 8
also needs an assumption about mass of the continental crust through time.
Chapter 13.
Page 555 end of intro section: "We" repeated in last sentence.
Page 555 last paragraph: "Valence" misspelled. Also twice in second paragraph on next page.
Page 557 second paragraph of Biogeochemical section: Bacteria rather than bateria.
Figure 13.1 is incompletely labeled.
Page 558 end: hypolimnion rather than hyperlimnion. This is a good place to show an image of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone that results from phosphate-nitrate runoff to the Mississippi.
Page 559 second paragraph of transition metal section: "There are two common circumstances where higher Fe and Mn..."
Page 560 three lines after eqn 13.9: equimolar rather than equilmolar. Beginning of next paragraph: choosing rather than chosing and choose rather than chose (at least four times).
Figure 13.3 caption: Two (b) labels.
Page 563 first line: "(due to compaction)"
Page 563 paragraph beginning "Redox cycling": adsorbed rather than absorbed.
Page 563 end of first paragraph of Weathering section: "the" repeated.
Page 564 second paragraph: Obvious rather than odvious.
Page 565 B Horizon paragraph: "...concentrates them
within in the B horizon" and "...can lead to greatly restricted permeability of this layer" and "SiO2
may be nearly completely
leached..."
Page 565 last line: Again may be for maybe.
Page 566 end of soil profile section: "Soil profiles can also be disturbed by agriculture..."
Figure 13.5: Rb scale is ppm, not %. I take it the scale is elemental weight percent?
Page 568 first paragraph of Biogeochemical cycling section: Bateria again. In next paragraph there is a reference to Chapter 13, which I think should be Chapter 14 now.
Page 569 first sentence of second paragraph: "the" repeated.
Page 570 end of first full paragraph: "evapotransipiration" misspelled. In next paragraph topic sentence, 'vegetation' is misspelled. End of said paragraph, "organically" rather than organicly. End of next paragraph: "...the mass of soil humus exceeds the combined mass of living vegetation and litter." Then, "the residence time of humus..."
Table 13.5 needs to say somewhere that units are years.
Page 570 Last paragraph: "...simply to observe the phases that replace original ones..." Then, "These observations provide..."
Page 571 second to last paragraph: "...in the proportions expected from the reactions considered..."
Table 13.6: Position of column headers messed up. Also, there is a more informative table of Garrels and McKenzie's results showing the mass balance achieved. An interesting aspect of their conclusions that is skipped here is that the relative proportions of the minerals weathering to make up the water chemistry is not the same as the average mode of the source rocks.
Page 573 first word of second paragraph: Velbel rather than Velbel's. End of next paragraph: 'aluminum' misspelled.
Page 575 top: "conventional" rather than convention. In next paragraph, "discrepancy' misspelled. In paragraph after that, "...discuss several other possibilities..."
Page 576 bottom: What are A' and F'? Not labeled in figure 13.8 or used so far in discussion.
Page 577middle of first full paragraph: kaolinite misspelled. Bottom of page: 'disequilibrium' , 'preceding' and 'discussion' misspelled.
Page 578 third paragraph: "...high elevation, such as the Guiana Shield..."
Thenn, 'determining' misspelled. Later in same paragraph, "...do not have a critical influence on chemical weathering rates."
Page 579 second full paragraph: 'neutral' misspelled. In next sentence, exponents on aH+ are lost.
Page 579 last paragraph: 'disintegration' misspelled.
Page 581 first full paragraph: "The composition of river water varies widely..." Two sentences later: "...depleted compared to its concentration in the crust..." Then, charge missing on HCO3-.
Page 581 second paragraph: "Labile" rather than liable (to heck with your spelling checker's opinion on this).
Page 581 third paragraph: 'calcite' misspelled.
Page 582 top: Gibbs' rather than Gibb's; also in Problem 3b.
Page 582 first full paragraph: Units are meq/l, not meg/l.
Page 583: Good place to make the observation that silicate weathering sequesters CO2 but carbonate weathering does not.
Page 584 Continental Saline section: Ref should be to table 13.10 not 12.14.
Page 584: I don't understand how precipitation of calcite can cause CO3 to increase if [CO3]>[Ca]...it can only increase the ratio CO3/Ca, not the concentration.
Page 586 first reference: Garrels misspelled.
Problem 2: The equation reference is wrong. Something from chapter 5, presumably, is desired.
Chapter 14.
Page 589 bottom: "Adenosine" misspelled.
Figure 14.1 and associated text are obsolete. The three domains are these days called Eucarya, Bacteria, and Archaea (not archaebacteria). It would be considered incorrect now to say, for example "all chemosynthetic organisms are bacteria," since archaea are not bacteria. Better to say 'prokaryotic' or simply 'microbial' in this setting.
Figure 14.2: The first molecule is just 'methane', not 'n-methane'. What other kind of methane could you make? Also in caption, delete 'for' from second sentence.
Page 592 footnote: Give systematic name for acetylene, ethyne, just for illustration?
Page 593 end of first paragraph: particular rather than particularly.
Figure 14.6: Carboxylic acid misspelled. Also, an oxo group makes an ether, not as ester.
Page 593 near end: Give an example of an '-ate' compound? Also, define lipid when first used.
Figure 14.7: Inconsistent to show acetic acid with a COOH group and draw out the carboxyl structure in all the other acids.
Figure 14.9b: There is a random extra H in the upper left corner.
Page 599 top: "Ribosomes" misspelled.
Page 599 nucleic acid paragraph: "...in the sense that they are nitrogen-containing polymers..."
Page 599 lipids paragraph: "acetyl" misspelled.
Figure 14.14: Missing a bunch of double bonds in phytol structure? Also, relationship between isoprene and menthol not at all evident.
Page 601 first photosynthesis paragraph: "...the site of photosynthesis may be internal membranes..."
Page 602 second full paragraph: Again, archaea rather than
archeobacteria. Then, "All chlorophylls are strongly absorb
light..."
Figure 14.16: The starting point of the cycle at lower left should ribulose 5-phosphate, not 1,5-bisphosphate. Could improve this figure by showing ADP and NADP+ going out rather than just ATP and NADPH coming in. Could also label where RUBISCO acts as catalyst.
Page 607 top: 'microbial' misspelled.
Page 608 top: "abundant" rather than 'abundance'.
Page 608 last paragraph: "polysaccharides" misspelled.
Figure 14.21: 'Methylated' misspelled.
Table 14.4: Better to keep fulvic and humic in same order in the table for each type of water.
Page 613: "autoxidatation?"
Equations 14.3 and 14.4: Divisor lines missing.
Page 616 definition of pKb: "...the pH where half the molecules or groups..."
Caption to figure 14.25: "...a smeared-out titration curve..."
Figure 14.27b and text of page 617: is it endobactin or enterobactin?
Page 630 first full paragraph: "...environments where such organic-rich material is now accumulating..." Next paragraph: "...temperate and tropical lowland swamps."
Page 630 first bullet point: "..carboxyl, amino, and hydroxy..." (another evil spell-check creation).
Page 631 first kerogen paragraph: "...it is three orders of magnitude more abundant than coal."
Page 631 second kerogen paragraph: It must be 5 to 18% H by weight rather than atomic to be consistent with the high H/C atomic ratios shown in the classification plots.
Page 631 kerogen classification: The limit for type II O/C ratios should be 0.2, not 2.0.
Figure 14.36: Color scheme in the plots at right...I think the fields plotted are the fossil and oil fractions and so should be black and salmon, not black and grey. Also, how can a cycloalkane have a ring number of 0?
Page 635 rate paragraph: "...the burial rate depends primarily on the rate at which the sedimentary basin subsides."
Page 636 bottom: "...water washing, will deplete the petroleum..."
Page 637 composition of crude oils: "The distribution
of n-alkanes of differs widely among crudes as may be seen in Figure 14.38". "Alkylated compounds dominate the aromatic fraction..."
Page 638 first geochemical coalification paragraph:
"Loss of functional groups produces further reduces..." "...vitrinite reflectance reaches 0.5% and 70% or more of the C is in aromatic form."
Next paragraph: H/C ratio of anthracite is less than 0.5, not 0.5%.
Figure 14.40: Odd to reverse d13C axis; light should be at bottom.
Page 640: "Methane produced during catagenesis..."
Chapter 15.
Page 646, definition of potential temperature: "(except for surface water, where there is no difference)"
Figure 15.1: No red stippled areas!
Page 647 first bullet point: "These currents are most
intense in along the western boundaries of ocean basins, a phenomenon,
also due to the Earth's rotation."
Page 648 second paragraph: "...depending largely on wave height"
Page 649 top: "Water flows across the pycnocline in only a few limited regions."
Example 5.1: The figure showing the two-box model is 15.3,
not 15.4. Also, "10% lower than in of surface water." After
equation 15.2, delete CP from list of defined terms.
Figure 15.4 caption: "The volumes of each reservoir are
not given..."
Page 650 first full paragraph: "Mixing between deep water and surface water..."
Page 650 bottom: You meant to say that the alkalis and halogens from bonds of a predominantly ionic character!
Example 15.2 first table: The second column should be labeled Log[Anion].
Table 15.1: He may not be a CG, but it is not an NG either. Nb is misprinted NB in the speciation column. I think there is more recent data on PGE's in seawater from work by Anbar, Wasserburg, and friends.
Table 15.3: Atmospheric partial pressures of He and Ne are obviously wrong.
Caption to Figure 15.6: Broecker misspelled.
Page 656 first O2 paragraph: "...also consumed there, but a small fraction..."
Page 657 end of O2 section: Curaao misspelled.
Page 657 second CO2 paragraph: CO2-rich or CO2-enriched but not CO2-riched. "...warming decreases its solubility..." and also "cooling increases its solubility:"
Page 657 Figure 15.8: Scale for total CO2 should be micromoles/kg, not millimoles.
Page 658 top: "However, a much larger fraction of biogenic carbonate..." and "...the flux of carbon out of the ocean..." In next paragraph, CO2 enrichment should be compared to oxygen depletion.
Page 658 second full paragraph: d13C shows a pronounced minimum, not a maximum.
Page 659 footnote: Free misspelled. Also, it doesn't quite sound right to
say "aragonite has lower Gibbs free energy than seawater"...you want
to say something more like "the Gibbs free energy change of precipitation
of aragonite from surface water is negative, but less negative than for the
precipitation of calcite."