CMMMech

Anilite mineral

Anilite is the orthorhombic copper sulfide mineral Cu7S4, distinct from digenite, djurleite, chalcocite, covellite, copper element and mixed ores. The September 2026 IMA list gives approved status and approval 1968-030. The accepted experiment concerns natural anilite-bearing grains with intergrown djurleite, not a certified pure mineral feed. This record curates abiotic ferric-sulfate alteration; it does not inherit copper criticality or establish a microbial mechanism.

Microbial & Biochemical Mechanisms (1)

Abiotic copper depletion with a metastable sulfide structure

redox transformation

Ferric-sulfate treatment of selected natural anilite-bearing cleavage fragments changed the crystal diffraction pattern and depleted copper relative to sulfur in the remaining solids. Single-crystal precession data distinguish the metastable leached structure from natural yarrowite despite similar composition or powder patterns. This laboratory chemical experiment does not demonstrate microbial leaching, an isolated copper product or industrial recovery.

Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
Goble (1981) pp.584–589 and Table 2: grains from the Yarrow Creek–Spionkop Creek locality, southwestern Alberta, were optically selected, plucked from polished material, checked by Gandolfi diffraction against anilite and examined by precession X-ray photography. Associated copper sulfides were present and djurleite reflections persisted in the starting material. Grains generally approximately 50 × 100 × 200 micrometres were immersed in about 5 mL ferric sulfate solution, approximately 10^-3 M Fe2(SO4)3·xH2O, pH approximately 5 and 25 degrees C. At intervals the same grain was removed, washed with distilled water and re-examined by X-ray diffraction; the ten-day entry used a larger grain approximately 100 × 200 × 200 micrometres. Unleached and leached solids were separately characterized by electron microprobe at 15 kV, approximately 1.5 nA and approximately 2-micrometre beam. No organism or biomass was introduced. No acid-only or iron-free comparison, replicate count, aqueous copper assay or recovered-product mass balance is reported.
Curated Evidence Points:
Table 2 and pp.585–589 report little structural change through 10 hours, the major change by 12 hours and no further structural change through 10 days under these conditions. Figures 2–4 compare labeled original/leached patterns and geerite. Table 4 microprobe analyses support copper-depleted remaining solids; the precession pattern retains a metastable geerite-like sulfur framework rather than proving natural yarrowite, spionkopite or covellite products.
Starting material was not pure anilite: p.585 describes faint djurleite reflections, while Table 4 starting Cu:S ratios 1.82 and 1.84 would imply 32% and 41% djurleite under an ideal two-phase calculation. Its footnote states diffraction suggests much less. These are conflicting abundance estimates, not accepted phase fractions. Leached solid Cu:S summaries also differ slightly between Table 4 and prose rounding. No extraction percentage is derived from these ratios, and depletion in mixed solids does not isolate an anilite-only mass balance.
Powder patterns, optical appearance and elemental composition alone may confuse the metastable product with natural copper sulfides; Tables 3–4 and the single-crystal discussion are needed together. The proposed structural/bonding interpretation and Figure 5 relationships do not establish stable equilibrium phases. Repeated removal and washing interrupt exposure; this is not a continuous in-situ kinetic experiment. A separate 10^-5 M observation attributed to personal communication is not the Table 2 experiment.
Context_only Source: whiteside1986
This later shared-author study, pp.248 and 253–258, discusses Goble (1981) and finds related metastable structural paths in synthetic digenite leaching. It explicitly retains phase-identification uncertainty and the need for further single-crystal work. Its synthetic substrates, mounting conditions and concentration series are not independent replication of the natural anilite experiment, nor evidence of a microbial route.

Sources & References

  1. ima_2026_09: IMA-CNMNC. The New IMA List of Minerals, September 2026; PDF page 11, mineral row and pages 1–2 status definitions.
    https://cnmnc.units.it/files/editor/IMA_Master_List_(2026-09).pdf (accessed 2026-10-14)
  2. handbook: Handbook of Mineralogy. Anilite; one-page mineral description, orthorhombic crystal data, formula and grinding-induced transformation warning.
    https://handbookofmineralogy.org/pdfs/anilite.pdf (accessed 2026-10-14)
  3. goble1981: Goble, R.J. (1981). The leaching of copper from anilite and the production of a metastable copper sulfide structure. Canadian Mineralogist 19:583–591; complete nine-page original, Tables 1–4 and Figures 1–5.
    https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol19/CM19_583.pdf (accessed 2026-10-14)
  4. whiteside1986: Whiteside, L.S. and Goble, R.J. (1986). Structural and compositional changes in copper sulfides during leaching and dissolution. Canadian Mineralogist 24:247–258; complete twelve-page original, Figures 1–7 and Tables 1–2.
    https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol24/CM24_247.pdf (accessed 2026-10-14)

Curation History

Timestamp Curator Action Summary
2026-10-14T16:30:35.886892+00:00 codex (GPT-6; codex) CREATE Created distinct anilite owner from complete primary abiotic leaching evidence; preserved intergrown djurleite, discrepant phase abundance estimates, metastable product identity and missing recovery controls.

Record source: data/records/anilite.yaml