What X-Rays and Absorptions Really Tell Us About Fossilization – #365papers – 2018 – 24

Stathopoulou, Psycharis, Chryssikos, Gionis, and Theodorou, 2008, Bone diagnesis: New data from infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 266, p. 168-174.

What’s it about?

The authors here use two different methods to gain a sense of the changes in the shapes and sizes of crystals of the bone mineral bioapatite due to the process of fossilization. They also consider the various differences in composition (i.e. how much fluorine, hydroxyl, or carbonate) is present in the bioapatite. While this is done nominally to look at the effects of fossilization, it appears to be better at fingerprinting different localities.

Why does it matter?

This has value because scientists have been using these techniques to make determinations about the state of alteration of the fossils and of the composition of the bioapatite. The authors show that some of the assumptions made are incorrect.

Why did I read this?

I am interested in any paper that discusses how fossilization and associated changes in the crystallography of a fossil affects the geochemical signature of a fossil.

Published by paleololigo

Scientist (Paleontology, Geochemistry, Geology); Writer (Speculative and Science Fiction, plus technical and non-technical Science); Mom to great boy on the Autism spectrum; possessor of too many hobbies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: