Analysis of Strong-Field Hysteresis in High Coercivity Magnetic Minerals

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences book series (SPEES)


To evaluate the effect of undersaturation of magnetic hysteresis loops measured in moderate (<2 T) fields in magnetically hard minerals such as goethite or hematite, we measured room temperature hysteresis loops in a 7 T field and DC backfield demagnetization curves in fields up to 3 T using an MPMS 3 instrument. Sediments from different regions of the East European platform, mostly of Carboniferous age were used for this study. Similar experiments were also carried out for a small collection of archaeological ceramics (bricks) apparently containing a High Coercivity Low unblocking Temperature (HCLT) magnetic phase (ε-Fe2O3?). Hysteresis measurements were complemented by thermomagnetic analysis at low and high temperatures, microscopic observations, and X-ray diffraction studies. High-field magnetic hysteresis loops alone appear insufficient to definitively discriminate goethite from hematite, though there is, expectedly, a tendency that increasing goethite content leads to magnetic hardening, with coercive force reaching 1 T and coercivity of remanence 1.7 T. At the same time, ε-Fe2O3 can seemingly be distinguished from either hematite or goethite due to its high saturation magnetization. However, combining hysteresis measurements with low- and high-temperature thermomagnetic analysis provides a much better insight into the magnetic mineralogy of samples. Still, acquiring the reference data on well characterized hematite, goethite, and ε-Fe2O3 samples is highly desirable.


Magnetic hysteresis Day-Dunlop plot Hematite Goethite HCLT phase 



Natalya Salnaya (Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences) greatly assisted in sampling at Lininka and Ragusha in 2017, and donated the samples of bricks from Yaroslavl. Bricks from Valaam Island were donated by Vladimir Karpinsky (Earth Physics Department, St. Petersburg State University). Measurements were carried out at the resource centers of the Scientific Park of St. Petersburg State University: Centre for Geo-Environmental Research and Modelling (GEOMODEL), Centre for Diagnostics of Functional Materials for Medicine, Pharmacology and Nanoelectronics, Centre for Innovative Technologies of Composite Nanomaterials, Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, and Centre for X-ray Diffraction Studies. The study was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research via grants 16-05-00603a and 18-05-00626a.

This paper benefited from the reviews by Aleksey Smirnov and Mike Jackson.


  1. 1.
    Khramov, A.N.: Paleomagnetology. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kodama, K.P.: Paleomagnetism of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks: Process and Interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, Hoboken, NJ (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIntosh, G., Kovacheva, M., Catanzariti, G., Osete, M.L., Casas, L.: Widespread occurrence of a novel high coercivity, thermally stable, low unblocking temperature magnetic phase in heated archeological material. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L21302 (2007).
  4. 4.
    McIntosh, G., Kovacheva, M., Catanzariti, G., Donadini, F., Osete Lopez, M.L.: High coercivity remanence in baked clay materials used in archeomagnetism. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 12, Q02003 (2011). Scholar
  5. 5.
    López-Sánchez, J., McIntosh, G., Osete, M.L., del Campo, A., Villalaín, J.J., Pérez, L., Kovacheva, M., Rodríguez de la Fuente, O.: Epsilon iron oxide: origin of the high coercivity stable low Curie temperature magnetic phase found in heated archeological materials. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 18(7), 2646–2656 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin, J., Hashimoto, K., Ohkoshi, S.-I.: Formation of spherical and rod-shaped ε-Fe2O3 nanocrystals with a large coercive field. J. Mater. Chem. 15, 1067–1071 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gich, M., et al.: High- and low-temperature crystal and magnetic structures of ε-Fe2O3 and their correlation to its magnetic properties. Chem. Mater. 18(16), 3889–3897 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Day, R., Fuller, M., Schmidt, V.A.: Hysteresis properties of titanomagnetites: grain-size and compositional dependence. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 13, 260–267 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunlop, D.J.: Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 1. Theoretical curves and tests using titanomagnetite data. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002).
  10. 10.
    Dunlop, D.J.: Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 2. Application to data for rocks, sediments, and soils. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002).
  11. 11.
    Roberts, A.P., Tauxe, L., Heslop, D., Zhao, X., Jiang Z.: A critical appraisal of the “Day” diagram. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 123(4), 2618–2644 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iosifidi, A.G., Mikhailova, V.A., Popov, V.V., Sergienko, E.S., Danilova, A.V., Otmas, N.M., Zhuravlev, A.V.: Carboniferous of the Russian platform: paleomagnetic data. In: Nurgaliev, D., Shcherbakov, V., Kosterov, A., Spassov, S. (eds.) Recent Advances in Rock Magnetism, Environmental Magnetism and Paleomagnetism, pp. 37–54. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iosifidi, A.G., Sergienko, E.S., Sal’naya, N.V., Otmas, N.M., Mikhailova, V.A., Danilova, A.V.: Paleomagnetic studies of late Visean deposits from Moscow syneclise (Leningrad region, rivers Lininka and Ragusha) [Paleomagnitnye issledovaniya pozdnevizeyskikh otlozheniy Moskovskoy sineklizy (Leningradskaya obl., r. Lininka, r. Ragusha)]. In: Proceedings of the 12th School-Conference “Problems of Geocosmos”, St. Petersburg, 8–12 Oct 2018, pp. 101–104 (2018) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pettijohn, F.J.: Sedimentary Rocks, 3rd edn, xii, 628 p. Harper & Row, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Özdemir, Ö., Dunlop, D.J.: Thermoremanence and Néel temperature of goethite. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 921–924 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyodo, Y., Mostrom, A., Lee Penn, R., Banerjee, S.K.: From nanodots to nanorods: oriented aggregation and magnetic evolution of nanocrystalline goethite. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1512 (2003). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verwey, E.J.W.: Electronic conduction of magnetite (Fe3O4) and its transition point at low temperatures. Nature 144, 327–328 (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aragón, R., Buttrey, D.J., Shepherd, J.P., Honig, J.M.: Influence of nonstoichiometry on the Verwey transition. Phys. Rev. B 31, 430–436 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Özdemir, Ö., Dunlop, D.J., Moskowitz, B.M.: The effect of oxidation on the Verwey transition in magnetite. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 1671–1674 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Starunov, V.A., Kosterov, A., Sergienko, E.S., Yanson, S.Y., Markov, G.P., Kharitonskii, P.V., Sakhatskii, A.S., Lezova, I.E., Shevchenko, E.V.: Magnetic properties of tektite-like impact glasses from Zhamanshin astrobleme, Kazakhstan. In: Nurgaliev, D., Shcherbakov, V., Kosterov, A., Spassov, S. (eds.) Recent Advances in Rock Magnetism, Environmental Magnetism and Paleomagnetism, pp. 445–465. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rochette, P., Mathé, P.-E., Esteban, L., Rakoto, H., Bouchez, J.-L., Liu, Q., Torrent, J.: Non-saturation of the defect moment of goethite and fine-grained hematite up to 57 Teslas. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L22309 (2005). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morin, F.J.: Magnetic susceptibility of αFe2O3 and αFe2O3 with added titanium. Phys. Rev. 78, 819–820 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.All-Russian Research Institute of Petroleum Research (VNIGRI)St. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave PropagationSt. PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.St. Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”St. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations