Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:46:01.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Organic derivatives of montmorillonite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

G. Brown
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
R. Greene-Kelly
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
K. Norrish
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
Get access

Extract

The supposed analogy between hydrogen montmorillonite and a weak organic acid has encouraged several investigators, notably Berger and Deuel, to attempt to esterify the exchange positions using standard organo-chemical methods.

In our opinion the experimental evidence so far presented to establish the course and extent of the esterification reaction is inconclusive. Thus Berger determined the methoxyl content of the product obtained by treating dry hydrogen montmorillonite with diazomethane in ether without showing that sorbed methyl alcohol was absent. This omission is particularly relevant when Berger states that he dried his starting material at 150°C. Data on the dehydration of hydrogen montmorillonite has shown that under these conditions Berger's sample probably contained more than 2% sorbed water. Taking into account the difficulty of washing montmorillonite free of methyl alcohol, this amount of water would be sufficient to hydrolyse enough diazomethane to account for the observed methoxyl contents.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Berger, G., 1941. Chem. Weekblad, 38, 42.Google Scholar
(2) Deuel, H., Huber, G. and Iberg, R., 1950. Helv. Chim. Acta, 33, 229.Google Scholar
(3) Deuel, H., 1952. Clay Minerals Bull, (preceding paper).Google Scholar
(4) Deuel, H., and Huber, G., 1951. Helv. Chim. Acta, 34, 1697.Google Scholar
(5) Hardy, D. V. N. and Megson, N. J. L., 1948. Quart. Rev., II, 30.Google Scholar
(6) Rickson, J. B., 1948. Analyst, 73, 268.Google Scholar
(7) Glaeser, R., 1950. Fourth International Congress of Soil Science Trans. III, p. 65.Google Scholar