Technical Notes - A Corrected Interpretation of the Mechanism of Growth of Magnetite During Oxidation

THE marker movements observed by Davies, Simnad, and Birchenall during the growth of magnetite on wustite have been misinterpreted. It is the purpose of this note to correct the original interpretation. In that investigation wustite specimens were prepared by oxidizing pure iron disks in water vapor until the iron was consumed. Argon was used as a carrier gas for the water vapor and on the complete conversion of the metal to its oxides ('FeO' plus a small amount (10 pct) of surface Fe3O) the water supply was bypassed and the specimens were annealed in argon alone in order to equilibrate the wustite with the overlying magnetite. After cooling, the magnetite was ground off, a crude magnetic test being employed to determine its complete removal. Radioactive silver streaks were then applied to the surface and the specimen was oxidized completely in water vapor to prevent hematite formation. After complete oxidation the markers were found to enclose about 80 pct of the magnetite with the other 20 pct lying outside the markers. This observation was interpreted to mean that oxygen transport was four times as great as iron transport during the growth of the magnetite. The conclusion would have been correct if, as in the case of wustite growing on iron, all the iron had started from one side of the marker and all the oxygen from the other side initially. Actually a material balance is required. For simplicity, take wustite to be exactly FeO, and magnetite to be Fe3O,. Then at the start of the reaction 3 FeO + O -> Fe,O., All of the iron and three-fourths of the oxygen of the final product will be within the marker inter- faces. The other fourth of the oxygen is in the gas phase outside the marker. From the experimentally determined final position of the markers simple calculation shows that one-fifth of the total iron has crossed the marker interface, while one-twentieth of the total oxygen has crossed in the reverse direction. The simplified result favors iron transport in the ratio four to one. However wiistite is not stoichiometric FeO. At 900°C, the temperature of the measurement, the composition is about FeO When the material balance for the same experimental result is repeated, assuming the product will be 1 mol of Fe3O4, it is found that 0.6 gram atoms of iron and 0.19 gram atoms of oxygen must have passed the marker in the same direction. (This is readily apparent from the reaction to form 1 mol of Fe3O4 SFeO The total oxygen supplied from the atmosphere is 0.61 gram atoms, but the iron which passes the marker interface, i.e., 0.6 gram atoms, requires 0.8 gram atoms of oxygen to convert it to Fe,O,.) If all the transport during magnetite growth is due to iron ion diffusion, then the marker would enclose about 85 pct of the final magnetite and the original measurement is in error by about 5 pct. This error is probably less than the uncertainty in locating the markers by autoradiography. The possibility also exists that the starting wustite was not quite saturated with oxygen and underwent further enrichment with consequent envelopment of the marker before magnetite caught up with the marker interface. In any case it appears that these measurements actually favor iron ion diffusion in magnetite overwhelmingly as the factor controlling its growth, although further experimental measurements are needed to eliminate the error in material balance described. Such studies are planned.