380 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
materials within this sample, further advancing our under-
standing of its properties and potential applications. See
Appendix 2 for raw plots.
Through a comparative analysis between the geochemi-
cal data provided by the Meteorite Society in Table 4 and
our findings from XRD in Table 5, we have identified the
presence of minerals and observed notable similarities.
The analysis of ICP-MS was meticulously conducted
using the NexION 5000. By comparison of results with ref-
erences dating back to studies by Laul, Wakita, Showalter,
Boynton, Schmitt, Warren, and Wasson, as displayed
in Table 3. Evolution of the composition of the KREEP
component (lunar) and concentrations of REEs based on
various references .Remarkably, the findings appeared
to be lower than what they have found in Table 6. This
study found higher quantities of certain elements within
the meteorite in comparison with the study conducted
by Korotev in 2009 as shown in Table 2. These intriguing
disparities prompt further investigation into the mineral
composition and its potential implications for our under-
standing of celestial bodies.
The sample analysis has unveiled a remarkable rev-
elation—an abundance of critical minerals. Among these
vital elements are Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium,
Nickel, Silver, Barium, Cobalt, Chromium, Sodium, Lead,
Sulfur, Silicon, Strontium, and Titanium. These elements
are directly and indirectly used in energy production, they
can play essential roles in various aspects of the energy
transition and space-related operations The presence of
such a rich spectrum of critical minerals within the sample
emphasizes the importance of space mining and resource
utilization, as they provide a valuable resource reservoir for
our ventures beyond Earth.
Equation concentration of the substance
C (mg/kg) =C (mg/L from instrument)
× V (L) volume of total digested sample
=50 mL =0.05 L × dilution factor/weight (kg)
Figure 12. A: XRD Analysis—θ (2Theta) vs. Intensity. The prominent peak in the graph reveals
the sample’s geochemistry. Sample identification is shown in Appendix A
Table 5. Semi-quantitative XRD results, mineral phases and
their weights
ID Mineral Weight, g
1 Quartz 1
216 Forsterite 22
1537 Feldspar, France, -K,Na 3
155 Anorthite 52
622 Augite 1 22
Total ≈99
materials within this sample, further advancing our under-
standing of its properties and potential applications. See
Appendix 2 for raw plots.
Through a comparative analysis between the geochemi-
cal data provided by the Meteorite Society in Table 4 and
our findings from XRD in Table 5, we have identified the
presence of minerals and observed notable similarities.
The analysis of ICP-MS was meticulously conducted
using the NexION 5000. By comparison of results with ref-
erences dating back to studies by Laul, Wakita, Showalter,
Boynton, Schmitt, Warren, and Wasson, as displayed
in Table 3. Evolution of the composition of the KREEP
component (lunar) and concentrations of REEs based on
various references .Remarkably, the findings appeared
to be lower than what they have found in Table 6. This
study found higher quantities of certain elements within
the meteorite in comparison with the study conducted
by Korotev in 2009 as shown in Table 2. These intriguing
disparities prompt further investigation into the mineral
composition and its potential implications for our under-
standing of celestial bodies.
The sample analysis has unveiled a remarkable rev-
elation—an abundance of critical minerals. Among these
vital elements are Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, Magnesium,
Nickel, Silver, Barium, Cobalt, Chromium, Sodium, Lead,
Sulfur, Silicon, Strontium, and Titanium. These elements
are directly and indirectly used in energy production, they
can play essential roles in various aspects of the energy
transition and space-related operations The presence of
such a rich spectrum of critical minerals within the sample
emphasizes the importance of space mining and resource
utilization, as they provide a valuable resource reservoir for
our ventures beyond Earth.
Equation concentration of the substance
C (mg/kg) =C (mg/L from instrument)
× V (L) volume of total digested sample
=50 mL =0.05 L × dilution factor/weight (kg)
Figure 12. A: XRD Analysis—θ (2Theta) vs. Intensity. The prominent peak in the graph reveals
the sample’s geochemistry. Sample identification is shown in Appendix A
Table 5. Semi-quantitative XRD results, mineral phases and
their weights
ID Mineral Weight, g
1 Quartz 1
216 Forsterite 22
1537 Feldspar, France, -K,Na 3
155 Anorthite 52
622 Augite 1 22
Total ≈99