Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70010578

The sources of our iron ores. II

Abstract

In this instalment** the iron ore deposits of the Lake Superior States, which normally furnish about 80 per cent, of the annual output of the United States, are described together with historical notes on discovery and transportation of ore. Deposits in the Mississippi Valley and Western States are likewise outlined and the sources of imported ore are given. Reviewing the whole field, it is indicated that the great producing deposits of the Lake Superior and southern Appalachian regions are of hematite in basin areas of sedimentary rocks, that hydrated iron oxides and iron carbonates are generally found in undisturbed comparatively recent sediments, and that magnetite occurs in metamorphic and igneous rocks; also that numerical abundance of deposits is not a criterion as to their real importance as a source of supply. Statistics of production of iron ore and estimates of reserves of present grade conclude the paper.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E. F. Burchard. 1933-05-01. The sources of our iron ores. II. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed010p288

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Clarifying atomic weights: A 2016 four-figure table of standard and conventional atomic weights

To indicate that atomic weights of many elements are not constants of nature, in 2009 and 2011 the Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) replaced single-value standard atomic weight values with atomic weight intervals for 12 elements (hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, bromine, and thallium); for example, the standard atomic weight of nitrogen became the interval [14.00643, 14.00728]. CIAAW recognized that some users of atomic weight data only need representative values for these 12 elements, such as for trade and commerce. For this purpose, CIAAW provided conventional atomic weight values, such as 14.007 for nitrogen, and these values can serve in education when a single representative value is needed, such as for molecular weight calculations. Because atomic weight values abridged to four figures are preferred by many educational users and are no longer provided by CIAAW as of 2015, we provide a table containing both standard atomic weight values and conventional atomic weight values abridged to four figures for the chemical elements. A retrospective review of changes in four-digit atomic weights since 1961 indicates that changes in these values are due to more accurate measurements over time or to the recognition of the impact of natural isotopic fractionation in normal terrestrial materials upon atomic weight values of many elements. Use of the unit “u” (unified atomic mass unit on the carbon mass scale) with atomic weight is incorrect because the quantity atomic weight is dimensionless, and the unit “amu” (atomic mass unit on the oxygen scale) is an obsolete term: Both should be avoided.

Journal of Chemical Education

A simplified algorithm for temperature conversions

The author is surprised that those who teach temperature conversion formulas have not introduced the easier-to-retain relationship based on the fact that –40 F° is the same temperature as –40 C°.

Journal of Chemical Education