Economic and Environmental Geology

Table. 3.

Table. 3.

Chemical compositions (wt.%) by SEM-EDS of lime and clay samples. Sample numbers are the same as those of Table 1

Type Tombs No. SiO2 Al2O3 TiO2 FeO CaO MgO Na2O K2O C
Lime No. 5 1 6.64 5.96 - - 87.40 - - - -
2 11.53 - - - 88.47 - - - -
No. 6 3 9.92 - - 84.00 - 6.08
4 - - - - 88.10 1.77 - - 10.13
5 - - - - 91.46 - - - 8.54
King Muryeong 6 39.77 7.50 - 5.31 24.74 5.84 - - 16.83
7 3.41 - - - 76.91 - - - 19.68
8 2.79 - - - 81.72 - - - 17.64
9 2.33 - - - 80.02 - - - 15.48
Clay No. 5 10 40.34 27.22 - 12.52 - 6.33 - 3.61 9.98
11 44.36 27.61 - 12.63 - 3.58 - 4.02 7.80
12 11.94 12.15 - 65.71 - - 5.55 - 4.65
No. 6 13 15.54 44.54 1.02 23.73 - 3.88 - - 11.30
14 23.09 44.67 - 15.74 - 2.64 - - 13.86
15 19.59 45.96 - 20.44 - 2.48 - - 11.52
16 25.17 43.88 - 13.79 - 1.37 - 1.05 14.73
17 26.12 43.79 - 11.78 - 1.42 - 1.45 15.44
18 25.01 42.91 0.87 14.38 - 1.57 - 1.28 13.98
King Muryeong 19 31.11 11.60 - 46.56 - 0.64 - - 9.25
20 42.08 5.27 - 14.07 16.95 15.21 - - 6.42
21 32.53 23.77 - 30.07 - 2.37 2.47 1.90 6.89
22 29.37 23.41 - 34.30 - 1.81 2.28 2.10 6.73
23 34.27 16.99 - 36.75 - 0.66 - 2.82 8.51
Econ. Environ. Geol. 2022;55:447-63 https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2022.55.5.447
© 2022 Econ. Environ. Geol.