See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245395867

"Barkinite"—a new maceral or not?

Article  in  Energy Exploration & Exploitation · June 2010

DOI: 10.1260/0144-5987.28.3.159

CITATIONS READS
4 134

1 author:

Yuzhuang Sun
Hebei University of Engineering
143 PUBLICATIONS   2,624 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coal geology, valuable elements in coal, ore deposits View project

Widespread wildfires of the middle Permian from the North China Basin View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuzhuang Sun on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

by

Yuzhuang Sun

reprinted from

ENERGY
EXPLORATION
&
EXPLOITATION
Volume 28 2010
Number 3

©2010
MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 pp. 159-172 159

“Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

Yuzhuang Sun
Key Laboratory of Resource Exploration Research of Hebei Province;
Hebei University of Engineering, Guangmingnan Street, Handan, Hebei 056038, China
E-mail: sun_yz@hotmail.com

(Received 22 October 2009; accepted 3 April 2010)

Abstract
In Chinese coal petrographic nomenclature, one peculiar component is called
“barkinite”, because its morphological features suggest an origin from bark
tissue. In recent years, this Chinese term appeared in some international
journals. However, many coal geologists do not accept the term “barkinite”.
The author of this paper has summarized and analysed the research progress
relating to “barkinite” and bark coal. He points out some unreliable geochemical
data and wrong explanation for the “barkinite” definition appeared in English-
language papers about “barkinite”. However, some petrographic and
geochemical characteristics of “barkinite” are indeed different than cutinite,
suberinite and sporinite, especialy its morphological characteristics. Before to
deciding whether it is a new maceral or not, the petrographic, geochemical and
plant predecessor characteristics of this maceral component should be further
studied.

Keywords: “Barkinite”, Liptinite, Maceral, Coal petrography, China

1. INTRODUCTION
In Chinese coal petrographic nomenclature, one entity is called “barkinite”, because
its morphological features suggest an origin from bark tissue. Before 1997, this name
was found only in Chinese journals and books. Since 1997, this Chinese definition
appeared in some international journals (Zhong and Smyth, 1997; Querol et al., 2001;
Sun and Wang, 2000; Sun, 2001; Sun, 2002a; Sun, 2003; Sun, 2005; Sun and
Horsfield, 2005).
“Bark coal” was firstly reported by Xie (1933) in the study of the coal from the
Leping coal mine, South China. He found that the coal consists mainly of a special
component. He named the special component as “lopinite” and gave the name “Leping
coal” for coals from the Leping Basin. “Leping coal”, conventionally called
“barkinite” liptobiolith now, is geographically widely distributed in South China and
occurrs in the Late Permian Longtan Formation. Since 1933, many geologists have
studied the “barkinite”, concentrating on geological settings, coal geochemistry, coal
160 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

plants, and organic petrography (Yan and Li, 1958; Zhu and Zhu, 1979; Tuo, 1980;
Han et al., 1983; Ma, 1988; Wang et al., 1998; Sun and Kalkreuth, 2000; Sun, 2001;
Sun et al., 2002; Sun, 2003). The term “barkinite” in issues GB 12937-1991, GB
12937-1995 and GB 12937-2008 was formally certified and named by the State
Bureau of Technical Supervision of the People’s Republic of China (GB 12937-91; GB
12937-1995; GB 12937-2008).
Some of the well-known “barkinite” examples are from the coal seams in the
Leping Basin of Jiangxi Province, the Changguang Basin of Zhejiang and Anhui
Provinces, and the Shuicheng Basin of Guizhou Province (Fig. 1). “Barkinite” has been
also found in the Bohetang deposits, Hunan Province, although its ratio is lower than
15% (Mo et al., 1997). After more than 70 years of study, “barkinite” has been found
in the Early Permian coal deposits from Henan, Shandong, Hebei provinces, north
China (Lin et al., 1996; Sun et al., 2002; Lin and Jin, 2009). However, “barkinite”
ratios in North China are much lower than those in South China.

Xi'an

Hefei Nanjing
Wuxian
Hangzhou
Changguang
Chengdu
Leping
Changsha
Nantong Nanchang
Shuicheng Lianyuan
Fuzhou
Enkou Taibei
Guiyang
Kunming

Guangzhou

Nanning

old lands
0 90 180km
Haikou “barkinite”- rich areas

Figure 1. Regional geology of the barkinite liptobiolith formation in southern China

(Zhong and Smyth, 1997).

“Barkinite” should belong to liptinite group and is the dominant maceral in the
“barkinite” liptobiolith. The content of “barkinite” is usually 50-75%, and sometimes
up to 80-95% in the Leping and the Changguang areas (Guo et al., 1996; Han, 1996),
but in the Shuicheng area, it accounts for about 20-60% of the maceral content.
Many ICCP (International Committee for Coal and Organic Petrology) members
have also observed materials referred to by some Chinese authors as “barkinite” and
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 161

have a different opinion from the Chinese authors. Hower et al. (2007) argued that
“barkinite” does not appear to fundamentally differ from previously-described liptinite
macerals included in the International Committee for Coal and Organic Petrology’s
system of maceral nomenclature. Kalkreuth believed that these macerals are resinite in
situ (private communication in 1993). His opinion is representative of that of some coal
geologists.
The author of this paper has also published several papers about “barkinite” (Sun,
2003; Sun and Horsfield, 2005). Therefore, some coal geologists from other countries
have asked him several times: What is “barkinite”? Is it really a new maceral? At the
26th TSOP Meeting, Gramado, RS, Brazil, September 19-26, 2009, the term “barkinite”
was debated where it was suggested that an examination of the materials being referred
to as “barkinite” be included in the work of the new “Suberinite working group”.
Obviously, “barkinite” has become an internationally debated question. It is time to
solve the problem whether “barkinite” is a new maceral or not.

2. THE TERM “BARKINITE”

The term maceral was first introduced by Stopes (1935). Spackman (1958) proposed a
definition of the term maceral in detail: “...macerals are organic substance, or
optically homogenous aggregates of organic substances, possessing distinctive
physical and chemical properties, and occurring naturally in the sedimentary,
metamorphic, and igneous materials of the earth”. Chinese coal geologists tried to
study the physical and chemical properties of “barkinite” and to prove that it should be
a new maceral.
First, we need to examine the definition of the State Bureau of Technical
Supervision of the People’s Republic of China (GB 12937-91; GB 12937-1995; GB
12937-2008): “Barkinite” belongs to liptinite group and was formed by suberized
cortex of plant stems and branches (GB 12937-91); “Barkinite” was formed from
plant cortex and belongs to liptinite group. Its vertical and horizontal sections appear
as imbricated fabric (GB 12937-1995); “Barkinite” was formed by plant periderm and
belongs to liptinite group. Its vertical and horizontal sections appear as imbricated
fabric (GB 12937-2008). This definition emphasizes “imbricated fabric”. It’s difficult
to identify “barkinite” if only this definition is used. Zhong and Smyth (1997) further
described the petrographic characteristics of barkinite: “Barkinite” varies in thickness
from one to more than ten layers of cells. Individual phyterals may be several
centimeters long and may include complete rootlets. The reflectances of individual
“barkinite” layers in the one phyteral vary from 0.17% to 0.29% at a random vitrinite
reflectance of 0.80%. “Barkinite” fluoresces strongly in coals having a random vitrinite
reflectance of 0.60%; at a vitrinite reflectance of 1.10% it has a very weak
fluorescence.
Some Chinese coal geologists gave different explanation for “barkinite” definition
(Sun, 2001; 2002b). Sun (2001) described the differences between “barkinite” and
suberinite: “Under the microscope, “barkinite” consists of tightly arranged, multi-
layered cell fillings and thin walls, or their residues, which are mostly impregnated by
lipoid substances”. According to the maceral definition (Scott, 2002), a maceral should
be one essential component just like rock consisting of minerals. However, “barkinite”
162 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

consists of two maceral components: cell walls and cell fillings according to the
explanation by Sun (2001; 2002b). It is clear from the explanation that “barkinite” is a
kind of maceral clustered aggregates including two maceral components. From
Figure 2 we may see that the cell walls and cell fillings belong to two different maceral
groups: vitrinite and liptinite (also see Fig. 1b, c, d in Hower et al., 2007). From the
definition of the State Bureau of Technical Supervision of the People’s Republic of
China (GB 12937-91; GB 12937-1995; GB 12937-2008) we cannot know that
“barkinite” contains one or two maceral types. To my mind, this definition contains
only cell fillings. However, some coal geologists thought that it contains both cell
fillings and cell walls (Sun, 2001; 2002b). In addition, the reference GB 12937-99 in
his paper (Sun, 2001) is non-existent.

Figure 2. Fillings (yellow colour) and cell walls (dark line) in bark coal.
Explanation: Fillings should belong to liptinite and cell walls belong
to vitrinite in this sample.

3. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN “BARKINITE” AND

OTHER LIPTINITE MACERALS UNDER MICROSCOPE
Zhong and Smyth (1997) and Sun (2001) have described the differences between
“barkinite” and suberinite, cutinite and resinite in detail under microscope.
“Barkinite” has often been identified as suberinite (Yan and Li, 1958; Ren et al.,
1963; Zhu and Zhu, 1979; Han et al., 1983; Lu et al., 1995; Xiao et al., 1996; Guo
et al., 1996). They believed that suberinite is the dominant maceral in this type of
coal, which formed from typical vegetation in a special peat-forming environment
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 163

(Chen and Chen, 1996). Since the 1980s, on the basis of further investigations, most
Chinese geologists and paleobotanists believe that this maceral is not suberinite, and
agree with the name “barkinite” (Ma, 1988). They (GB 12937-91) have proposed
“barkinite” as a new maceral type. The name “barkinite” is restricted to the special
type of maceral contained in Late Permian coals from south China.
Hower et al. (2007) believed that the “barkinites” (Figures in Sun, 2002b) can
better be interpreted as cutinites or suberinites, which have the wide variety of
porphologies. Sun (2001) described the differences between “barkinite” and
suberinite. Under the microscope, “barkinite” consists of tightly arranged, multi-
layered cell fillings and thin walls, or their residues, which are mostly impregnated by
lipoid substances. Suberinite is defined only as suberized cell walls, which does not
include cell fillings, and the cell cavities were usually filled by corpocollinite (Fig. 3).
According to the explanation by Sun (2001), “barkinite” consists of two maceral
components: cell walls and cell fillings. According to the State Bureau of Technical
Supervision of the People’s Republic of China (GB 12937-91; GB 12937-1995; GB
12937-2008) and explanation by other coal geologists (Sun, 2003), “barkinite”
consists only of cell fillings. Clearly, “barkinite” and suberinite are different no matter
how the “barkinite” defifinition contains one or two components. Hower et al. (2007)
compared the suberinite and “barkinite”: “liptinitic (suberinite) cell walls show
moderate fluorescence and are thin with the cell contents being the vitrinite maceral
phlobaphinite. “Barkinite”, on the other hand, has a similar liptinitic optical
appearance both within the cells and in the cell walls.” This statement about
“barkinite” is not always true because some cell walls are vitrinite maceral telinites,
not liptinitic components (Fig. 2a in this paper and Figs. 1a, c, d in Hower et al.,
2007). If “barkinite” contains both telinites and liptinitic components, the definition
is not in accord with maceral definition (Scott, 2002).

Figure 3. Typical suberinite. (a) white light suberinite (dark line);

(b) fluorescence suberinite (Yellow line).
164 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

Figure 3. (Contd.)

The differences of morphological characteristics between “barkinite” and cutinite

are obvious. Zhong and Smyth (1997) have described their differences: “Cutinite is
defined as originating from a single outer layer of leaves and other plant tissues,
consisting of epidermal cells and guard cells, whereas “barkinite” consists of
peridermal cells and the cells in each layer are similar to one another.”
Resinite appears in coals mostly as cell fillings, less often as layers and finely
dispersed. Sun (1992) believed that “barkinite” belongs to resinite or special resinite
form (e.g., resinite in-situ). Zhong and Smyth (1997) distinguish “barkinite” and
resinite by their transition forms. They argued that “transition macerals between
resinite and vitrinite are frequently found, but layers of “barkinite” are consistently
solid and never transitional to vitrinite”. This statement is not true. Transition macerals
between “barkinite” and vitrinite are also frequently found (Sun, 2003).
From the description above, we may conclude that “barkinite” is indeed
different than cutinite, suberinite, and resinite. It is not a single phenomenon.
“Barkinite” occurred in all Late Permian coal deposits from south China and its
contents reach 70% in coal seams (Zhong and Smyth, 1997). ICCP should organize
a research group to study this maceral component and decide wether it is a new
maceral or not.

4. GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN “BARKINITE” AND

OTHER LIPTINITE MACERALS
Although the main criterion for the definition of macerals is morphological, not
chemical, some geochemists have still tried to prove that “barkinite” is new maceral by
geochemical studies. If it is possible to demonstrate chemical differences that could be
tied to specific plant structures, this would be supporting evidence for the
establishment of a new maceral of “barkinite”.
The data on “barkinite” liptobiolith chemical analyses of the Leping coals have been
described by Yan and Li (1958), Lin (1965), Dai et al. (1984), Zhou (1985), Ma
(1988), and Xu et al. (1999). In comparison with other coals of similar rank, these coals
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 165

have higher contents of volatile matter (47-57%), elemental hydrogen (5.7-7.2%),

rather high sulfur contents (2.7-8.4%) and high tar yields (7-19%). The hydrocarbon
generation potential (S1+S2) of coals from the Leping and Changguang areas are 180-
368 mg/g (Chen and Chen, 1996). The authors argued that these data are geochemical
evidences for this new maceral (“barkinite”). However, these data cannot be used as
the evidence for “barkinite”. But, since this maceral belongs to liptinite group, the
coals normally have these values if they contain more than 50% liptinite macerals, as
mentioned above. No matter if this maceral is cutinite, resinite, suberinite, or sporinite;
its hydrogen content, volatile matter content, hydrocarbon generation potential, and tar
yields must be higher than coal seam samples or other maceral group samples.
Liu et al. (1999), Sun (2000), and Sun (2002a; 2002b) studied the Rock-Eval
features of “barkinite”. They reported the analysis data (Table 1). They tried to prove
that the “barkinite” is different from the cutinite with these data. However, the data are
unbelievable, because the TOC contents are so low in the stage of 0.68% Ro, and the
TOC content of the cutinite should lower than that of the vitrinite and the coal seam
sample if the samples are from a same coal seam.

Table 1. Rock-Eval data of separated macerals and origin coal samples.

Sample Location Ro (%) TOC (%) S1 (mg/g) S2 (mg/g) HI (mg/g)

Barkinite Shuicheng 0.68 58.4 10.3 287.1 490.8
Cutinite Shuicheng 0.68 83.9 13.0 315.0 351.7
Vitrinite Shuicheng 0.68 72.2 11.7 180.3 249.1
Coal Shuicheng 0.61 70.3 16.0 241.9 343.0
Data is from Sun and Wang (2000) and Sun (2002a; 2002b).

Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS) is a new in-situ

microprobe mass chemical analytical method. It can supply exact surface chemical
information related to specific functional groups of the coals (Gong et al., 1997;
Buckley and Lamb, 1996). TOF-SIMS was first used by Sun (2001) to study the
chemical structure of cell walls and cell fillings of “barkinite” from Late Permian
coals, Shuicheng, Guizhou Province, southwest China. His results indicate that the
chemical structures of cell fillings and cell walls are similar to each other. However,
he did not compare the “barkinite” with resinite and sporinite.
In recent years, “barkinite” was studied in more detail by organic geochemical
methods (e.g., Zhong and Smyth, 1997; Liu et al., 1999; Sun and Wang, 2000; Sun,
2001; 2002a; 2002b; Sun et al., 2002; Sun, 2003; Sun and Horsfield, 2005). Actually,
its organic geochemical data, such as extract yields, Rock-Eval data and pyrolysis data
are similar to other liptinite macerals although small differences have been observed in
these studies.
Although the maceral groups were physically separated before the organic
geochemistry analyses, the extracts could represent a mixture from different macerals
because of migration of the extractable organic matter. In order to address this
problem, open-system pyrolysis was conducted on the extract portion of the maceral
samples. Open-system pyrolyses of “barkinite” have been tried by Sun and Wang
166 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

(2000) and Sun and Horsfield (2005). Hydrocarbon yields of “barkinite” are indeed
higher than those of vitrinite and inertinite. However, the resinite contents in the same
coal samples are too low to separate. One cannot compare them.

5. PLANT PREDECESSORS OF “BARKINITE” LIPTOBIOLITHS

Many writers have studied the genesis of “barkinite” (Han et al., 1983; Guo, 1987; Guo
and Li, 1988; Ma, 1988; Xuan, 1997; Wang et al., 1998; 2002; Sun et al., 2006). Some
of them tried to prove that “barkinite” is from special plants and formed in a special
environment (Han et al., 1983). Ma (1988) believed that “barkinite” is from root bark.
The vegetation that produced the organic source material of “barkinite” supposedly
was dominated by Lepidodendron and the tree fern Psaronius. In coal balls of the
Lower Permian and upper Upper Permian from North and Southwest China, there are
abundant anatomically-preserved lepidodendron leaves including Lepidophylloides
Snigirevskaya with single vascular bundles and Sigillariopsis Scott with double
vascular bundles (Wang et al., 2002). Most geologists recognized that “barkinite” is
probably derived from cortex of Psaronius rootlets (Ten and Zhang, 1980; Ma, 1988;
Chen and Chen, 1996), probably, and Stigmaria rootlet and cortex tissues (Guo et al.,
1996). However, Yan and Li (1958) and Han et al. (1983) concluded that “barkinite”
originated from the periderms of Lepidodendron.
The actual researches about the abundant fossils records in Permian coal-bearing
strata in China made it possible for readers to have a general knowledge concerning the
vegetation in the coal forming swamps.
(1) The Permian coal forming flora is a highly diversified fossil plant flora, in which
the filicopsida and pteridospermophyta, especially Pecopterida and Gigantopterida,
occupy the most important position. Sphenopsids occupied the second large
proportion, while the mesophytic gymneospermophyta constitute only a small part
in the swamp forest.
(2) The characteristic elements of the Permian forming plants can be represented by
the Cathaysian flora, which was the dominant vegetation in the region (The
Cathaysian flora of the Sino-Korean platform dominated floral assemblages in
China from the Late Carboniferous through the Permian). Certain Euroamerican
flora species as Pecopteris arborescens, some western Angara flora species as
Peltaspermum are also presented.
(3) Most species of the Permian flora achieved their maximum extent in the early
Late Permian. Zhong and Smyth (1997) have compared Psaronius with
“barkinite” because many scientists believe that Psaronius could be
predecessors of “barkinite”. They examined polished blocks and thin sections
of stems of Psaronius, preserved in the coal balls from the Shuicheng basin
using an optical microscope method. As a typical example of the dimensions
involved with these fossil plants from the coal balls, an 8 cm radius stem of
Psaronius studied had an outer layer of bark 6 cm thick. Within the bark, the
bases of aerial rootlets are 2-5 mm thick. This periderm is proposed as the
predecessors of “barkinite”.
The predecessors of “barkinite” are still being debated. It has not been proved that
“barkinite” was from a special kind of pants.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 167

6. PEAT ENVIRONMENTS OF “BARKINITE” LIPTOBIOLITHS

The possible origins of “barkinite” can be divided into three groups based on the study
on them for more than 70 years. Three proposals are: (1) the result of the unusual
palaedepositional environments; (2) a unique flora; and (3) due to both unusual
palaedepositional environments and unique flora.
Yan and Li (1958), Zhu and Zhu (1979), Luo (1980) and Han et al. (1983) proposed
that the presence of “barkinite” was due to the unusual palaedepositional environments
of marine-flooded or marine-influenced peat swamps. Ma (1988) stated that barkinite
formed from the root periderm of the tree fern Psaronius in marine influenced peats.
Zhong and Smyth (1977) believe that formation of “barkinite” is due to both unusual
palaedepositional environments and unique flora.
The basins in which bark coals occur (Shuicheng, Changguang and Leping Basins),
were tectonically stable and were subjected to marine incursions during peat
accumulation, or following peat accumulation, or both. This type of palaeodepositional
environment is common in many basins, especially for the Carboniferous coal
measures of Europe and North America. These commonly occurring basinal
environments are therefore unlikely to have produced “barkinite” in the Late Permian
coals of China and not elsewhere.
Zhong and Smyth (1997) think that the proposal of “barkinite” originating solely
from unexceptional plant communities accumulating under unsual conditions is also
not convincing. They believe that at the scale of a peat swamp, that unusual conditions
may have existed in just a few locations over a limited extent of the geological record.
However, no such geological occurrences have been reported until now. A unique flora
has not been observed. During these unique conditions, tissues of commonly occurring
swamp plants may have been preserved as “barkinite” rather than as vitrinite or a
recognized form of liptinite. Such extraordinary conditions would however probably
have affected the other macerals of the coal. Microscopy indicates that the vitrinite and
inertinite associated with “barkinite” do not have atypical properties.
“Barkinite” from Xingtai coalfield is preferentially associated with inertinite,
including semifusinite, inertodetrinite and macrinite in the Early Permian coal and was
described as “resinite in-situ” (Sun, 1992). This phenomenon indicates that Seam 2
was deposited under relatively oxidizing conditions (Sun et al., 2002). This allows one
to conclude that the presense of a unique type of flora and relatively oxidizing
condition during sediment deposition might be the preferential environment for the
formation of “barkinite” in coals.
Zhong and Smyth (1997) have given a combined formation model. They
proposed that “barkinite” originated from a unique floral community which existed
in some peat-forming environments of China, best exemplified in the Late Permian
sections of the Shuicheng, Leping and Changguang Basins (Ma, 1988). A
Gigantoperis flora community existed in the Late Permian in southern China and
was not dominant amongst coal forming plants, but the community also included
other plants (Han and Yang, 1980). The Gigantoperis were probably a variety of
vine or shrub-like seed ferns types of vegetation such as Psaronius and
Lepidodendron. Both Psaronius and Lepidodendron existed in the Carboniferous
peatlands of Europe and North America. Lepidodendron was a thick, tall tree and
168 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

formed a major part of many Carboniferous forest swamps around the world.
Periderm was well developed in a Psaronius plant, forming most of the trunk’s outer
layer of bark, and a root system covering the “real” trunk which contained a large
number of rootlets. It was normal for the “trunk” of a Psaronius plant to have a root
system comprising 1/2 to 3/4 of the radius root.
No obvious differences exist in the progenitor plants of the Permian coals of
south China and the Carboniferous coals of Europe and North America. In Europe
and North America, however, Lepidodendron and Psaronius proliferated mainly
in the Carboniferous and they thrived in very moist conditions (Zhong and Smyth,
1997).
As the climate became progressively drier over most areas of the world during the
Late Permian, Lepidodendron and Psaronius floras almost became extinct in Europe
and North America, but were still predominant in swamps of south China. The plants
were likely to have continued evolving from their Carboniferous forms in China. A
possible feature of the evolution could have been the development of peculiar bark on
aerial roots (i.e., roots that hang from the stem. Perhaps due to biochemically
specialized secretions, which became the predecessors of “barkinite”. There are some
evidences that the leaves of Psaronius had specialized significantly in the changing
climate of the Late Palaeozoic (Taylor, 1983).
Obviously, these proposals about the plant predecessors of “barkinite” and its
formation conditions have not been proved and accepted. We have known that
woody tissues of branch ultimately have become huminite macerals; suberins have
become suberinite and leaf cuticles have become cutinite until now. However, it has
not been reported that one maceral is from a special kind of plants. Therefore, it is
very difficult to prove that “barkinite” is a new maceral by using the results of the
plant predecessors.

7. CONCLUSIONS
From the description above we may conclude that some petrographic and geochemical
characteristics of “barkinite” are indeed different than cutinite, suberinite and sporinite,
especially its morphological characteristics. Some Chinese coal geologists have
introduced some unreliable geochemical data and wrong explanation for the
“barkinite” definition to internatinal readers. It may cause confusion for the definition
of this term. ICCP should organize a research group for this maceral component. After
further study of the petrography, geochemistry and plant predecessors, ICCP decides
whether it is a new maceral or not.

8. ABOUT FURTHER STUDY

An important significance of the study about “barkinite” is theoretically for
understanding of paleoenvironment: Why abundant “barkinite” occurred only in the
Late Permian, South China? Were there special plants or special paleoclimate here in
that time? Could it be that this is just a different botanical manifestation of the known
liptinite macerals? This special theme has been debated for more than 70 years, but it’s
still not clear today.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 169

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support of this study by the project of the NSFC Project (No. 40773040), by
the project of the Science Foundation of Hebei (No. D2008000727) and project of the
Main Science Foundation Research of Hebei (08966709D).

REFERENCES
Buckley A.N. and Lamb R.N., 1996. Surface chemical analysis in coal preparation
research: complementary information from XPS and TOF-SIMS. International
Journal of Coal Geology 32, 87-106.
Chen Q.S. and Chen N.G., 1996. Origin and precursors of Late Permian Leping coal
in southern China. Marine Origin Petroleum Geology 12, 29-34 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Dai H., Chen M., Liu E. and Chen W., 1984. Macerals and physico-chemical
properties of Leping bark coal. Journal of China Coal Society 9(3), 81-87 (in
Chinese with English abstract).
GB 12937-91, 1991. Terms relating to coal petrology. State Bureau of Technical
Supervision of the Republic of China 1991. GB 12937-1991.
GB 12937-95, 1995. Terms relating to coal petrology. State Bureau of Technical
Supervision of the Republic of China 1995. GB 12937-1995.
GB 12937-08, 2008. Terms relating to coal petrology. State Bureau of Technical
Supervision of the Republic of China 2008. GB 12937-2008.
Gong B., Pigram P. and Lamb R.N., 1997. Identification of inorganic nitrogen in an
Australian bituminous coal using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy XPS and
time-of-flight secondary ion masss pectrometry (TOFSIMS). International
Journal of Coal Geology 34, 53-68.
Guo Y.T., 1987. Study of Plagiozamites oblongifolius, Compsopteris and
Gigantopteris and the paleoecology of coal-forming vegetations of the late Late
Permian in the west of Guizhou. Docteral Thesis, University of Mine and
Technology, Beijing, China.
Guo Y.T. and Li Y., 1988. Study of Late Permian coal balls in the west Guizhou. Coal
Geology and Exploration 4, 28-31.
Guo Y.T., Renton J.J. and Penn J.H., 1996. FTIR microspectroscopy of particular
liptinite-(lopinite-) rich, Late Permian coals from Southern China. International
Journal of Coal Geology 29, 187-197.
Han D.X., 1996. Chinese Coal Petrography. Coal Industry Publishing, Beijing, pp.
478.
Han D.X. and Yang Q., 1980. Coal Geology of China. Press of China Coal Industry,
Beijing, Vol. 2, pp. 207-210 (in Chinese).
Han D.X., Ren D.Y. and Guo M.T., 1983. Formation environment of “bark coal” in
Changguang, Zhejiang. Journal of Sedimentation 1(4), 1-14 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Hower J.C., Suàrez-Ruiz I., Mastalerz M. and Cook A.C., 2007. The investigation of
chemical structure of coal macerals via transmitted-light FT-IR microscopy by X.
170 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

Sun. Spectrochimica Acta - Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy

67(5), 1433-1437.
Lin M., 1965. The Chemical composition and properties of liptinite. M.Sc. Thesis, Inst.
Coal Chemistry, Academica Sinica, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Lin M.Y., Li C.H. and Sun Y.Z., 1996. Differences of coal floral, petrological and
geochemical compositions of Carboniferous coal and Permian coal from Xingtai
Coalfield, north China. Neues Jahrb. Geol. Palaeont. Abh. 202, 217-226,
Stuttgart.
Lin M.Y. and Jin K.K., 2009. Distribution and significance of “barkinite” in Mowo
coal mine of Han-Xing coalfield, North China. Mining Science and Technology
(China) 19(1), 65-69.
Liu H.Y., Weng C.M. and Zhang A.Y., 1999. Low-rank coal hydrocarbon generation
state of Longtan coal bearing formation in Liupanshui area of Guizhou province.
Geoscience 12(3), 406-411.
Lu Q.H., Wang J.Q., Qin K.G., Qian J.L. and Huang R.C., 1995. Studies on
characteristics and hydrocarbon formation kinetics of the products of the
pyrolysis from Changguang suberinite. Journal of Fuel Chemistry and
Technology 23(3), 236-241.
Luo S., 1980. A preliminary aproach on marine coals of the seams in Changguang
Coalfield. Journal of China Coal Society 3, 26-37.
Ma X.X., 1988. Petrographic study of the main mineable seams (C605, C409) of Late
Permian Age in the Shuicheng Basin of Guizhong: Coal facies and Evolution of
the ancient peatland. Docteral Thesis, China Univ. Min. Technol., Beijing.
Mo S.X., Xu G.H., Huang X.R., Zhao Z.S. and Chen X.K., 1997. Coal organic
petrological features and hydrocarbon generating potentials of Longtan
formation in Bohetang mine, Shaodong coumty. Journal of Xiangtan Mining
Institute 12(4), 22-27.
Querol X., Alastuey A., Zhuang X.G., Hower J.C., Lopez-Soler A., Plana F. and
Rongsu Zeng R.S., 2001. Petrology, mineralogy and geochemistry of the
Permian and Triassic coals in the Leping area, Jiangxi Province, southeast China.
International Journal of Coal Geology 48(1-2), 23-45.
Ren D.Y., Gao Q., Liu X. and Wang M., 1963. The petrographic and chemical
characteristics of coals from Leping Formation in Ping-Luo depression, Jiangxi
Province. Proc. 32nd Annu. Meet. Geol. Soc. China, Monograph of Stratigraphy
and Coal Geology. Geological Society of China, Science Press, Beijing, pp.124-
127 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Scott A.S., 2002. Coal petrology and the origin of coal macerals: a way ahead?
International Journal of Coal Geology 50(1-4), 119-134.
Spackman W., 1958. The maceral concept and the study of modern environments as a
means of understanding the nature of coal. Transaction of the New York Academy
of Science Series II 20, 411-423.
Stopes M.C., 1935. On the petrology of banded bituminous coals. Fuel 14, 4-13.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2010 171

Sun X.G. and Wang G.Y., 2000. A study of the kinetic parameters of individual
macerals from Upper Permian coals in South China via open-system pyrolysis.
International Journal of Coal Geology 44, 293-303.
Sun X.G., 2001. A study of chemical structure in “barkinite” using time-of-flight
secondary ion mass spectrometry. International Journal of Coal Geology 47,
1-8.
Sun X.G., 2002a. Hydrocarbon generating characteristics of barkinite-rich coals from
Late Permian Longtan Formation, South China. Chinese Journal of
Geochemistry 19(3), 227-231.
Sun X.G., 2002b. The optical features and hydrocarbon-generating model of
“barkinite” from Late Upper Permian coals in South China. International Journal
of Coal Geology 51, 251-261.
Sun X.G., 2005. The investigation of chemical structure of coal macerals via
transmitted-light FT-IR microspectroscopy. Spectrochimica Acta Part A:
Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 62(1-3), 557-564.
Sun Y.Z., 1992. Kohlepetrographie, Kohlefazies und ihre Beziehungen zur
Kohlequalität und den technologischen Eigenschaften der Kohlen von Permflöz 2
und Karbonflöz 9 im Kohlebecken Xingbei im Norden von China. - Diplomarbeit
an der Universität zu Köln (unpublished).
Sun Y.Z. and Kalkreuth W., 2000. Explanation for peat-forming environments of
Seams 2 and 9(2) based on the lithotype composition in the Xingtai Coalfield,
China. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology 10 (1), 17-21.
Sun Y.Z., Püttmann W., Kalkreuth W. and Horsfield B., 2002. Petrologic and
geochemical characteristics of Seam 9-3 and Seam 2, Xingtai Coalfield, Northern
China. International Journal of Coal Geology 49(4), 251-262.
Sun Y.Z., 2003. Petrologic and geochemical characteristics of “barkinite” from the
Dahe mine, Guizhou Province, China. International Journal of Coal Geology 56,
269-276.
Sun Y.Z. and Horsfield B., 2005. Comparison of the geochemical characteristics of
“barkinite” and other macerals from the Dahe Mine, South China. Energy
Exploration & Exploitation 23 (6), 475-494.
Sun Y.Z., Dai S.F. and Kalkreuth W., 2006. Barkinite Liptobiolith in China. Sun Light
Publishing Canada, Toronto, pp. 117.
Taylor T.N., 1983. An Introduction to Fossil Plant Biology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ten B. and Zhang I., 1980. Atlas of Fossils in Wang-Jia-Zai Mining District of
Shuicheng, Guizhou. Publishing House of Coal Industry, Beijing.
Tuo S., 1980. The marine environment of “bark coal” in Changguang area. Journal of
Coal 3, 1-25 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Wang S.J., Liu X.W. and Song L.Y., 1998. The Coal-forming plants of Lopinite and
genesis of “barkinite”. Journal of China Coal Society 23, 231-235.
Wang S.J., Tiang B.L. and Chen G.R., 2002. Anatomically-preserved Lepidodendralean
plants from Permian coal balls of China: Sigillariopsis Scott. Acta Botanica Sinica
44(1), 104-112.
 172 “Barkinite”—a new maceral or not?

Xiao X.M., Liu D.H. and Fu J.M., 1996. The evalution of coal-measure source rock of
coal bearing basins in China and their hydrocarbon-generating models. Acta
Sedimentologica Sinica 14(Supp.), 10-17.
Xie J.R., 1933. (Hsieh, C.Y., 1933.—different translation) On Lopinite—a new type of
coal in China. Bull Geol Soc China 12(4), 469-490.
Xu J., Wu C.G., Su Y.R. and Xie L.G., 1999. The characteristics and genesis of the
bark coal in the Changguang area with in Anhui and Zhejiang. Geology of Anhui
9(4), 295-300.
Xuan C.J., 1997. Flora and its correlation of fossils from the roof and floor of the B3
coal seam in Mingshan Mine, Leping, Jiangxi. Coal Geology of China 9(4),
20-38.
Yan J. and Li G., 1958. Leping coal and the geological setting in Leping. Journal of
Geology 38(3), 343-368 (in Chinese with English abstract).
Zhong N.N. and Smyth M., 1997. Striking liptinitic bark remains peculiar to some Late
Permian Chinese coals. International Journal of Coal Geology 33, 333-349.
Zhou S., 1985. Applied Coal Petrology. Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing, pp. 386
(in Chinese with English abstract).
Zhu S. and Zhu D., 1979. Characteristics of the main mineable seam (No. C2) in the
north of Zhejiang and the origin of periderminite coal. Contribution to the 1st
National Symposium on Coal Geology, Zhejiang Coalfield Geology and
Exploration Company, Zhejiang, China (in Chinese).

View publication stats