The structure hierarchy hypothesis states that structures may be ordered hierarchically according to the polymerisation of coordination polyhedra of higher bond-valence . A hierarchical structural classification is developed for sheet-silicate minerals based on the connectedness of the two-dimensional polymerisations of (TO ₄ ) tetrahedra, where T = Si ⁴⁺ plus As ⁵⁺ , Al ³⁺ , Fe ³⁺ , B ³⁺ , Be ²⁺ , Zn ²⁺ and Mg ²⁺ . Two-dimensional nets and oikodoméic operations are used to generate the silicate ( sensu lato ) structural units of single-layer, double-layer and higher-layer sheet-silicate minerals, and the interstitial complexes (cation identity, coordination number and ligancy, and the types and amounts of interstitial (H ₂ O) groups) are recorded. Key aspects of the silicate structural unit include: (1) the type of plane net on which the sheet (or parent sheet) is based; (2) the u (up) and d (down) directions of the constituent tetrahedra relative to the plane of the sheet; (3) the planar or folded nature of the sheet; (4) the layer multiplicity of the sheet (single, double or higher); and (5) the details of the oikodoméic operations for multiple-layer sheets. Simple 3-connected plane nets (such as 6 ³ , 4.8 ² and 4.6.12) have the stoichiometry (T ₂ O ₅ ) _n (Si:O = 1:2.5) and are the basis of most of the common rock-forming sheet-silicate minerals as well as many less-common species. Oikodoméic operations, e.g. insertion of 2- or 4-connected vertices into 3-connected plane nets, formation of double-layer sheet-structures by (topological) reflection or rotation operations, affect the connectedness of the resulting sheets and lead to both positive and negative deviations from Si:O = 1:2.5 stoichiometry. Following description of the structural units in all sheet-silicate minerals, the minerals are arranged into decreasing Si:O ratio from 3.0 to 2.0, an arrangement that reflects their increasing structural connectivity. Considering the silicate component of minerals, the range of composition of the sheet silicates completely overlaps the compositional ranges of framework silicates and most of the chain-ribbon-tube silicates.

This paper focuses on handheld and top-of-hole techniques which have appeared since 2007 or have undergone major improvements, and discusses their benefits, challenges and pitfalls, why we use them and what to expect from them. There is an ongoing need to be innovative with the way we undertake mineral exploration. Recent technological advances that have been applied to successful mineral exploration include on-site or portable instruments, on-site laboratory technologies, various core scanners, and technologies for fluid analysis. Portable or field technologies such as pXRF, pXRD, pNIR-SWIR, µRaman and LIBS aid in obtaining chemical and mineralogical information. Spectral gamma tools, a well-known technology, recently took advantage of improved ground and airborne (drone) instruments, to complement hyperspectral imagery. At mine and exploration sites, top-of-hole sensing technologies, such as Lab-at-Rig® and various core scanners (both spectral- and XRF-based) have become useful tools to analyse metres of core as it is being drilled. Fluid analyses are not as common as analyses of solid materials, but there are advances in such technologies as anodic stripping voltammetry, polarography and ion-exchange electrodes aiming for analysis of commodity or environmentally important elements. Field-portable geochemical techniques and on-site technologies now offer instant response and flexibility for most exploration tasks. By providing relevant data within minutes, they allow safer field decisions and focus on the most promising finds, while saving valuable resources in sampling grids or drilling. More efficient laboratory analysis programs are supported by sample screening and homogeneity checking on-site. Field analyses are not always as accurate as laboratory ones, but most of the time can be correlated with them, enabling reliable decisions. The level of confidence in field-made decisions needs to be compared between later and less numerous laboratory analyses, and less precise but more abundant and immediate field analyses. It may be demonstrated that, in many cases, the fit–for-purpose nature of the latter allows a better confidence level. Quality compromises associated with field analyses can be reduced by the application of better sample preparation and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Most of the further development of on-site chemical analysis is expected to be based on its integration with lab methods and on sound QA/QC practice, allowing a precise evaluation of its confidence level and uncertainties. Mineralogical analyses are constrained by our ability to interpret the data in near-real time but offer promising approaches in both surface and drilling exploration campaigns. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Exploration 17 collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/exploration-17