In this communication we present a brief response to Hawthorne (2023) who, in a paper in volume 87, doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2023.8 (this journal), claims evidence for violations of the electroneutrality principle in mineral formulae derived through IMA–CNMNC procedures: i.e. the dominant-constituent rule, the valency-imposed double site-occupancy, the dominant-valency rule, and the site-total-charge approach (STC).

His statement is not correct as the STC method is based on the end-member definition; thus, it cannot violate the requirements of an end-member, particularly the laws of conservation of electric charge. The STC was developed to address the shortcomings in the previous IMA–CNMNC procedures.

The real question is: which method to use to define an end-member formula? Currently, there are two approaches: (1) STC, which first identifies the dominant end-member charge arrangement and then leads to the dominant end-member composition; (2) the dominant end-member approach.

在本通讯中，我们对 Hawthorne (2023) 做出了简短回应，后者在第 87 卷 doi.org/10.1180/mgm.2023.8（本期刊）的一篇论文中，声称有证据表明通过 IMA 衍生的矿物配方违反了电中性原理–CNMNC程序：即主导成分规则、化合价强加的双位点占据、主导化合价规则和位点总电荷方法(STC)。

他的说法不正确，因为 STC 方法是基于最终成员定义的；因此，它不能违反最终成员的要求，特别是电荷守恒定律。STC 的开发是为了解决以前的 IMA-CNMNC 程序中的缺陷。

真正的问题是：使用哪种方法来定义端元公式？目前有两种方法：（1）STC，首先识别主导端元电荷排列，然后得出主导端元组成；(2) 占主导地位的最终成员方法。