Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purication Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seppur

An investigation into the otation of muscovite with an amine collector

and calcium lignin sulfonate depressant
Christopher Marion a, Adam Jordens a, Sheelah McCarthy a, Tassos Grammatikopoulos b,
Kristian E. Waters a,
a
b

Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, 3610 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A OC5, Canada
SGS Canada Inc., 185 Concession Street, PO 4300 Lakeeld, Ontario K0L 2H0, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 October 2014
Received in revised form 24 March 2015
Accepted 13 April 2015
Available online 24 April 2015
Keywords:
Muscovite
Flotation
Zeta potential
QEMSCAN
Electroacoustics
Mica

a b s t r a c t
Muscovite mica is a naturally occurring phyllosilicate mineral with a wide range of industrial applications. This work investigated the separation of muscovite from unwanted gangue minerals in a mica
ore. Electroacoustic zeta potential measurements and single mineral otation tests were used to determine the effect of Custamine 8113 (collector) and Norlig-H (depressant) on muscovite. These results were
then compared to those of gangue minerals (feldspar and quartz). Muscovite showed an isoelectric point
(IEP) at pH 3.5. Feldspar and quartz did not have an IEP, having negative zeta potentials over the pH range
investigated (pH 310). This suggests that effective separation using a cationic amine collector, which
relies on electrostatic attraction as the basic mechanism of adsorption onto mineral surfaces, would
not be possible without the use of a depressant. Zeta potential measurements and single mineral otation
tests in the presence of both Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H indicate that reagent adsorption is controlled
by Custamine 8113 in the case of muscovite and by Norlig-H in the case of feldspar and quartz. This suggests that effective separation of muscovite from the gangue minerals present in the mica ore is possible.
These results were used to determine optimal otation conditions of the ore. Concentrates from the ore
otation were examined by QEMSCAN analysis, which showed that muscovite was effectively separated
from gangue minerals.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

also be used as a scavenger step on gravity tailings to recover some

of the remaining muscovite.

1.1. Muscovite
1.2. Surface chemistry
Micas are a group of phyllosilicate minerals distinguished by
their close to perfect basal cleavage. They are widespread in
igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and their crystal
structure incorporates a large number of elements, leading to a
large and diverse mineral group. Of the many different minerals
in the mica family, muscovite (KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2) is the most
common, and its physical properties render it useful in a wide
range of applications, such as: insulators; condensers; plastics;
cosmetics; and paints [13]. Muscovite is primarily separated from
common gangue minerals such as quartz and feldspar, taking
advantage of differences in physical properties [3]. These methods,
however, prove to be ineffective when dealing with small particle
sizes and therefore froth otation is used [1,3]. Froth otation may

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 398 1454.

E-mail address: kristian.waters@mcgill.ca (K.E. Waters).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.04.025
1383-5866/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In froth otation, the electrical double layer at the

mineral-water interface governs the adsorption of otation
reagents [4,5]. An important mineral property in characterizing
the electrical double layer is the isoelectric point (IEP), which is
the pH value where the zeta potential is zero [6]. The IEP can aid
in predicting the sign of the charge on a mineral surface in a given
pH range [6]. Understanding the zeta potential of a mineral can
help understand mechanisms of collector adsorption and select
optimal otation conditions to effectively separate a valuable mineral from gangue minerals [3,57]. In systems where electrostatic
attraction and hydrophobic bonding are major driving forces in
collector adsorption, the adsorption process is characterized as
physical and the extent of reagent adsorption is controlled by the
sign and magnitude of the surface charge [4,6]. Chemically adsorbing (chemisorbing) collectors form strong covalent or coordinate
bonds with surface species and are able to adsorb onto the surface

217

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

of similarly charged minerals, however a high surface charge can

inhibit the adsorption of chemisorbing collectors via electrostatic
repulsion [4]. For an introduction to the concept of surface charge
and zeta potentials and their application in otation, interested
readers should consult Riley (2009) [8] and Fuerstenau and
Pradip (2005) [4].
Zeta potential measurements may be conducted using different
methods, with the most widely used technique being electrophoresis [912]. Although electrophoretic techniques are wellestablished, they are restricted in their applicability by the requirements for very ne particles in suspension and very dilute (<1%w/w)
dispersions [9,1115]. The electroacoustic method offers distinct
advantages over electrophoresis. As it is a non-optical measurement technique, electroacoustic methods are free of the limitations
associated with optical electrophoretic measurements, and have
been shown to be effective in analysing sizes ranging from a few
nanometers to several micrometers [13,14,16,17], concentrated
and complex mineral suspensions [13,14] in excess of 60%w/w
[1618], opaque or photosensitive materials [9,14] and owing
streams [14]. Electroacoustic zeta potential measurements are
based on the application of high-frequency alternating electric
elds to a suspension of particles, causing charged particles to
oscillate and produce a sound wave of the same frequency. The
zeta potential of the sample can be calculated from the phase
and magnitude of the resulting sound wave. More details of the
electroacoustic technique can be found in OBrien (1990) [19],
OBrien (1995) [20] and OBrien, et al. (1990) [21]; and a review
of the applications can be found in Hunter (1998) [13] and
Greenwood (2003) [17].
1.3. Physico-chemical properties of muscovite
Muscovite has been shown to have permanently negatively
charged basal planes [2227] and edges with an IEP in the pH
range 57.5 [23,25,27]. The edges account for approximately 5
10% of the overall surface charge [28], resulting in an overall mineral IEP commonly occurring at pH <4 [2224,29,30]. Due to the
negative surface potential at pH >4, muscovite is expected to show
much greater afnity for cationic collectors than anionic collectors,
if electrostatic attraction is the mechanism of adsorption. Many
papers on the application of collectors in the otation of muscovite
have been published, focusing primarily on cationic amine collectors [5,22,24,3142]. Electrostatic attraction is the basic mechanism involved in the adsorption of amines onto mineral surfaces,
and thus it has been suggested that at higher pH values greater
adsorption is observed. However, increasing the pH to a point
where the amine solubility limit is exceeded may be detrimental
to otation [36,39,43]. Conversely, some researchers have found
that amine precipitation onto a mineral surface at an elevated pH
can occur and improve otation, but in either case at pH >12 otation does not occur [43]. In the published literature focusing on
muscovite otation, the maximum otation response with dodecylamine, a widely used collector, has been shown to occur around
pH 8 [36,44]. Adsorption of anionic and mixed cationic/anionic collectors on muscovite and the corresponding otation response has
also been examined [5,24,33,45,46]. Using sodium oleate as an
anionic collector no adsorption was observed, however in mixed
amine/oleate systems the adsorption of anionic and cationic collectors is enhanced due to co-adsorption, although the underlying
mechanism of this co-adsorption has not yet been identied
[24,33].
The zeta potential of common gangue minerals in mica ores,
such as feldspar and quartz, have been shown to be negative at
pH >3. [22,4753]. The lack of an IEP in this range means that silicate minerals will be electrostatically attracted to a cationic collector and it may not be possible to selectively concentrate

muscovite from these minerals. Examples of quartz and feldspar

otation with cationic amine collectors indicate that these minerals must be effectively depressed for selective otation to occur
[5460]. Calcium lignin sulfonate (Goulac), a silicate depressant,
is commonly used in muscovite otation [61,62].
The objective of this work was to effectively separate muscovite
from gangue minerals present in a mica ore through the use of
froth otation with an amine collector and calcium lignin sulfonate
depressant. The surface chemistry of the ore minerals in the presence of various otation reagents was investigated followed by
otation tests on both pure mineral samples as well as the ore
itself.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Pure muscovite and feldspar used in this work were provided by
an industrial minerals operation; quartz was purchased from
Daubois (Canada). The muscovite ore used for otation experiments was obtained from a muscovite mine.
In order to obtain a size fraction small enough for zeta potential
measurements the muscovite (d50 = 20 lm) was passed through a
200 Mozley hydrocyclone with a cut size of approximately 10 lm
and operating pressure of 35 psi. The overow of the hydrocyclone
was then wet screened at 25 lm to produce a feed (d50 = 5.0 lm)
for electroacoustic zeta potential measurements. The underow
of the hydrocyclone was used directly for single mineral otation
experiments. Particle sizes, unless otherwise noted, were determined using a LA-920 particle size analyser (Horiba).
Feldspar (d50 = 8.7 lm) was used as provided for electroacoustic
measurements. The sample was determined by X-ray diffraction
(Bruker D8 Diffractometer) to be a mixture of both Na-feldspar
and K-feldspar.
Quartz was prepared for single mineral otation experiments
by wet grinding in a rod mill to produce a 80% 106 lm feed.
For electroacoustic measurements quartz was milled in a
Pulverisette 6 planetary monomill (Fritsch, Germany) to produce
a particle size with a d50 of 4.1 lm.
The muscovite ore was ground wet in a laboratory rod mill at
50% solids for 22.5 min to produce an 80% 106 lm otation feed.
The rod mill had an inner diameter of 180 mm and length of
230 mm. A total of 22 rods were used with a length of 190 mm
as grinding media, weighing 10,724 g and varying in diameter from
164 mm to 339 mm (14 of 164 mm, 6 of 227 mm and 2 of
339 mm). The mill speed was 61 rpm.
Reagents obtained from the mica mine are shown in Table 1.
Hydrochloric acid (at a concentration of 1 mol/L), used for pH modication in both zeta potential and otation experiments, was purchased from Fisher Scientic.
2.2. Electroacoustic zeta potential measurement
Electroacoustic zeta potential measurements were carried out
using a FieldESA (PartikelAnalytik, Germany) equipped with a large
volume (220 mL) cell and an automatic titration unit. Samples

Table 1
Reagents from the mica mine.
Reagent name

Reagent type

Manufacturer

Custamine 8113
Norlig-H
Cp-102a
Caustic

Collector/Frother
Depressant
Frother
pH Modier

ArrMaz
LignoTech
ArrMaz
OxyChem

218

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

investigated included muscovite, feldspar and quartz. Preparation

of samples for measurement involved suspending the appropriate
mass of mineral in 220 mL of 103 M KCl (background electrolyte)
and then sonicating this suspension for 30 s using a UP400S ultrasonic processor (Hielscher, Germany). Sonication is required to
ensure adequate dispersion of the ne mineral particles. The suspension was then allowed to equilibrate until both pH and zeta
potential have stabilized at which point a pH titration was run to
pH 10 and then back to pH 3 in steps of 0.25 pH units. A delay of
300 s prior to measurement at each new pH point was necessary
to allow the suspension to equilibrate.
For zeta potential measurements in the presence of a single
otation reagent, the reagent was added in steps of 500 lL to a
total addition of 10 mL (20 steps). For zeta potential measurements
with two different reagent additions the reagents were added in
500 lL steps to a total addition of 5 mL (10 steps). In the case of
dual reagent additions each reagent was added at double the concentration of a single addition such that the total volume added
remained consistent at 10 mL.
The particle sizes of the three minerals are shown in Table 2,
along with the measured surface areas (as determined by the N2
BET technique) and the solids concentration at which electroacoustic measurement was carried out. BET surface area measurements
were carried out using a TriStar 3000 analyser (Micromeritics,
USA). Each mineral was initially measured at a series of solids concentrations to determine the solids concentration which minimized the amount of material consumed while still providing a
consistent and repeatable electroacoustic signal. The measured
electroacoustic zeta potential of muscovite at three different solids
concentrations may be seen in Appendix A Fig. A2.
The reagent dosages for each mineral are shown in Table 3 on
the basis of mineral mass, suspension volume and mineral surface
area. The dosage of both Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H was determined for muscovite by measuring the zeta potential of the mineral suspension as a function of reagent addition. The determined
values for Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H, 4.10  103 greagent/gsolid
and 4.10  102 greagent/gsolid respectively, were selected as no further deviation in zeta potential was observed with increased
reagent addition. All additions for feldspar and quartz were kept
consistent on a mass basis with the dosages used for muscovite.
Due to the nature of the data collected from electroacoustic zeta
potential measurements (i.e. a large number of data points at many
different pH levels) data have been presented as a tted trendline,
with calculated condence intervals about the trendline. In all
cases a third order polynomial was tted to the data as this was

Table 2
Particle size, surface area and electroacoustic measurement concentration for
muscovite, feldspar and quartz.
Mineral

d50 (lm)

BET Surface Area (m2/g)

Solids conc. (wt.%)

Muscovite
Feldspar
Quartz

5.0
8.7
4.1

9.67
1.88
3.59

10.0
5.0
2.5

Table 3
Electroacoustic reagent dosages for muscovite, feldspar and quartz.
Mineral

Reagent

Dosage (g/g)

Dosage (g/L)

Dosage (g/m2)

Muscovite

Custamine 8113
Norlig-H

4.10  103
4.10  102

4.36  101
4.36  100

4.24  104
4.24  103

Feldspar

Custamine 8113
Norlig-H

4.10  103
4.10  102

2.07  101
2.07  100

2.19  103
2.19  102

Custamine 8113
Norlig-H

4.10  103
4.10  102

1.01  101
1.01  100

1.14  103
1.14  102

Quartz

found to be appropriate for muscovite, quartz and feldspar to represent the variation of zeta potential with pH. The condence
intervals indicate the degree of condence that the tted trendline
accurately represents the mean of the electroacoustic measurements. While this approach adequately describes the experimental
observations it was decided to utilize a prediction interval about
the trendline to be absolutely certain that observed deviations in
zeta potential were in fact signicant. The prediction interval
indicates the degree of condence (95% condence) with which
one may use the trendline to predict a future zeta potential measurement. Figs. 38 are reproduced in Appendix A (Figs. A4A9)
with the condence intervals about the trendlines replaced with
prediction intervals. Further explanation of the approach used
to calculate the prediction intervals is also included in the
Appendix.

2.3. Single mineral otation

Pure mineral otation experiments were conducted on both
muscovite and quartz (the feldspar as provided was too ne for
otation to be effective). All otation tests were carried out in a
1.5 L Denver otation cell at an airow rate of 4.5 L/min with concentrate collected after 30 s, 60 s and 300 s. The frother Cp-102a
was added as needed to create a stable froth. The concentrate
was ltered, dried and weighed to calculate the otation recovery.
The mass of mineral used in each test was 50 g for muscovite and
100 g for quartz. The initial volume of water added for each test
was 1.3 L.
The conditions examined for muscovite included pH (pH 4, 7.5
and 10) as well as collector dosage (100, 250 and 500 g/t). In each
of these conditions the depressant dosage was kept constant at
1500 g/t. After selecting pH 7.5 as the optimal pH of otation a series of additional tests were conducted to assess the effect of varying Norlig-H dosage (0, 500 and 1500 g/t).
Pure mineral otation experiments on quartz were carried out
at pH 7.5 to investigate the effects of varying dosages of
Custamine 8113 (100, 250 g/t) and Norlig-H (0, 500, 1000 and
1500 g/t).

2.4. Mica ore otation

Flotation experiments on the mica ore were carried out in a 3 L
Denver otation cell at an air ow rate of 4.5 L/min using Cp-102a
as frother. For each test a fresh batch of ore (500 g) was rod milled
wet and then transferred directly to the otation cell where the
pulp level was adjusted to a set height by adding tap water.
Caustic was added to adjust the pH to 8 followed by the addition
of Norlig-H. The ore was then allowed to condition for 1 min before
Custamine 8113 was added, followed by another 1 min conditioning step. The air was then turned on with frother added as required
to produce a stable froth. Froth was collected after 30 s, 60 s and
300 s to produce three different concentrates. Throughout each
otation test the cell level and pH were continuously adjusted to
ensure consistent conditions. The reagent combinations tested in
the ore otation experiments are shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Conditions of mica ore otation tests.
Condition

Custamine 8113 (g/t)

Norlig-H (g/t)

1
2
3

500
500
250

1500
0
1500

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

2.5. QEMSCAN
In order to quantify the otation behavior of the mica and associated minerals of the ore body the mineralogy of concentrate and
tailings fractions should be measured. Quantitative evaluation of
materials by scanning electron microscopy (QEMSCAN) was used
in this work to determine the mineral abundance of muscovite
and gangue minerals in the feed and in the otation concentrates.
QEMSCAN is a mineralogical characterisation technique employing
an EVO 430 automated scanning electron microscope equipped
with four light-element energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometers
and iDiscover software for data and image processing. QEMSCAN
measures (and the iDiscover software processes) data from every
pixel across a sample with a pixel size dened based on the scope
of the analysis. The software assigns each pixel a mineral name
based on 1000 counts of energy dispersive X-ray spectral data
and backscatter electron intensities. If the minerals or constituent
phases comprising the sample are chemically distinct, QEMSCAN is
capable of reliably discriminating and quantifying minerals [63] by
comparing the data from each pixel to a set of mineral denitions
which are validated and rened to t the particular sample set
under investigation.
Samples prepared for QEMSCAN analysis included the feed as
well as representative samples of the combined concentrate from
each otation condition used during the ore otation experiments.
Each sample was screened and re-combined into three size fractions (+75 lm, 75/+38 lm, 38 lm) for a more detailed mineralogical determination to assess potential metallurgical
beneciation performance. These samples were prepared as polished sections and analyzed by QEMSCAN at the Advanced
Mineralogy Facility at SGS Canada (Lakeeld).
A micro-rifed, representative aliquot was obtained from each
fraction for whole rock compositional analysis by X-ray uorescence followed by preparation of the polished sections required
for QEMSCAN analysis. Graphite was added to disperse particles,
create random orientation and minimise density-induced particle
segregation, settling and preferred orientation. The samples were
mounted into an epoxy approximately 5 mm deep, and then backlled with epoxy. This shallow depth was selected to minimise
gravity separation during epoxy hardening. After hardening, the
sections were ground, polished, carbon-coated, and analyzed utilizing QEMSCAN. Two polished sections were prepared from the
+75 and one from each of the 75/+38 lm and 38 lm fractions
from each sample.
The samples were analyzed using the Particle Mineral Analysis
(PMA) QEMSCAN method. The PMA is a two-dimensional mapping
analysis aimed at resolving liberation characteristics of a set of particles. A pre-dened number of particles were mapped at a pixel
size of 3 lm. The QEMSCAN instrument was operated at a 25 kV
accelerating voltage and a 5 nA beam current. A reference mineral
list was developed using XRD (primarily to dene the major minerals) as well as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with an energy dispersive spectrometer (SEMEDS). To verify the
broad mineral composition and improve the mineral database
SEMEDS analysis was employed as needed. For data validation
purposes, the calculated assays using QEMSCAN were compared
to chemical assays using X-ray uorescence (XRF). The chemical
analyses completed were conducted at SGS Canada (Lakeeld).

219

and 2h range at 370. Interpretations were based on the

PDF2/PDF4 powder diffraction databases issued by the
International Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD) using the
DiffracPIus Eva software. Detection limit is 0.52% and is strongly
dependent on crystallinity. The reference patterns are compiled
by the Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards
International Center for Diffraction Data (JCPDS-ICDD) and
released on software as a database of Powder Diffraction Files
(PDF).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Electroacoustic zeta potential measurement
The zeta potential data of muscovite, feldspar and quartz as a
function of pH are shown in Fig. 1. The data for muscovite indicates
an IEP of 3.5, which is in agreement with literature values [22
24,29,30]. The data for quartz and feldspar display the expected
negative zeta potential across the pH range investigated (310)
[22,4753]. During the course of measuring the zeta potential of
feldspar, it was noticed that the time required for the mineral suspension to reach equilibrium (prior to any reagent addition) was
signicantly longer than that for the other two minerals (16 h compared with 12 h for mica and quartz). In order to rule out the
presence of any adsorbed organic species on the feldspar surface
the mineral was heated to 200 F and left overnight to remove
any volatile organic species from the surface. After heating, the
zeta potential of the feldspar showed little variation compared to
that of the feldspar shown in Fig. 1. The zeta potentials of feldspar
before and after heating are shown in the Appendix Figs. A3.
Examining the trends of the muscovite, quartz and feldspar it
can be seen that selective separation of muscovite from the gangue
minerals would be difcult using an amine collector, which relies
on electrostatic attraction as the basic mechanism of adsorption
[39]. All three minerals are negatively charged for pH >3.5, leaving
a small window of pH values where muscovite has a surface charge
opposite to that of feldspar and quartz. In industry, otation at
acidic pH (especially at pH <3) can be problematic due to workplace safety concerns, high reagent requirements, and process
water treatment considerations.
Figs. 24 show the results of muscovite, feldspar and quartz in
the presence of Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H. Deviation in the
zeta potential of a particle due to the addition of ionic surfactants
is an indication of adsorption onto the surface. It can be seen that
Custamine 8113 has a signicant inuence on the zeta potential of
all three minerals. The upward shifted curves indicate that the
cationic collector has adsorbed on to the negatively charged mineral surfaces. This suggests that without the use of a depressant,

2.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis

XRD analyses were carried out on the coarse fraction from the
feed and concentrates for quality control purposes using a
BRUKER AXS D8 Advance Diffractometer at SGS Canada
(Lakeeld). Analytical conditions were Co radiation, 40 kV,
35 mA, with a regular scanning step at 0.02, step time at 0.2 s,

Fig. 1. Zeta potential trend of muscovite, feldspar and quartz in 103 mol/L KCl
(Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

220

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

Fig. 2. Zeta potential trend of muscovite with and without Custamine 8113 and
Norlig H (Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. 3. Zeta potential trend of feldspar with and without Custamine 8113 and Norlig
H (Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. 4. Zeta potential trend of quartz with and without Custamine 8113 and Norlig
H (Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

muscovite cannot be selectively separated from feldspar and

quartz. Examining the zeta potentials in the presence of Norlig-H
indicates that adsorption is occurring on the surface of feldspar,
however the changes in zeta potential for muscovite and quartz
are inconclusive. While Figs. 2 and 4 appear to indicate a statistically signicant deviation between the pure mineral and the mineral in the presence of Norlig-H, when the prediction intervals
shown in Figs. A4A6 are examined, it may be seen that zeta
potential data alone is insufcient to determine adsorption of this
reagent onto either muscovite or quartz surfaces.
Since feldspar and quartz both show afnity for Custamine
8113, it is important to examine the zeta potential when collector
and depressant are present. Fig. 5 illustrates that the zeta potential
trend for muscovite in the presence of both collector and depressant resembles that of muscovite in the presence of Custamine

Fig. 5. Zeta potential trend of muscovite with and without both Custamine 8113
and Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends
(Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. 6. Zeta potential trend of feldspar with and without both Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends (Error
intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. 7. Zeta potential trend of quartz with and without both Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends (Error
intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

8113 alone. This indicates that muscovite has a higher afnity for
the collector compared to the depressant, whereas Figs. 6 and 7
show that feldspar and quartz have a higher afnity for Norlig-H,
indicating that selective separation of muscovite from feldspar
and quartz is possible. It is also interesting to note that the order
of addition of the two reagents shows little change in the zeta
potential trends, indicating the strong selectivity of Norlig-H for
both feldspar and quartz.
3.2. Single mineral otation
Results from the otation of muscovite are shown in Figs. 8 and
9. They indicate that effective otation is possible using Custamine

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

Fig. 8. Single mineral otation results for muscovite with constant Norlig-H
concentrations and varying concentrations of Custamine 8113 and pH (Error bars
represent 95% condence intervals).

221

Fig. 10. Single mineral otation results for quartz with varying concentrations of
Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H at a constant pH 7.5 (Error bars represent 95%
condence intervals).

Fig. 9. Single mineral otation results for muscovite with varying concentrations of
Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H at the natural pH 7.5 (Error bars represent 95%
condence intervals).

Fig. 11. Pure mineral otation results of muscovite and quartz as a function of time
in the presence of 250 g/t Custamine 8113 and 1500 g/t Norlig-H at pH 7.5 (error
bars represent 95% condence intervals).

8113 as collector, even in the presence of high Norlig-H dosage.

Fig. 8 shows the effect of pH on the recovery of muscovite. At pH
7.5 and pH 4 a similar otation response was observed for all conditions, however at pH 10 a large decrease in recovery is seen. This
likely indicates that the solubility limit of the amine collector has
been reached and that the Custamine 8113 collector has a solubility limit comparable to other amine collectors, such as dodecylamine, which has a solubility limit near pH 10 [43]. Fig. 9 shows
a slight reduction in recovery with increasing Norlig-H concentrations; however this reduction is not statistically signicant.
Recovery increased with increasing collector concentration; however this increase becomes much less signicant after concentrations of 250 g/t Custamine 8113 are reached.
Single mineral otation results for quartz were in good agreement with the zeta potential measurements, indicating quartz
has a higher afnity for Norlig-H than Custamine 8113. Fig. 10
illustrates that Norlig-H effectively depresses quartz in the presence of Custamine 8113, demonstrating that effective separation
of muscovite from unwanted gangue minerals may be possible.
However, the results indicate that with increased Custamine
8113 additions more Norlig-H is required in order to depress
quartz. At 100 g/t concentrations of Custamine 8113, 1000 g/t of
Norlig-H is sufcient for depressing the majority of the quartz.
However, when 250 g/t of collector is added, 1500 g/t of depressant
is needed as quartz recoveries above 50% occur at 1000 g/t concentrations. This suggests that for a concentration of Custamine 8113
greater than 250 g/t, Norlig-H additions would need to be greater

than 1500 g/t to effectively depress silicate gangue minerals in this

system.
These initial otation results indicate that optimal otation
conditions may occur with reagent concentrations of 250 g/t
Custamine 8113 and 1500 g/t Norlig-H. These dosages were used
as otation conditions for later experiments in order to avoid very
high depressant concentrations. The otation recovery of both
muscovite and quartz as a function of time at these conditions is
shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that the majority of muscovite
and quartz collection occurs within the rst 60 s of otation (61%
muscovite, 12% quartz). After 300 s, muscovite and quartz recoveries were 78% and 14% respectively. The similar otation kinetics of
these minerals indicate that a selective separation based on different otation times would likely be ineffective.

3.3. Mica ore otation

The mass pull results for otation tests with varying concentrations of Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H is depicted in Fig. 12.
Examining the effect of the depressant, it was observed that under
the presence of Norlig-H the total mass recovery decreases, which
may imply that a greater amount of gangue is reporting to the concentrate when no depressant is used. Decreasing collector concentrations in the presence of Norlig-H also showed a decrease in mass
recovery. These results suggest that 1500 g/t of Norlig-H is not sufcient in depressing gangue minerals with collector concentrations

222

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

The liberation and association characteristics of muscovite were

examined. For the purposes of this analysis, particle liberation is
dened based on 2D particle area percent.
Muscovite is well liberated at this K80 (75 lm) at 90% calculated for the feed sample. The remainder of the mass of the muscovite occurs as ternary middling particles with quartz and
feldspars. Liberation is greater than 75% in all size fractions.
Particle maps of free muscovite and middling particles of muscovite with quartz/feldspars are shown in Figs. 13 and 14,
respectively.
The results from the QEMSCAN analysis of the untreated ore
and the combined concentrate from each otation condition used
during the mica ore otation experiments are shown in Fig. 15,
with grades and recoveries calculated from the QEMSCAN results
shown in Fig. 16. The numerical QEMSCAN results can be seen in
the Appendix (Table A1). Comparing the results from the feed sample and the otation concentrate produced without Norlig-H indicates that selective otation of muscovite from unwanted gangue
minerals using Custamine 8113 as collector is not possible without
the use of a depressant. The concentrate with the highest grade of
muscovite is obtained when Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H concentrations are 250 g/t and 1500 g/t respectively, further demonstrating that increasing collector concentrations to 500 g/t without
increasing the depressant dosage leads to a decrease in grade.
Examining mineral concentrations at the three size fractions
(+75 lm, 3875 lm and 38 lm), it can be seen that, in general,
muscovite grades are higher at larger particle sizes. For example,
when 250 g/t collector and 1500 g/t depressant were used the
+75 lm, 3875 lm and 38 lm size fractions had muscovite

Fig. 12. Mass recovery, from muscovite otation tests, after collecting froth for 30,
60 and 300 s (error bars represent 95% condence intervals).

above 250 g/t, similar to the results obtained from single mineral
otation tests.

3.4. QEMSCAN
The mineralogy of the feed sample is provided in Table 5. The
sample consists of quartz (62.2%), K-feldspar (19.6%), muscovite
(9.1%), plagioclase (5.6%), and trace/minor amounts of other minerals. The bulk composition of the feed sample was validated by XRD
analysis.
Table 5
Modal mineralogy of the feed sample.
Fraction
Mass size distribution (%)
Calculated ESD particle size

Combined

+75um

75/+38um

38um

20
Sample
62.2
5.58
19.6
0.37
9.08
0.58
1.68
0.80
0.05
0.08

49.0
37
Sample
33.7
2.09
6.70
0.08
5.47
0.35
0.36
0.27
0.01
0.01

Fraction
68.7
4.26
13.7
0.17
11.2
0.72
0.73
0.56
0.02
0.02

26.0
24
Sample
16.6
1.79
5.52
0.13
1.42
0.11
0.22
0.16
0.00
0.01

Fraction
64.0
6.90
21.2
0.52
5.48
0.42
0.83
0.62
0.01
0.05

25.0
11
Sample
11.9
1.70
7.40
0.16
2.18
0.12
1.11
0.37
0.03
0.06

Fraction
47.5
6.78
29.6
0.62
8.74
0.47
4.44
1.46
0.14
0.26

100.0

26.0

100.0

25.0

100.0

Mineral mass (%)

Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Oxides
Muscovite
Biotite
Epidote
Tourmaline
Other silicates
Other
Total

100.0

49.0

Mean grain size by frequency (lm)

Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Oxides
Muscovite
Biotite
Epidote
Tourmaline
Other Silicates
Other

21
21
18
12
14
14
9
11
7
6

40
38
36
13
24
21
24
22
10
9

25
26
23
17
12
12
9
11
6
7

Fig. 13. Particle maps of free muscovite in the +75 lm fraction.

11
12
11
9
7
8
7
8
6
5

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

223

Fig. 14. Particle maps of muscovite middlings associated with quartz/feldspars from the +75 lm fraction.

Fig. 15. QEMSCAN results for the combined concentrates of the muscovite otation tests for (a) combined particle size and (b) +75 lm, (c) 3875 lm and (d) 38 lm
fractions. Custamine concentrations used were 500 g/t (High) and 250 g/t (Low) with Norlig-H (Depressant) added at a concentration of 1500 g/t.

Fig. 16. (a) Total mass recovery, grade (solid line) and recovery (dashed line) of (b) muscovite, (c) quartz and (d) feldspar for three different size fractions. Custamine
concentrations used were 500 g/t (High) and 250 g/t (Low) with Norlig-H (Depressant) added at a concentration of 1500 g/t. Feed denotes the ore prior to otation.

224

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

compared to those of bench scale otation tests performed on the

mica ore. The conclusions are as follows:
1. Both Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H are able to adsorb onto the
surface of feldspar and quartz, however the results indicate a
higher afnity for Norlig-H. Reagent adsorption onto the surface
of muscovite is observed with Custamine 8113 but not
Norlig-H.
2. Selective separation of muscovite from quartz and feldspar by
froth otation is possible using Custamine 8113 and Norlig-H,
however reagent concentrations (particularly depressant
dosage) play a strong role in the effectiveness of the separation.
Increasing collector concentrations without increasing depressant dosages increases gangue recoveries. Optimal reagent
additions were found to be 250 g/t Custamine 8113 and
1500 g/t Norlig-H.
3. Although gangue minerals can be effectively depressed, the
recovery of ne (38 lm) gangue particles reduces the overall
product grade. The ne gangue recovery, along with large water
recoveries suggests entrainment and not true otation, as the
mechanism responsible for this reduction in grade. The addition
of wash water, a cleaner otation step or a de-sliming step prior
to otation to remove nes could further improve the muscovite grade of the nal product.

Fig. 17. Cumulative water recovery by volume (error bars represent 95% condence
intervals).

grades of 87%, 49% and 26%, respectively. This indicates that the
majority of the gangue recovery is occurring at ner particle sizes.
It is also interesting to note that the recovery of coarse (+75 lm)
quartz and feldspar is elevated at high collector dosage in the
absence of depressant. This suggests that without the addition of
a depressant a signicant amount of coarse gangue is recovered,
most likely via the otation of non-liberated particles containing
both mica and gangue mineral phases. Combining these data with
the high volumes of water being recovered in the concentrates
(Fig. 17), it is proposed that the ne gangue particles are entering
the concentrate via entrainment rather than by true otation.
Adding a de-sliming step to remove nes or adding a cleaner otation stage may further concentrate the muscovite. The addition of
traditional entrainment treatments such as wash water may also
help to reduce the recovery of ne gangue.
4. Conclusions
This work investigated the separation of muscovite from
unwanted gangue minerals in a mica ore. The investigation
included zeta-potential measurements and single mineral otation
tests of pure muscovite and gangue minerals, feldspar and quartz,
to understand reagent interactions at mineral particle surfaces and
evaluate otation responses in the presence of an amine collector,
Custamine 8113, and depressant, Norlig-H. These results were then

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) Discovery Grant: Mineral Processing Fundamentals. A.
Jordens acknowledges funding from the McGill Engineering
Doctoral Award as well as an NSERC Alexander Graham Bell
Canada Graduate Scholarship. The authors also gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Prof. J.A. Finch and Prof. G.A.
Whitmore regarding the display of zeta potential data.
Appendix A
The construction of condence and prediction intervals for electroacoustic zeta potential as a function of the pH level requires the
following two assumptions to hold:

Table A1
QEMSCAN results for the combined concentrates of the muscovite otation tests.
Flotation sample

Mineral

Size distribution (%)

Combined

+75um

75/+38um

38um

Feed

Muscovite
Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Other

9.08
62.17
5.58
19.61
3.57

11.16
68.70
4.26
13.67
2.21

5.48
63.97
6.90
21.22
2.44

8.74
47.51
6.78
29.58
7.39

High collector + depressant

Muscovite
Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Other

27.45
38.11
3.82
25.14
5.48

62.62
21.56
1.17
9.60
5.06

17.36
43.78
4.56
28.55
5.74

11.13
45.56
5.06
32.61
5.63

High collector, no depressant

Muscovite
Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Other

11.67
58.57
5.18
21.99
2.60

14.74
62.78
4.04
16.94
1.50

7.72
61.60
6.14
22.12
2.42

7.77
49.69
6.83
31.07
4.64

Low collector + depressant

Muscovite
Quartz
Plagioclase
K-Feldspar
Other

52.68
16.57
2.02
20.22
8.51

86.66
3.70
0.04
3.02
6.57

48.80
16.47
2.12
22.92
9.68

25.95
27.24
3.63
33.49
9.69

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

Fig. A1. Zeta potential data for muscovite as a function of pH along with tted third
order polynomial trendline. Condence interval [CI] (99% condence) and prediction interval [PI] (95% condence) are shown about the trendline.

225

Fig. A5. Zeta potential trend of feldspar with and without Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H (Error intervals shown are 99% prediction intervals).

Fig. A2. Zeta potential trend for muscovite at three different solids concentrations
(Error intervals shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. A6. Zeta potential trend of quartz with and without Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H (Error intervals shown are 99% prediction intervals).

Fig. A3. Zeta potential trend for feldspar before and after heating (Error intervals
shown are 99% condence intervals).

Fig. A7. Zeta potential trend of muscovite with and without both Custamine 8113
and Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends.
(Error intervals shown are 99% prediction intervals).

Fig. A4. Zeta potential trend of muscovite with and without Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H (Error intervals shown are 99% prediction intervals).

Fig. A8. Zeta potential trend of feldspar with and without both Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends. (Error
intervals shown are 95% prediction intervals).

226

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

Fig. A9. Zeta potential trend of quartz with and without both Custamine 8113 and
Norlig-H. The order of reagent addition is reected in the names of the trends. (Error
intervals shown are 95% prediction intervals).

1. The mean zeta potential as a function of pH is a third-order

polynomial.
2. The measurement errors in readings on the zeta potential function are mutually independent and identically distributed normal random variables.
The data set for each interval estimate consists of n pairs of
readings on zeta potential and pH. We denote the n-component
column vector of zeta readings by Y and consider an n  k matrix
X where k = 4. The ith row of matrix X has form (1, xi, xi2, xi3),
i = 1,. . ., n, where xi denotes the pH level for the ith reading of zeta
potential. Next, we consider a specic pH reading x0 and the row
vector x0 = (1, x0, x20, x30). Finally, we let 1  a denote the specied
condence level of the condence or prediction interval and
t = t1a/2,nk, the 1  a/2 quantile of a t-distribution with n  k
degrees of freedom. An apostrophe denotes a matrix or vector
transpose. The computational formulae for a condence interval
and prediction interval are, respectively:

^f0  tsm ;

^f0  tsp

Here ^f0 is the value of the tted zeta potential function at pH

level x0 and sm and sp are standard errors, computed as follows:
1

s2m s2 x0 X 0 X x00 ;

s2p s2 s2m

where s2 denotes the estimated error variance:

1

s2 Y 0 I  XX 0 X X 0 Y=n  k

Symbol I denotes the nth order identity matrix. The formulae

can be found in standard references; see, for example, Johnson
and Wichern (1992) [64]. The condence and prediction intervals
in (1) are readily computed using most statistical packages. The
statistical software Stata 13 was used for this work. The condence interval in (1) is an interval estimate of f0, the mean zeta
potential at pH level x0. In contrast, the prediction interval in (1)
attempts to bracket the individual zeta potential measurement
on a particular occasion when the pH level is xed at x0. It can
be seen from the expressions in (2) that the prediction interval will
be wider than the condence interval (at the same level of condence). A comparison of both prediction and condence intervals
for the zeta potential of muscovite may be seen in Fig. A1, along
with a plot of the raw data.
References
[1] S.F. Santos, S.C.A. Frana, T. Ogasawara, Method for grinding and delaminating
muscovite, Mining Sci. Technol. (China) 21 (2011) 710.
[2] J.L. Prez-Rodrguez, A. Wiewira, J. Drapala, L.A. Prez-Maqueda, The effect of
sonication on dioctahedral and trioctahedral micas, Ultrason. Sonochem. 13
(2006) 6167.

[3] L. Wang, W. Sun, Y.-H. Hu, L.-H. Xu, Adsorption mechanism of mixed
anionic/cationic collectors in Muscovite Quartz otation system, Miner.
Eng. 64 (2014) 4450.
[4] D.W. Fuerstenau, Pradip, Zeta potentials in the otation of oxide and silicate
minerals, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 114115 (2005) 926.
[5] B. Rai, P. Sathish, J. Tanwar, Pradip, K.S. Moon, D.W. Fuerstenau, A molecular
dynamics study of the interaction of oleate and dodecylammonium chloride
surfactants with complex aluminosilicate minerals, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 362
(2011) 510516.
[6] M.I. Pope, D.I. Sutton, The correlation between froth otation response and
collector adsorption from aqueous solution. Part I. Titanium dioxide and ferric
oxide conditioned in oleate solutions, Powder Technol. 7 (1973) 271279.
[7] A.I. Zouboulis, A. Avranas, Treatment of oil-in-water emulsions by coagulation
and dissolved-air otation, Colloids Surf., A 172 (2000) 153161.
[8] J. Riley, Charge in colloidal systems, in: Colloid Science, Blackwell Publishing
Ltd., 2009, pp. 1435.
[9] A.J. Babchin, R.S. Chow, R.P. Sawatzky, Electrokinetic measurements by
electroacoustical methods, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 30 (1989) 111151.
[10] P.R. Johnson, A comparison of streaming and microelectrophoresis methods
for obtaining the f potential of granular porous media surfaces, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 209 (1999) 264267.
[11] N.P. Miller, J.C. Berg, A comparison of electroacoustic and microelectrophoretic
zeta potential data for titania in the absence and presence of a poly (vinyl
alcohol) adlayer, Colloids Surf. 59 (1991) 119128.
[12] M. Kaszuba, J. Corbett, F.M. Watson, A. Jones, High-concentration zeta
potential measurements using light-scattering techniques, Philos. Trans. Roy.
Soc. A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 368 (2010) 44394451.
[13] R.J. Hunter, Recent developments in the electroacoustic characterisation of
colloidal suspensions and emulsions, Colloids Surf., A 141 (1998) 3766.
[14] B.J. Marlow, D. Fairhurst, H.P. Pendse, Colloid vibration potential and the
electrokinetic characterization of concentrated colloids, Langmuir 4 (1988)
611626.
[15] P.J. Bruinsma, P.A. Smith, B.C. Bunker, Dynamic mobility spectra of
multicomponent colloidal suspensions, J. Phys. Chem. B 101 (1997) 8410
8417.
[16] B. Klein, N.E. Altun, M. Colebrook, M. Pawlik, Electroacoustic measurements of
mixed quartz and iron oxide mineral systems, Int. J. Miner. Process. 110111
(2012) 1217.
[17] R. Greenwood, Review of the measurement of zeta potentials in concentrated
aqueous suspensions using electroacoustics, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 106
(2003) 5581.
[18] R. Greenwood, B. Lapckov, M. Surynek, K. Waters, L. Lapck Jr., The zeta
potential of kaolin suspensions measured by electrophoresis and
electroacoustics, Chem. Pap. 61 (2007) 8392.
[19] R.W. OBrien, The electroacoustic equations for a colloidal suspension, J. Fluid
Mech. 212 (1990) 8193.
[20] R.W. OBrien, The dynamic mobility of a porous particle, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
171 (1995) 495504.
[21] R.W. OBrien, B.R. Midmore, A. Lamb, R.J. Hunter, Electroacoustic studies of
moderately concentrated colloidal suspensions, Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc.
90 (1990) 301312.
[22] S. Nishimura, H. Tateyama, K. Tsunematsu, K. Jinnai, Zeta potential
measurement of muscovite mica basal plane-aqueous solution interface by
means of plane interface technique, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 152 (1992) 359
367.
[23] A. Nosrati, J. Addai-Mensah, W. Skinner, Muscovite clay mineral particle
interactions in aqueous media, Powder Technol. 219 (2012) 228238.
[24] L. Xu, H. Wu, F. Dong, L. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Xiao, Flotation and adsorption of
mixed cationic/anionic collectors on muscovite mica, Miner. Eng. 41 (2013)
4145.
[25] H. Zhao, S. Bhattacharjee, R. Chow, D. Wallace, J.H. Masliyah, Z. Xu, Probing
surface charge potentials of clay basal planes and edges by direct force
measurements, Langmuir 24 (2008) 1289912910.
[26] L. Yan, J.H. Masliyah, Z. Xu, Interaction of divalent cations with basal planes
and edge surfaces of phyllosilicate minerals: muscovite and talc, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 404 (2013) 183191.
[27] P.-I. Au, S.-Y. Siow, L. Avadiar, E.-M. Lee, Y.-K. Leong, Muscovite mica and
koalin slurries: YIELD stressvolume fraction and deocculation point zeta
potential comparison, Powder Technol. 262 (2014) 124130.
[28] M.V. Maslova, L.G. Gerasimova, W. Forsling, Surface properties of cleaved mica,
Colloid J. 66 (2004) 322328.
[29] P.J. Scales, F. Grieser, T.W. Healy, Electrokinetics of the muscovite micaaqueous solution interface, Langmuir 6 (1990) 582589.
[30] P.J. Scales, T.W. Healy, D.F. Evans, The zeta potential of muscovite mica:
counterion complexation by a macrocyclic ligand, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 124
(1988) 391395.
[31] A. Blom, G.G. Warr, Structure and composition of cationicnonionic surfactant
mixed adsorbed layers on mica, Langmuir 22 (2006) 67876795.
[32] L.O. Filippov, A. Duverger, I.V. Filippova, H. Kasaini, J. Thiry, Selective otation
of silicates and Ca-bearing minerals: the role of non-ionic reagent on cationic
otation, Miner. Eng. 3638 (2012) 314323.
[33] K. Hanumantha Rao, K.S.E. Forssberg, Mixed collector systems in otation, Int.
J. Miner. Process. 51 (1997) 6779.
[34] P.C. Herder, P.M. Claesson, C.E. Herder, Adsorption of cationic surfactants on
muscovite mica as quantied by means of ESCA, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 119
(1987) 155167.

C. Marion et al. / Separation and Purication Technology 149 (2015) 216227

_ Bayraktar, Amineoleate interactions in feldspar otation, Miner.
[35] E.C. Orhan, I.
Eng. 19 (2006) 4855.
[36] R.J. Pugh, M.W. Rutland, E. Manev, P.M. Claesson, Dodecylamine collector pH
effect on mica otation and correlation with thin aqueous foam lm and
surface force measurements, Int. J. Miner. Process. 46 (1996) 245262.
[37] M. Rutland, A. Waltermo, P. Claesson, PH-dependent interactions of mica
surfaces in aqueous dodecylammonium/dodecylamine solutions, Langmuir 8
(1992) 176183.
[38] Z. Sekulic, N. Canic, Z. Bartulovic, A. Dakovic, Application of different collectors
in the otation concentration of feldspar, mica and quartz sand, Miner. Eng. 17
(2004) 7780.
[39] Y. Xu, Y.-L. Liu, D.-D. He, G.-S. Liu, Adsorption of cationic collectors and water
on muscovite (0 0 1) surface. A molecular dynamics simulation study, Miner.
Eng. 53 (2013) 101107.
[40] P.M. McGuiggan, R.M. Pashley, A study of surfactant solution wetting on mica,
Colloids Surf. 27 (1987) 277287.
[41] R.M. Pashley, P.M. McGuiggan, B.W. Ninham, D.F. Evans, Attractive forces
between uncharged hydrophobic surfaces: direct measurements in aqueous
solution, Science 229 (1985) 10881089.
[42] R.-H. Yoon, S.A. Ravishankar, Long-range hydrophobic forces between mica
surfaces in alkaline dodecylammonium chloride solutions, J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 179 (1996) 403411.
[43] R.W. Smith, J.L. Scott, Mechanisms of dodecylamine otation of quartz, Miner.
Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 7 (1990) 8194.
[44] X.P. Zheng, H.K. Lin, Effect of mineralogical properties of synthetic mica on its
oatability, Miner. Metall. Process. 11 (1994) 2025.
[45] K. Hanumantha Rao, J.M. Cases, O. Barres, K.S.E. Forssberg, Flotation,
electrokinetic and FT-IR studies of mixed anionic/cationic collectors in
muscovite-biotite system, in: S.P. Mehrotra, R. Shekhar (Eds.), Mineral
Processing: Recent Advances and Future Trends, Allied Publ. Ltd, New Delhi,
1995, pp. 2944.
[46] K.S. Moon, D.W. Fuerstenau, Surface crystal chemistry in selective otation of
spodumene (LiAl[SiO3]2) from other aluminosilicates, Int. J. Miner. Process. 72
(2003) 1124.
[47] A. Vidyadhar, K. Hanumantha Rao, Adsorption mechanism of mixed cationic/
anionic collectors in feldspar-quartz otation system, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
306 (2007) 195204.
[48] J. Martinovic, D. Bradshaw, P. Harris, Investigation of surface properties of
gangue minerals in platinum bearing ores, in: International Platinum
Conference. Platinum Adding Value, The South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, 2004, pp. 151158.

227

[49] G.A. Parks, The isoelectric points of solid oxides, solid hydroxides, and aqueous
hydroxo complex systems, Chem. Rev. 65 (1965) 177198.
[50] A.C.P. Duarte, S.R. Grano, Mechanism for the recovery of silicate gangue
minerals in the otation of ultrane sphalerite, Miner. Eng. 20 (2007) 766
775.
[51] I. Larson, C.J. Drummond, D.Y.C. Chan, F. Grieser, Direct force measurements
between silica and alumina, Langmuir 13 (1997) 21092112.
[52] P. Somasundaran, Cationic depression of amine otation of quartz, Trans., Soc.
Min. Eng., AIME 256 (1974) 6468.
[53] H.C. Li, P.L. De Bruyn, Electrokinetic and adsorption studies on quartz, Surf. Sci.
5 (1966) 203220.
[54] A.C. Araujo, P.R.M. Viana, A.E.C. Peres, Reagents in iron ores otation, Miner.
Eng. 18 (2005) 219224.
[55] B. Kar, H. Sahoo, S.S. Rath, B. Das, Investigations on different starches as
depressants for iron ore otation, Miner. Eng. 49 (2013) 16.
[56] A.M. Vieira, A.E.C. Peres, The effect of amine type, pH, and size range in the
otation of quartz, Miner. Eng. 20 (2007) 10081013.
[57] A. Vidyadhar, K.H. Rao, K.S.E. Forssberg, Adsorption of N-tallow 1,3propanediaminedioleate collector on albite and quartz minerals, and
selective otation of albite from greek stefania feldspar ore, J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 248 (2002) 1929.
[58] C. Demir, A.A. Abramov, M.S. elik, Flotation separation of Na-feldspar from Kfeldspar by monovalent salts, Miner. Eng. 14 (2001) 733740.
[59] C. Demir, I. Bentli, I. Glgnl, M.S. elik, Effects of bivalent salts on the
otation separation of Na-feldspar from K-feldspar, Miner. Eng. 16 (2003)
551554.
[60] M. Gaied, W. Gallala, Beneciation of feldspar ore for application in the
ceramic industry: inuence of composition on the physical characteristics,
Arab. J. Chem. (2011).
[61] R. Houot, J.-P. Cuif, Y. Mottot, J.-C. Samama, Recovery of rare earth minerals,
with emphasis on otation process, in: Materials Science Forum, 1991, pp.
301324.
[62] J.S. Browning, R.B. Adair, Selective otation of mica from Georgia pegmatites,
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1966.
[63] P. Gottlieb, G. Wilkie, D. Sutherland, E. Ho-Tun, S. Suthers, K. Perera, B. Jenkins,
S. Spencer, A. Butcher, J. Rayner, Using quantitative electron microscopy for
process mineralogy applications, JOM 52 (2000) 2425.
[64] R.A. Johnson, D.W. Wichern, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Prentice
Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.