>*x 
 
 X<? : 
 
 
 
 
 ;• & "* 
 
 .> .. « *. ▼Jh 
 
 0* ,-»,£. *c 
 
 3*« %> <$> »J 
 
 > aV **^ • 
 
 
 ^•> x^x y,^-> ,/\-^.\, >*.*&•> **.•&&,: 
 
 r v * 
 
 
 
 **0« 
 
 
 
 *•"••* .*o 
 
 ^°^ . 
 
 
 ^0* 
 
 * ^.*^te\ /&% ^••^Bfe-X ^° v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #<&:•/*+ SsJite.%. y.:^:..^ .^ A%\ y,:i 
 
 
 a»9 
 
 
 
 fe - X/^tot-X y$fe-\ **••&•% c sjg^*\ / - - <ife;-% 
 
 
 
 
 ^. *-"XT 4 .f. 
 
iV«* 
 
 i** v k "- 
 
 
 
 
 • ••* .A 
 
 vv 
 
 • «*' 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "ot? 
 
 ,* v . 
 
 £* ^ 
 
 ^°- 
 
 
 
 » • • , >*"». .V ^- ' 
 
 
 * A 
 
 •X^ ,* .-. Sr&J x'tt's V^ , > 1 ' V*^V \-! 
 
 
 
 
 °o 
 
 
BUREAU OF MINES 
 INFORMATION CIRCULAR/1989 
 
 Study of Zeta Potential for Material 
 Particles in Chemical Additive 
 Solutions 
 
 By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 
Mission: As the Nation's principal conservation 
 agency, the Department of the Interior has respon- 
 sibility for most of our nationally-owned public 
 lands and natural and cultural resources. This 
 includes fostering wise use of our land and water 
 resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, pre- 
 serving the environmental and cultural values of 
 our national parks and historical places, and pro- 
 viding for the enjoyment of life through outdoor 
 recreation. The Department assesses our energy 
 and mineral resources and works to assure that 
 their development is in the best interests of all 
 our people. The Department also promotes the 
 goals of the Take Pride in America campaign by 
 encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibil- 
 ity for the public lands and promoting citizen par- 
 ticipation in their care. The Department also has 
 a major responsibility for American Indian reser- 
 vation communities and for people who live in 
 Island Territories under U.S. Administration. 
 
Information Circular 9229 
 
 Study of Zeta Potential for Material 
 Particles in Chemical Additive 
 Solutions 
 
 By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary 
 
 BUREAU OF MINES 
 T S Ary, Director 
 
<o 
 
 tx 
 
 ^ 
 
 /^ 0? 
 
 Or 
 
 tp 
 
 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 
 
 Watson, Pamela J. 
 
 Study of zeta potential for material particles in chemical additive solutions / by 
 Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski. 
 
 (Information circular / Bureau of Mines; 9229) 
 
 Bibliography: p. 11 
 
 Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27:9229. 
 
 1. Zeta potential. 2. Water-Electric properties. 3. Solution (Chemistry). I. 
 Tuzinski, Patrick A. II. Title. III. Series: Information circular (United States. 
 Bureau of Mines); 9229. 
 
 TN295.U4 [QD571] 622 s-dcl9 [541.3724] 89-600016 
 
O CONTENTS 
 
 -^L Page 
 
 -^ Abstract 1 
 
 *"*"• Introduction 2 
 
 Experimental laboratory procedure 2 
 
 Zeta potential test equipment 2 
 
 Zeta potential test procedure 4 
 
 *J*\ Zero surface charge concentration determination 4 
 
 > Results and discussion 7 
 
 Effect of water quality on PZC concentration 9 
 
 Effect of material composition on PZC concentration 9 
 
 Effect of inorganic salt cation valence on PZC concentration 9 
 
 Effect of anionic and nonionic additives on zeta potential 10 
 
 Effect of anionic plus nonionic combinations on zeta potential 10 
 
 Effect of excess cationic additive on zeta potential 10 
 
 Conclusions 11 
 
 References 11 
 
 Appendix 12 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 1. Stern layer schematic 3 
 
 2. Example of graphical analysis 5 
 
 3. Example of anionic additive results 6 
 
 4. Example of nonionic additive results 6 
 
 5. Example of A1C1 3 high concentration test 10 
 
 TABLES 
 
 1. Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDrW test series 4 
 
 2. PZC concentrations as determined from graphical analysis for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW .... 5 
 
 3. Values used in graph of Sioux Quartzite tests using anionic and nonionic additives 5 
 
 4. Materials tested 7 
 
 5. Additives tested 8 
 
 6. Baseline waters 8 
 
 A-l. Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type 12 
 
 A-2. Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive 15 
 
 A-3. Chemical analyses of waters used 17 
 
 A-4. Oxide content of raw materials 18 
 
 A-5. Chemical analyses of coal, diamond, and cobalt powder 19 
 
 A-6. Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type 19 
 
 A-7. Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive 22 
 
 A-8. PZC zeta potential results for A1C1 3 when using pH modification 24 
 
 A-9. Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, and anionic 
 
 additives with Mahogany granite 25 
 
 A-10. Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO 27 
 
 A-ll. Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic additives with nonionic PEO 32 
 
 A- 12. Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW at higher than normal 
 
 concentrations 34 
 
UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 
 
 °C 
 
 degree Celsius mol/L 
 
 mole per liter 
 
 g 
 
 gram ppm 
 
 part per million 
 
 /iS/cm 
 
 microsiemens per centimeter pet 
 
 percent 
 
 mL 
 
 milliliter V/cm 
 
 volt per centimeter 
 
 mV 
 
 millivolt 
 
 
STUDY OF ZETA POTENTIAL FOR MATERIAL PARTICLES 
 IN CHEMICAL ADDITIVE SOLUTIONS 
 
 1 * 
 
 By Pamela J. Watson and Patrick A. Tuzinski' 
 
 ABSTRACT 
 
 A novel technique has been employed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to determine the zeta potential 
 of particles for a far-reaching series of material types in a wide variety of baseline waters, both alone 
 and with many different chemical additives. The materials tested ranged from naturally occurring Sioux 
 Quartzite and Tennessee marble to commercially produced magnesium oxide bricks. The waters tested 
 ranged from ultrapure distilled, deionized water to municipal tap water and mine-site water. The 
 chemical solutions tested included inorganic additives, such as aluminum chloride (AlCl 3 ) and sodium 
 chloride (NaCl); organic additives, such as dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (DTAB); and nonionic 
 polymers, such as polyethylene oxide (PEO). The results of precise zeta potential determinations have 
 application in a large number of laboratory studies as well as in various mining and processing 
 operations. 
 
 fining engineer. 
 
 2 Research geochemist. 
 
 Twin Cities Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 There are many areas of research and manufacturing 
 that make use of either zero zeta potential or some other 
 zeta potential value to control desired product properties. 
 A knowledge of a system's unique zeta potential charac- 
 teristics is therefore required to successfully perform many 
 research or manufacturing tasks. Manufacturing and pro- 
 duction applications for zeta potential range from pro- 
 cessing techniques for such diverse items as paints and 
 detergents (i) 3 to selective mineral flotation by cation or 
 anion control (2-3). Optimum flocculation of turbidity- 
 producing particles by zeta potential control is a critical 
 aspect of municipal water treatment and purification sys- 
 tems (4). Some research areas related to zeta potential 
 include studies of hardness and dislocation mobilities of 
 rocks and other materials (5), understanding the nature of 
 rock weathering (6), characterizing differences between 
 minerals of similar chemical composition (6), studies of 
 rock penetration by diamond indenters (7), and the use of 
 chemical additives in drilling fluids (8-9). 
 
 With respect to chemical additives in drilling fluids, the 
 Bureau found that optimized drilling performance could be 
 obtained under zero zeta potential conditions (10). This 
 zeta potential controlled drilling requires precise knowl- 
 edge about the point of zero charge (PZC) concentration 
 for a given fluid additive in relation to the rock being 
 drilled. Because of the critical nature of this process, it 
 was necessary to develop a way to accurately predict the 
 PZC concentration for a given material-additive system. 
 These results have also demonstrated that testing the zeta 
 potential of ground particles does indeed represent the 
 whole material zeta potential (10). At the PZC concen- 
 tration demonstrated by the material particle tests, the 
 performance of the drilling tests was maximized, as 
 postulated by many researchers (5-10). 
 
 The Stern model of the electrical double layer of ions 
 can be employed to explain the electrical equilibrium state 
 set up around a solid in a liquid phase. In that model, the 
 solid has a rigidly fixed electrical charge and the innermost 
 layer of ions, called the Stern layer, is a practically immo- 
 bile layer of oppositely charged ions in the liquid phase 
 that are absorbed on the solid. Farther away from the 
 solid, next to the Stern layer, is the mobile diffuse layer 
 of ions, which is composed of mobile positively and nega- 
 tively charged ions in the liquid phase. This layer may 
 
 have a net charge of the same or opposite sign from that 
 of the Stern layer. 
 
 The electrical potential difference that develops 
 between the solid and the bulk solution (across the Stern 
 and diffuse layers) is called the Nernst potential. This 
 potential is the balance between the electrostatic attraction 
 of the solution counter ions to the solid surface and their 
 tendency to diffuse away from the surface. The potential 
 drop that occurs across the diffuse layer is called the zeta 
 potential and it is that potential that is readily varied 
 through changes in bulk solution concentrations (see figure 
 1). As the zeta potential drops to zero, the diffuse layer 
 thickness approaches zero and the Nernst potential drop 
 occurs totally within the Stern layer. Under these con- 
 ditions, a PZC or zero surface charge (ZSC) exists on the 
 solid surface. 
 
 The zeta potential of materials in water of nearly 
 neutral pH can be negative (usually the case) or positive 
 (chrysotile and magnesium oxide). By adding cations or 
 anions to the water, the magnitude of the charge on the 
 material surface can be reduced until the zeta potential 
 reaches zero. Continued addition of cations or anions will 
 result in a zeta potential of increasing magnitude and 
 opposite sign. 
 
 The procedure developed by the Bureau and described 
 herein is a unique and novel approach for zeta potential 
 determinations. Most of the older methods used for deter- 
 mining the zeta potential of any given material particle in 
 a given solution rely on single tests of a unique fluid com- 
 position. If the PZC concentration is to be known, several 
 separate and discrete tests must be performed and the 
 PZC concentration determined by interpolation, or worse 
 by extrapolation. If there are any contaminants or foreign 
 particles present during any single test, repeatable results 
 may not be obtained in subsequent tests if the same con- 
 taminant is not present or if other contaminants or foreign 
 particles are present. In the technique described in this 
 report, the zeta potentials can be determined for a com- 
 plete range of additive concentrations with the same con- 
 taminant levels being present at all the additive con- 
 centrations. By adding small known increments of additive 
 to the closed system, the PZC concentration can be pre- 
 cisely determined in a simple calculation and subsequent 
 graphing procedure. 
 
 EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORY PROCEDURE 
 
 ZETA POTENTIAL TEST EQUIPMENT 
 
 The procedure for determining the zeta potential was 
 the same regardless of the chemical additive or the water 
 
 3 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references 
 preceding the appendix at the end of this report. 
 
 (distilled, deionized [DDIW]; tap; or mine) used for a 
 baseline fluid. The same commercially available elec- 
 trophoretic mobility-type apparatus was used for all the 
 tests. 
 
 The electrophoretic apparatus operates on the basis that 
 the surface charge of a material particle is proportional to 
 the speed of the particle in a fluid in an electric field. The 
 zeta potential for each fluid concentration increment was 
 
+ + - 
 
 + + - + - + + + - + 
 
 T~T~~ ::r ^\ + + 
 
 + - + ^s- + + 
 
 + + - + - \ + + - 
 
 y- + + + - -+ \r + 
 
 - + +/- + + + - + - A + 
 
 Bulk of 
 solution 
 
 Electrial potential 
 surrounding the 
 particle 
 
 Shear plane 
 
 Figure 1. -Stern layer schematic. 
 
determined by following the movement of an individual 
 material particle across a monitor screen in an electric 
 field of 10 V/cm, matching the speed of a grid line on the 
 screen to the particle speed, and noting the zeta potential 
 as displayed on the digital readout. When using calcium 
 chloride (CaCl 2 ), magnesium sulfate (MgS0 4 ), or sodium 
 chloride (NaCl), the required high ionic strength led to 
 electrolysis at 10 V/cm, therefore, 5 V/cm was used, with 
 no loss of accuracy. 
 
 Zeta potential values are temperature sensitive, which 
 the zeta reader instrument accounts for in calculating the 
 resulting, displayed zeta potential. All of the tests were 
 conducted at room temperature, and the zeta reader was 
 consistently between 25° and 40° C. The temperature 
 values were noted for each test to assure that the test was 
 conducted within that temperature range. 
 
 A plastic beaker was used as the fluid-material particle 
 reservoir for all of the tests in order to prevent erroneous 
 values resulting from possible adherence of ions to a glass 
 beaker. The baseline fluid-particle mixture was kept in 
 suspension with a magnetic stirrer. However, when a 
 magnetic (or suspected magnetic material) was tested, a 
 stirring propeller ("milkshake" stirrer) was employed to 
 prevent biasing the zeta potential results to nonmagnetic 
 particles resulting from removal of magnetic particles by 
 attraction to the magnetic stir bar. In fact, a few materials 
 that were not originally thought to be magnetic proved to 
 be; and those tests were repeated using the milkshake 
 stirrer. 
 
 ZETA POTENTIAL TEST PROCEDURE 
 
 In preparation for each test, the zeta reader was 
 cleaned by flushing ultrapure distilled, deionized water 
 (DDIW) through the system until no particles were ob- 
 served on the monitor screen and the specific conductance 
 read <10 yLzS/cm. After thoroughly cleaning the plastic 
 beaker, 1,000 mL of fresh baseline water was put in it and 
 the appropriate stirring system employed. The apparatus 
 intake and outflow tubes were placed in the water and the 
 stirrer was started. Next, approximately 0.2 g of minus 
 100-mesh crushed material particles was added to the 
 baseline water. In the few cases (most notably Wausau 
 quartzite) when the particles were very difficult to detect 
 on the screen because of low optical density (semitrans- 
 parent), 0.5 g of particles was added to make the tracking 
 of particle movement easier. 
 
 Thirty zeta potential determinations were made for 
 material particles in the baseline water system. After this 
 test was completed, a precise amount (0.01 to 1.0 mL) of 
 the test additive was added to the system from a concen- 
 trated stock solution, and again 30 zeta potential readings 
 were made. Incremental additions of concentrated stock 
 solution and zeta potential determinations (30) were con- 
 tinued until the zeta potential value was positive for several 
 concentrations or until a relatively high concentration of 
 
 additive was added without attaining a positive zeta poten- 
 tial reading, i.e., the zeta potential remained at or very 
 near to zero or the zeta potential remained constant. 
 
 For magnesium oxide (MgO) brick, the zeta potential 
 of particles in DDIW is positive below a pH of 12.4. For 
 those tests, the procedure was identical to that described, 
 except that the MgO zeta potential in DDIW was initially 
 positive and changed to negative with incremental addi- 
 tions of an anionic additive. In tap water, however, the 
 normally positive charge of MgO was more than neutral- 
 ized by adsorbed anions from the tap water; the resulting 
 initial zeta potential being negative as with most materials. 
 
 Three separate tests were performed for each cationic 
 additive. Because there was no PZC concentration to be 
 determined, only one test was performed for the anionic 
 and nonionic additives to indicate performance trends. 
 
 ZERO SURFACE CHARGE 
 CONCENTRATION DETERMINATION 
 
 PZC concentrations were determined using the fol- 
 lowing procedure. The 30 zeta potential determinations 
 made in the baseline water and each additive concentration 
 were respectively averaged. These average zeta potential 
 values were then plotted as a function of additive con- 
 centration. Table 1 lists the average zeta potential values 
 for the series of tests for Sioux Quartzite with aluminum 
 chloride (A1C1 3 ) in DDIW. These values (in millivolts) 
 were plotted versus A1C1 3 concentration (in moles per 
 liter). The best curve was drawn through the points of 
 each test using a curve-fitting program, and the con- 
 centration where the curve crossed the zero zeta potential 
 line was taken as the PZC concentration. Figure 2 illus- 
 trates these curves for the Sioux Quartzite-AlCl 3 -DDrW 
 system. 
 
 Table 1. -Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite 
 with AICI 3 in DDIW test series, millivolts 
 
 Additive cone, 10' 7 mol/L Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 
 
 DDIW -26.00 -25.50 -25.40 
 
 1 -24.40 -20.60 -18.00 
 
 3 -14.70 -12.50 -11.60 
 
 6 -5.90 -3.90 -2.30 
 
 10 11.00 10.30 18.50 
 
 30 28.30 28.50 31.90 
 
 60 35.70 35.70 45.40 
 
 90 41.10 43.50 47.80 
 
 DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
 
 For cationic additives, PZC concentration values were 
 determined for each of the three replicate tests and then 
 averaged to get a single PZC concentration for each 
 material-additive system. Table 2 lists the average zeta 
 potential values and the average PZC concentration for the 
 Sioux Quartzite-AlCl 3 -DDIW system. This procedure was 
 followed for all of the cationic additive tests. 
 
1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 -26.0 
 -25.5 
 -25.4 
 
 7.4 
 7.2 
 6.5 
 
 Av 
 
 -25.6 
 
 7.0 
 
 Table 2.-P2C concentrations as determined from graphical 
 analysis for Sioux Quartzite with AICI 3 in DDIW 
 
 Test Zeta potential of PZC cone, 
 
 particles in DDI W, mV ^Q 7 mol/L 
 
 -26.0 
 -25.5 
 -25.4 
 
 -25.6 
 
 DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
 PZC Point of zero charge. 
 
 For anionic and nonionic additive tests, the graphing 
 procedure was similar. The average zeta potential values 
 for the single test were plotted versus additive concen- 
 tration. Figure 3 is a representative graph for the results 
 of Sioux Quartzite in the anionic surfactant, Nalco 8830, 
 while figure 4 illustrates the results for Sioux Quartzite 
 using the nonionic polymer, polyethylene oxide (PEO), 
 with the values used in plotting the curves in these two 
 figures listed in table 3. 
 
 Table 3.-Values used in graph of Sioux 
 Quartzite tests using anionic and nonionic additives 
 
 Additive cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Anionic, Nalco 8830: 
 
 DDIW -29.14 
 
 1 -34.04 
 
 5 -42.98 
 
 10 -57.21 
 
 100 -59.51 
 
 190 -75.37 
 
 Nonionic, PEO: 
 
 Tap water -33.01 
 
 1 -11.25 
 
 3 -1.18 
 
 7.48 .00 
 
 12.4 .00 
 
 122 .00 
 
 DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 LU 
 
 r- 
 
 o 
 
 0- 
 
 LU 
 N 
 
 60 
 
 40- 
 
 20- 
 
 -20 
 
 -40 
 
 
 1 III 
 KEY 
 
 l i l i I I l 
 
 I I I I I I 
 
 
 □ Test 1 
 A Test 2 
 o Test 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vy^^S^ 
 
 
 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 
 
 10 
 ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, 10" 7 mol/L 
 
 Figure 2.-Example of graphical analysis. 
 
 100 
 
-30 
 
 -40- 
 
 > 
 E 
 
 -J -50 - 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 Z 
 LU 
 
 h- 
 
 o 
 
 Q- -60 
 < 
 
 I- 
 u 
 
 N 
 
 -70h 
 
 -80 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 | 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 1 1 Mil 
 
 - 
 
 ^V^D 
 
 D '*— «*» 
 
 
 - 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 "*~~*^^ D 
 
 ~" 
 
 1 
 
 i i I I I 
 
 III I i 
 
 I I I 1 i I 1 i I 
 
 i I i I I I 
 
 10 100 
 
 ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, ppm 
 Figure 3.-Example of anionic additive results. 
 
 1,000 
 
 10 100 
 
 ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, ppm 
 Figure 4. -Example of nonionic additive results. 
 
 1,000 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
 The wide variety of materials, the diverse series of 
 chemical additives, and the baseline waters used in these 
 tests are listed in tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Test 
 results and additional information is contained in the ap- 
 pendix. Table A-l compiles the zeta potential tests per- 
 formed for each additive categorized by material type, 
 while table A-2 lists the same data for each material 
 tested, categorized by chemical additive. Table A-3 is a 
 compilation of the chemical analyses for the waters tested; 
 table A-4 lists the oxide content of the materials tested; 
 and table A-5 describes the special materials of coal, dia- 
 mond, and cobalt. These tables are presented to explain 
 the differences between the subsequent zeta potential 
 results for the materials. The zeta potential and PZC 
 values for cationic and anionic additives are listed by mat- 
 erial type in table A-6 and by additive in table A-7. Table 
 A-8 lists the pH modified zeta potential tests, table A-9 
 
 lists the cationic nonionic, and anionic results for Sioux 
 Quartzite and the anionic results for Mahogany granite, 
 table A- 10 lists nonionic PEO results, table A-ll lists the 
 results when using combinations of anionic additives with 
 PEO, and table A- 12 lists the results when using an excess 
 of additive. 
 
 In comparing the results of these tests, several impor- 
 tant and interesting correlations can be made from several 
 critical factors in the zeta potential and PZC concentration 
 determinations. These factors are water quality, material 
 composition, inorganic additive cation valence, organic 
 additive carbon-chain length, the effect of anionic and 
 nonionic additives, the effect of anionic plus nonionic 
 additive combinations, and the effect of excess cations on 
 the zeta potential. These results given in the tables are 
 discussed in the following sections. 
 
 Table 4.-Materials tested 
 
 Material 
 
 Source 
 
 Australian muscovite 
 
 Barre Granite 
 
 Biotite 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Coal 
 
 Cobalt 
 
 Cobalt powder 
 
 Diamond 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Feldspar series (albite, andesine, anorthite, bytownite, 
 
 microcline, and oligoclase). 
 INCO section 275: 
 
 Quartzite 
 
 Pegmatite 
 
 INCO 2800 level quartzite 
 
 INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 
 
 LCA pegmatite: Samples A and B 
 
 Magnesium oxide brick °. 
 
 Mahogany granite: 
 
 Grindings 
 
 Saw cuttings 
 
 Minnesota taconite (whole, magnetic, and nonmagnetic 
 
 fractions: Samples A, B, and C. 
 
 Minntac taconite: Samples A and B 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Salida granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Sudbury granite 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Tungsten carbide: Powder and powder with 6 pet Co 
 
 granules. 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 Barre, VT. 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 St. Cloud, MN (known as St. Cloud Gray Granodiorite). 
 
 Jim Walters Resources Coal Mine, Alabama. 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 Hard Materials Research Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 Dresser Mine, Dresser, Wl. 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 Thompson Mine, Thompson, Manitoba, Canada. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Lithium Corporation of America (LCA) mine, Bessemer City, NO 
 Sample from previous MgO research project. 
 
 Dakota Granite Quarry, Milbank, SD. 
 
 Do. 
 Erie Mining Co., Hoyt Lakes, MN. 
 
 Minntac Mine, Eveleth, MN. 
 
 St. Cloud, MN. 
 
 Denver, CO. 
 
 Jasper Stone Quarry, Jasper, MN. 
 
 Purchased mineral sample. 
 
 Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 Holston Limestone formation, east Tennessee. 
 
 Hard Materials Research Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 Bradford, Rl. 
 
Table 5.-Additives tested 
 
 Additive 
 
 Cone range 
 
 Cationic: 
 
 Aluminum chloride mol/L 
 
 Aluminum nitrate mol/L 
 
 Calcium chloride mol/L 
 
 Magnesium sulfate mol/L 
 
 Potassium aluminum sulfate mol/L 
 
 Potassium chloride mol/L 
 
 Sodium chloride mol/L 
 
 Titanium iodide mol/L 
 
 Zirconium chloride mol/L 
 
 Zirconium nitrate mol/L 
 
 DTAB mol/L 
 
 HTAB mol/L 
 
 TTAB mol/L 
 
 Armac series (Akzo Chemie America) mol/L 
 
 Nalco series (Nalco Corp.) mol/L 
 
 Percol series (Allied Colloids, Inc.) mol/L 
 
 Polyacrylamide (American Cyanamid) ppm 
 
 Nonionic, ppm: 
 
 Tergitol NPX (Union Carbide) 
 
 Surfynol 465 (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.) 
 
 PEO (Union Carbide) 
 
 HEC (Union Carbide) 
 
 Revert (UOP Johnson, Inc.) 
 
 Anionic, ppm: 
 
 Biocut 2 
 
 Polymer 
 
 Solulube (Texaco) 
 
 Vibrastop 
 
 ZEP Lubeeze (ZEP Manufacturing Co.) 
 
 Dromus B 2 
 
 DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 
 
 PEO Polyethylene oxide. 
 
 TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 'Nalco 8830 was anionic. 
 
 2 Supplied by Longyear Canada. 
 
 1 X 10-1 
 1 X 10" 7 -1 
 1 X 10" 3 
 
 X 10"- 
 X10" 
 X10" 
 
 -1 
 1 X 10'f-1 X 10 
 -1 
 
 -1 
 -1 
 -1 
 
 -1 
 
 1 X 10" 
 1 X 10" 
 1 X 10" : 
 1 X10" 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 1 X 10" 7 -1 X 
 
 1 X10" 
 
 1 X10" 
 1 X 10" 
 1 X 10^-1 
 1 X 10' 7 -1 
 1 X 10" 7 -1 
 0.01- 
 
 0.1- 
 0.1- 
 
 xi<r 
 
 X10" 1 
 10° 
 10" 4 
 10" 4 
 10 4 
 X 10" 2 
 X10" 3 
 
 X10 u 
 X 10"' 
 X10" 
 X 10" 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 100 
 125 
 100 
 
 - 100 
 
 - 100 
 100 
 
 - 100 
 100 
 
 ■20,000 
 
 - 5,000 
 
 Table 6.-Baseline waters 
 
 Water 
 
 Source 
 
 DDIW . . . 
 Tap water 
 
 Mine water 
 
 Quarry water 
 
 Distilled, deionized water from still in laboratory. 
 
 Minneapolis, MN-3 sources, fresh, and hot and cold left to stand overnight. 
 
 Denver, CO. 
 
 Dresser, Wl. 
 
 Farmington, MN. 
 
 Roanoke, VA. 
 
 INCO Thompson Mine (Thompson, Manitoba, Canada). 
 
 LCA (Lithium Corporation of America, Bessemer, NC). 
 
 Erie Mining Co. (Hibbing, MN)-2 sources, well and pond, well water obtained 
 
 in November 1986 and May 1987. 
 Minntac Mine (Eveleth, MN). 
 Dresser Mine (Dresser, Wl). 
 Dakota Granite Company (Milbank, SD). 
 
EFFECT OF WATER QUALITY 
 ON PZC CONCENTRATION 
 
 With respect to water quality, the purer the water, the 
 lesser amount of additive needed to neutralize the material 
 surface charge and achieve the PZC condition. For exam- 
 ple, in comparing DDIW and Minneapolis tap water re- 
 sults for Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 , the PZC concen- 
 tration for DDrW was 7.0 x 10" 7 mol/L, while with tap 
 water it was 4.5 x 10' 5 mol/L. The naturally occurring 
 anions in the relatively hard and chemically treated 
 Minneapolis tap water adsorb onto the material surface 
 and drastically change the amount of Al +3 required to 
 reach the PZC condition (tables A-6 and A-7). Because 
 of the critical nature of water quality as demonstrated by 
 these results, chemical analyses were conducted for all the 
 waters tested. These analyses are listed in table A-3. The 
 quality of the water will be a major determining factor in 
 the zeta potential and ultimate PZC concentration. This 
 phenomenon was observed in all the material-additive 
 combinations tested in varying baseline waters (tables A- 
 6 and A-7). 
 
 For Al + ions, water pH is also important because of 
 the propensity of Al 3+ ions to precipitate and flocculate as 
 Al(OH) 3 above a certain pH. Several tests were conducted 
 that used acid (HC1) to lower the pH of the water to a 
 level where the Al 3+ ion was stable in solution. The pres- 
 ence of the acid markedly affected the PZC concentration 
 for all the materials tested in A1C1 3 , as was evident when 
 comparing the PZC concentration values for Sioux 
 Quartzite in tap water. Without pH modification, when 
 the water was at pH of 7.0 to 8.0 the PZC concentration 
 was 4.5 x 10" 5 mol/L. However, with addition of HC1 to 
 keep the pH below 4.0, the PZC concentration rose to 
 1.17 x 10 4 mol/L. Table A-8 lists the results for this 
 series of tests using tap or mine water and A1C1 3 with pH 
 modification to below 4.0. 
 
 EFFECT OF MATERIAL COMPOSITION 
 ON PZC CONCENTRATION 
 
 It has been suggested in discussions with other re- 
 searchers that the zeta potential for any material type 
 would be very consistent; i.e., any granite would react the 
 same to any specific additive. However, this research has 
 shown that the zeta potential and PZC concentration val- 
 ues are critically related to specific material composition, 
 in addition to water quality. 
 
 In tests of several different granites, the zeta potential 
 and PZC concentrations in the same water with the same 
 additive were quite different. The zeta potential for 
 Charcoal granite in DDIW was -25.20 mV, while that for 
 Westerly Granite was -18.20 mV. The resulting PZC 
 concentrations were 1.40 x 10" 6 and 7.26 x 10' 7 mol/L, 
 respectively. Even the slight difference in chemical 
 
 composition between these two granites of similar miner- 
 alogy made a considerable difference in the zeta potential 
 and PZC concentration. 
 
 This phenomenon was observed for all material types 
 tested (tables A-6 and A-7) since they are composed of 
 differing minerals and materials making up the whole 
 material. Because of this factor, chemical analyses were 
 obtained for most material particles tested to determine 
 which minerals and oxides are present in each material 
 (tables A-4 and A-5). 
 
 A separate series of tests was conducted on an artificial 
 material substance, MgO bricks. Magnesium oxide is 
 known to have a positive zeta potential in pure water 
 below a pH of 12.4. These tests were conducted to see if 
 zeta potential modifiers could also be used to approach 
 and obtain the PZC condition if the initial zeta potential 
 of the material was positive. Using an anionic surfactant 
 (Nalco 8830) in DDIW, a PZC condition was realized at 
 2.15 x 10^ pet. When testing MgO brick in tap water, 
 however, anions from the impure water adsorbed on the 
 particles to give them negative surface charge just like the 
 other materials with initial negative surface charge. Re- 
 sults of these MgO brick tests are summarized in tables 
 A-6, A-7, and A- 10. 
 
 EFFECT OF INORGANIC SALT CATION VALENCE 
 ON PZC CONCENTRATION 
 
 It is evident from a comparison of results for cations 
 of different valances (tables A-6 and A-7) that, in general, 
 the higher the cation valence, the more effective the cation 
 will be in producing the PZC condition. The exception is 
 Zr 4+ ions which are not stable in aqueous solution and 
 most likely react with an OH" ion to form the Zr(OH) 3+ 
 ion in solution. Using Sioux Quartzite as an example, 
 A1C1 3 caused a PZC to occur at 7.0 x 10" 7 mol/L for 
 DDIW. However, using CaCl 2 in DDIW required much 
 more additive, reaching the PZC at 1.6 x 10 " 2 mol/L, while 
 NaCl required 2.17 x 10" 1 mol/L. This phenomenon held 
 true for all material-additive suites tested, as well as for all 
 waters tested. 
 
 Because of an interest in other additives, and since most 
 of the zeta potential tests concentrated on inorganic salts, 
 a series of organic surfactants was also tested. Three long- 
 carbon-chain surfactants were used: dodecyltrimethyl 
 ammonium bromide (DTAB), tetradecyltrimethyl ammo- 
 nium bromide (TTAB), and hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium 
 bromide (HTAB). The resulting PZC concentrations for 
 Sioux Quartzite in DDIW were 9.35 x 10" 4 mol/L for the 
 12-carbon DTAB, 7.23 x 10' 5 mol/L for the 14-carbon 
 TTAB, and 1.56 x 10" 6 mol/L for the 16-carbon HTAB. 
 In this case, the longer-chain additives behaved like the 
 higher valence additives. This again held true for all the 
 materials tested with these three additives (tables A-6 and 
 A-7). 
 
10 
 
 EFFECT OF ANIONIC AND NONIONIC 
 ADDITIVES ON ZETA POTENTIAL 
 
 Another group of tests was conducted to determine the 
 effect of anionic and nonionic additives on the material 
 particles. As expected, the anionic additives produced a 
 more negative zeta potential without attaining a PZC 
 condition, while all but one of the nonionic additives 
 produced no effect on the zeta potential at all. Table A- 
 9 lists the results for several anionic and nonionic additives 
 in which the zeta potential never reached a zero value, 
 with figure 2 illustrating the results. 
 
 The exception to those results was quite interesting and 
 unique. Polyethylene oxide, being nominally nonionic and 
 not expected to affect the zeta potential in any way, did 
 achieve a ZSC concentration. In fact, the most interesting 
 phenomenon is that the ZSC conditions remained constant 
 after a certain concentration was reached, with the zeta 
 potential not changing sign. Table A- 10 lists these results 
 for a large suite of materials in various waters. These 
 results are illustrated in figure 3 for Sioux Quartzite in tap 
 water and are representative for all materials tested. 
 
 EFFECT OF ANIONIC PLUS NONIONIC 
 COMBINATIONS ON ZETA POTENTIAL 
 
 Because of the success the nonionic PEO demonstrated 
 in neutralizing surface charge, combinations of anionic 
 
 additives with PEO were tested. ZEP Lubeeze is a cutting 
 oil currently used in cutting or sawing of granite slabs, 
 while Dromus B is used as a lubricating oil in drilling 
 operations. Because both of these anionic agents are 
 currently used in cutting-drilling operations, it was of in- 
 terest to see what effect, if any, the PEO would have when 
 added to solutions at concentrations used in the field. 
 While requiring a bit more than when used alone, the 
 PEO nevertheless still neutralized surface charge. The 
 results for the two combinations tested, varying anionic 
 additive concentration as a baseline and adding PEO until 
 neutralization occurred, are summarized in table A-ll. 
 
 EFFECT OF EXCESS CATIONIC ADDITIVE 
 ON ZETA POTENTIAL 
 
 The last test was conducted to see what effect, if any, 
 very high concentrations (much stronger concentrations 
 than required for the PZC condition) of cationic additive 
 would have on the zeta potential and the PZC. Table A- 
 12 lists the values for that test conducted to determine 
 what those excess ions would do to the zeta potential for 
 Sioux Quartzite with A1C1 3 in DDIW; figure 5 illustrates 
 the effect of those high zeta potential values. The excess 
 ions only increased the zeta potential to a level that almost 
 exceeded the limitations of the zeta reader, but did not 
 create a measurable second PZC condition as had been 
 predicted by surface science theory. 
 
 > 
 E 
 
 UJ 
 
 i- 
 O 
 
 CL 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 LU 
 N 
 
 100 
 
 80 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 -20 
 
 
 1 1 1 1 I 1 
 
 i ' I 
 
 i i i i i i i i I 
 
 I I II!!! II \_ 
 
 I i i i i i i_e 
 
 
 KEY 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 D Test 1 
 A Test 2 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 O Test 3 
 
 
 % / 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 V A 
 
 ' a 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 7 I i i I i I I i I I I I i i i m I i i I l I I M 1 I 1 1 l l 1 1 I 
 
 10 100 1,000 
 
 ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, 10* mol/L 
 
 10.000 
 
 Figure 5.-Example of AICI 3 high concentration test. 
 
11 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 This novel technique for the determination of the zeta 
 potentials and the resulting PZC and/or ZSC concen- 
 trations for materials in baseline water and additive so- 
 lutions under many varied conditions should prove to be 
 useful in other operations as well as in drilling, cutting, and 
 grinding. Any needed zeta potential and/or PZC concen- 
 tration values for a given system should be obtainable with 
 the use of this closed-system technique and should prove 
 to be very accurate, reliable, and repeatable. Any electro- 
 phoretic mobility-type zeta potential equipment can be 
 adapted to this technique. The zeta potential and PZC 
 concentration values in this report, and the noted varia- 
 tions in the values because of changes in additive and/or 
 baseline waters, should further the understanding of how 
 to control zeta potentials in many processes. 
 
 Several conclusions can be drawn from the zeta poten- 
 tial results by comparing the diversity of effect on the zeta 
 potential caused by water quality, material type, cationic 
 additives, anionic additives, and/or nonionic additives. The 
 critical effect of each of these parameters must be con- 
 sidered when determining zeta potentials and predicting 
 PZC concentrations for any chemical additive-material 
 system. Generalizations and close approximations can be 
 made regarding the response of any particular material 
 and/or additive in a zeta potential experiment. However, 
 when precise or accurate zeta potentials and/or PZC 
 concentrations are required, special care must be 
 exercised. The use of the closed-system and graphing 
 technique should yield those precise values required by the 
 experimenter. 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 1. Akers, R J. Zeta Potential and the Use of the Electrophoretic 
 Mass Transport Analyzer. Am. Lab. (Fairfield, CT), v. 4, June 1972, 
 pp. 41-53. 
 
 2. Gaudin, A. M., and D. W. Fuerstenau. Quartz Flotation With 
 Anionic Collectors. Min. Eng. (Littleton, CO), v. 202, Jan. 1955, 
 pp. 66-72. 
 
 3. . Quartz Flotation With Cationic Collectors. Min. Eng. 
 
 (Littleton, CO), v. 202, Oct. 1955, pp. 958-962. 
 
 4. Luce, R. W., and G. A. Porks. Point of Zero Charge of 
 Weathered Forsterite. Chem. Geol., v. 12, 1973, pp. 147-153. 
 
 5. Macmillan, N. H., R. D. Huntington, and A. R. C. Westwood. 
 Relationship Between Zeta Potential and Dislocation Mobility. Martin 
 Marietta Corp. (Baltimore, MD), MML Tech. Rep. 73-1 lc, July 1973, 
 26 pp. 
 
 6. Martinez, E., and G. L. Zucker. Asbestos Ore Body Minerals 
 Studied by Zeta Potential Measurements. J. Phys. Chem., v. 64, 
 July 1960, pp. 924-926. 
 
 7. Engelmann, W. H., O. Terichow, and A. A. Selim. Zeta Potential 
 and Pendulum Sclerometer Studies of Granite in a Solution 
 Environment. BuMines RI 7048, 1967, 16 pp. 
 
 8. Engelmann, W. H. Chemical Fragmentation. Sec. in SME 
 Mining Engineering Handbook, ed. by A. B. Cummins and I. A. Given. 
 Soc. Min. Eng. AIME (Littleton, CO), 1973, pp. 11-112-11-123. 
 
 9. Watson, P. J., and W. H. Engelmann. Chemically Enhanced 
 Drilling. An Annotated Tabulation of Published Results. BuMines 
 IC 9039, 1985, 53 pp. 
 
 10. Engelmann, W. H., P. J. Watson, P. A. Tuzinski, and J. E. 
 Pahlman. Zeta Potential Control for Simultaneous Enhancement of 
 Penetration Rates and Bit Life in Rock Drilling. BuMines RI 9103, 
 1987, 18 pp. 
 
12 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type 
 
 Material 
 
 Additive 
 
 Australian muscovite 
 
 Barre Granite 
 
 Biotite 
 
 Charcoal granite . . . 
 
 Coal (Jim Walters Resources) 
 
 Cobalt 
 
 Cobalt powder 
 
 Diamond 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Feldspar series: 
 
 Albite 
 
 Andesine 
 
 Anorthite 
 
 Bytownite 
 
 Microcline 
 
 Oligoclase 
 
 INCO section 275: 
 
 Quartzite 
 
 Pegmatite 
 
 INCO 2800 level quartzite 
 
 INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 Samples A and B 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Magnesium oxide brick 
 
 Mahogany granite: 
 
 Grindings 
 
 Saw cuttings 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Aluminum nitrate. 
 
 Potassium chloride. 
 
 HTAB. 
 
 PEO in Roanoke, VA, tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Do. 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
 Calcium chloride. 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 Sodium chloride. 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 Do. 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 PEO in tap water. 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Do. 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, city water. 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
 Aluminum chloride, pH modified. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 Do. 
 
 PEO in INCO tap water. 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
 Aluminum nitrate. 
 Aluminum nitrate in mine water. 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water. 
 Aluminum nitrate in mine water. 
 PEO in mine water. 
 Nalco 8830. 
 PEO. 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 PEO in Dakota Granite quarry water. 
 
 Do. 
 Anionic polymer in tap water. 
 ZEP Lubeeze in tap water. 
 ZEP Lubeeze in quarry water. 
 ZEP Lubeeze plus PEO in quarry water. 
 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 Whole, magnetic, and nonmagnetic fractions: 
 
 Samples A, B, and C 
 
 Samples A and B 
 
 Whole fractions: 
 Samples A and B 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride, pH modified. 
 
 Nalco 7132 in mine water. 
 
 Percol 402 in mine water. 
 
 PEO. 
 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 PEO in mine water. 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
13 
 
 Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type-Continued 
 
 Material Additive 1 
 
 Minntac taconite: 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Salida granite . 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Sudbury granite . . 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 PEO in mine water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 PEO in mine water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
 
 Calcium chloride. 
 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 
 Sodium chloride. 
 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 
 DTAB. 
 
 HTAB. 
 
 TTAB. 
 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Denver, CO, tap water, pH modified. 
 
 PEO in Denver, CO, tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water, pH modified. 
 
 Aluminum chloride at high concentrations. 
 
 Aluminum nitrate. 
 
 Calcium chloride. 
 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 
 Potassium aluminum sulfate. 
 
 Sodium chloride. 
 
 Titanium iodide. 
 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 
 Zirconium nitrate. 
 
 DTAB. 
 
 HTAB. 
 
 HTAB in tap water. 
 
 TTAB. 
 
 Armac series. 
 
 Nalco series. 
 
 Percol series. 
 
 Tergitol NPX. 
 
 Surfynol 465 in tap water. 
 
 Biocut in tap water. 
 
 HEC in tap water. 
 
 Revert in tap water. 
 
 Soluble in tap water. 
 
 Vibrastop in tap water. 
 
 Polyacrylamide in tap water. 
 
 PEO. 
 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Calcium chloride. 
 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 
 DTAB. 
 
 HTAB. 
 
 TTAB. 
 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 PEO plus Dromus B in tap water. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
 
 Calcium chloride. 
 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 
 Sodium chloride. 
 
 Titanium iodide. 
 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 
 Zirconium nitrate. 
 
 DTAB. 
 
 HTAB. 
 
 TTAB. 
 
 PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water. 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
14 
 
 Table A-1 .-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by material type-Continued 
 
 Material Additive 1 
 
 Tungsten carbide: 
 
 Powder 
 
 Powder with 6 pet Co granules 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 Do. 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 Calcium chloride. 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 Sodium chloride. 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 Zirconium nitrate. 
 DTAB. 
 HTAB. 
 TTAB. 
 
 Aluminum chloride. 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water. 
 Calcium chloride. 
 Magnesium sulfate. 
 Sodium chloride. 
 Zirconium chloride. 
 PEO in tap water. 
 
 DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
 
 DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 
 
 PEO Polyethylene oxide. 
 
 TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 1 A1! tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated. 
 
15 
 
 Table A-2.-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive 
 
 Additive 
 
 Material 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Alumnium chloride in tap water 
 
 Aluminum chloride, pH modified 
 
 Aluminum chloride in LCA mine water 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Erie mine water 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Denver, CO, tap water, pH modified 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Erie mine water, pH modified 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, city water 
 
 Aluminum nitrate 
 
 Aluminum nitrate in LCA mine water 
 
 Calcium chloride 
 
 Magnesium sulfate 
 
 Potassium aluminum sulfate 
 
 Potassium chloride 
 
 Sodium chloride 
 
 Titanium iodide . . 
 Zirconium chloride 
 
 Zirconium nitrate 
 
 Australian muscovite. 
 Biotite. 
 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Cobalt powder. 
 Diamond. 
 Dresser basalt. 
 Feldspar series. 
 LCA pegmatite. 
 Minnesota taconite. 
 Minntac samples A and B. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Dresser basalt. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 LCA pegmatite. 
 Minnesota taconite. 
 Dresser basalt. 
 Salida granite. 
 Minnesota taconite. 
 Dresser basalt. 
 Australian muscovite. 
 LCA pegmatite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 LCA pegmatite. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Australian muscovite. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
16 
 
 Table A-2.-Summary of zeta potential tests performed, by additive-Continued 
 
 Additive 
 
 Material 
 
 DTAB 
 
 HTAB 
 
 HTAB in tap water 
 
 TTAB 
 
 Armac series 
 
 Nalco series 
 
 Nalco 7132 in Erie mine water 
 
 Percol series 
 
 Percol 402 in Erie mine water . 
 Polyacrylamide in tap water . . 
 Anionic polymer in tap water . 
 
 Biocut in tap water 
 
 Tergitol NPX 
 
 Solulube in tap water 
 
 Surfynol 465 in tap water 
 
 Vibrastop in tap water 
 
 ZEP Lubeeze in tap water 
 ZEP Lubeeze in quarry water 
 
 HEC in tap water 
 
 Revert in tap water 
 
 PEO 
 
 PEO in tap water 
 
 PEO in Roanoke, VA, tap water 
 
 PEO in Denver, CO, tap water 
 
 PEO in Farmington, MN, tap water 
 
 PEO in INCO tap water 
 
 PEO in LCA mine water 
 
 PEO in Erie mine water 
 
 PEO in Minntac mine water 
 
 PEO in quarry water 
 
 PEO plus Dromus B in tap water 
 
 PEO plus ZEP Lube eze in quarry water 
 
 DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
 
 DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 
 
 HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 PEO Polyethylene oxide. 
 
 TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 'All tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from 
 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Australian muscovite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 South Dakota feldspar. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 Wausau quartzite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 
 Do. 
 Minnesota taconite sample B. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Minnesota taconite sample B. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Mahogany granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Mahogany granite. 
 
 Do. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 
 Do. 
 Magnesium oxide brick. 
 Minnesota taconite sample B. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Charcoal granite. 
 Coal (Jim Walters Resources). 
 Cobalt powder. 
 INCO section 275 quartzite. 
 INCO section 275 pegmatite. 
 INCO 2800 level quartzite. 
 INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore. 
 Magnesium oxide brick. 
 Minnesota taconite sample B. 
 Rockville Granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Sudbury granite. 
 Tungsten carbide powder. 
 Tungsten carbide powder with 6 pet 
 
 Co granules. 
 Westerly Granite. 
 Barre Granite. 
 Salida granite. 
 Sioux Quartzite. 
 Tennessee marble. 
 INCO section 275 quartzite. 
 LCA pegmatite sample A. 
 Minnesota taconite sample B. 
 Minntac sample A. 
 Minntac sample B. 
 Mahogany granite. 
 Sudbury granite. 
 Mahogany granite. 
 
 Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated. 
 
Table A-3. -Chemical analyses of waters used 
 
 17 
 
 Al, 
 PPm 
 
 Ca, 
 
 Mg, 
 PPm 
 
 Mn, 
 PPm 
 
 Na, 
 Pp™ 
 
 K, 
 ppm 
 
 s<v 
 
 pet 
 
 Si, 
 PPm 
 
 CI", 
 
 pet 
 
 DDIW 
 
 Tap water: 
 
 Minneapolis, MN 
 
 Denver, CO 
 
 Dresser, Wl 
 
 Farmington, MN (well) 
 
 Roanoke, VA 
 
 Mine water: 
 
 LCA 
 
 Erie, MN: 
 
 November (well) 
 
 May (well) 
 
 Pond 
 
 Minntac 
 
 Dresser, Wl 
 
 INCO 
 
 Quarry water: Milbank, SD 
 
 DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
 ND Not determined. 
 
 <0.02 
 
 <0.02 
 
 <0.01 
 
 <0.02 
 
 <0.50 
 
 <0.50 <2.00 
 
 0.54 
 
 1.40 
 
 .06 
 
 20.80 
 
 6.60 
 
 <.10 
 
 10.30 
 
 2.20 
 
 <.50 
 
 3.30 
 
 <5.00 
 
 .06 
 
 14.10 
 
 2.40 
 
 <.02 
 
 ND 
 
 .82 
 
 ND 
 
 3.20 
 
 ND 
 
 <.02 
 
 47.90 
 
 17.90 
 
 <.02 
 
 ND 
 
 .83 
 
 ND 
 
 10.10 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 49.00 
 
 23.90 
 
 <.10 
 
 4.30 
 
 1.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 6.50 
 
 <5.00 
 
 ND 
 
 22.00 
 
 4.10 
 
 <.10 
 
 4.20 
 
 1.00 
 
 23.00 
 
 1.60 
 
 <5.00 
 
 <.02 
 
 6.70 
 
 3.50 
 
 <.02 
 
 ND 
 
 .79 
 
 ND 
 
 9.50 
 
 ND 
 
 <.02 
 
 123.10 
 
 133.40 
 
 <.02 
 
 18.70 
 
 13.90 
 
 300.00 
 
 6.40 
 
 ND 
 
 <.02 
 
 113.00 
 
 111.60 
 
 <.02 
 
 15.50 
 
 13.60 
 
 225.00 
 
 5.20 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 76.50 
 
 45.20 
 
 1.80 
 
 40.00 
 
 7.40 
 
 121.00 
 
 10.60 
 
 54.50 
 
 ND 
 
 67.20 
 
 94.30 
 
 <.10 
 
 44.40 
 
 17.30 
 
 .39 
 
 <5.00 
 
 36.00 
 
 .02 
 
 30.70 
 
 11.30 
 
 <.02 
 
 ND 
 
 .68 
 
 ND 
 
 5.80 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 10.00 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.70 
 
 7.40 
 
 .84 
 
 23.00 
 
 5.80 
 
 <5.00 
 
 ND 
 
 100.00 
 
 58.00 
 
 .22 
 
 37.00 
 
 8.80 
 
 240.00 
 
 4.20 
 
 51.00 
 
18 
 
 Table A-4.-0xide content of raw materials, percent 
 
 SiO, 
 
 AIA 
 
 FeA 
 
 FeO 
 
 MgO 
 
 CaO 
 
 Na 2 Q 
 
 Kfl 
 
 Barre Granite 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Feldspar series: 
 
 Albite 
 
 Andesine 
 
 Anorthite 
 
 Bytownite 
 
 Microcline 
 
 Oligoclase 
 
 INCO section 275: 
 
 Pegmatite 
 
 Quartzite 
 
 INCO 2800 level quartzite 
 
 INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 1 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 Magnesium oxide brick 
 
 Mahogany granite: 
 
 Cuttings 
 
 Grindings 
 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Sample C 
 
 Minntac taconite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Salida granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Barre Granite 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Feldspar series: 
 
 Albite 
 
 Andesine 
 
 Anorthite 
 
 Bytownite 
 
 Microcline 
 
 Oligoclase 
 
 INCO section 275: 
 
 Pegmatite 
 
 Quartzite 
 
 INCO 2800 level quartzite 
 
 INCO 3400 level nickel-sulfide ore 1 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 Magnesium oxide brick 
 
 Mahogany granite: 
 
 Cuttings 
 
 Grindings 
 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Sample C 
 
 Minntac taconite 
 
 Rockville granite 
 
 Salida granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 ND Not determined. 
 Contains 11.4 ppm Ni. 
 
 71.05 
 
 13.80 
 
 ND 
 
 0.98 
 
 0.86 
 
 1.04 
 
 3.98 
 
 0.61 
 
 67.41 
 
 15.12 
 
 2.32 
 
 1.89 
 
 2.32 
 
 3.78 
 
 2.84 
 
 3.03 
 
 47.39 
 
 13.89 
 
 6.65 
 
 6.69 
 
 6.30 
 
 8.96 
 
 2.43 
 
 .50 
 
 62.47 
 
 21.35 
 
 .29 
 
 <.40 
 
 <.17 
 
 4.01 
 
 8.76 
 
 .69 
 
 52.84 
 
 24.50 
 
 1.24 
 
 <.40 
 
 .40 
 
 10.54 
 
 4.31 
 
 .64 
 
 43.97 
 
 34.77 
 
 .87 
 
 <.40 
 
 .17 
 
 21.06 
 
 .54 
 
 <.60 
 
 48.56 
 
 29.52 
 
 .43 
 
 <.40 
 
 .32 
 
 16.93 
 
 2.50 
 
 <.60 
 
 65.46 
 
 18.33 
 
 .57 
 
 <.40 
 
 <.17 
 
 .66 
 
 4.85 
 
 6.99 
 
 64.61 
 
 21.03 
 
 <.29 
 
 <.40 
 
 <.17 
 
 4.25 
 
 8.31 
 
 .40 
 
 69.34 
 
 15.03 
 
 ND 
 
 .21 
 
 <.17 
 
 .70 
 
 .88 
 
 9.08 
 
 79.61 
 
 5.01 
 
 ND 
 
 .81 
 
 1.66 
 
 2.87 
 
 .20 
 
 .80 
 
 84.21 
 
 6.33 
 
 ND 
 
 .61 
 
 .27 
 
 1.11 
 
 1.82 
 
 .24 
 
 4.60 
 
 1.14 
 
 ND 
 
 25.97 
 
 .31 
 
 .49 
 
 .11 
 
 .13 
 
 72.84 
 
 16.25 
 
 .61 
 
 ND 
 
 <.17 
 
 <.42 
 
 3.10 
 
 2.29 
 
 1.42 
 
 .68 
 
 .56 
 
 ND 
 
 92.93 
 
 .51 
 
 <.07 
 
 <.06 
 
 68.91 
 
 13.42 
 
 ND 
 
 1.93 
 
 .96 
 
 1.54 
 
 .68 
 
 4.66 
 
 68.91 
 
 13.42 
 
 ND 
 
 1.93 
 
 .96 
 
 1.54 
 
 .68 
 
 4.66 
 
 35.30 
 
 .30 
 
 28.73 
 
 22.26 
 
 2.32 
 
 3.50 
 
 <.067 
 
 <.06 
 
 34.23 
 
 .34 
 
 27.16 
 
 24.31 
 
 1.82 
 
 4.06 
 
 <.067 
 
 <.06 
 
 40.65 
 
 .87 
 
 35.74 
 
 14.28 
 
 2.49 
 
 2.24 
 
 <.067 
 
 <.06 
 
 42.68 
 
 1.18 
 
 25.25 
 
 19.36 
 
 2.82 
 
 .67 
 
 .08 
 
 .22 
 
 65.03 
 
 13.23 
 
 1.75 
 
 3.47 
 
 .76 
 
 2.94 
 
 3.64 
 
 4.34 
 
 66.96 
 
 13.98 
 
 2.72 
 
 .86 
 
 .46 
 
 1.68 
 
 2.97 
 
 5.90 
 
 98.41 
 
 .76 
 
 .19 
 
 <.40 
 
 <.17 
 
 .69 
 
 .09 
 
 <.06 
 
 63.11 
 
 18.43 
 
 .16 
 
 ND 
 
 .33 
 
 <.42 
 
 5.80 
 
 8.32 
 
 <.21 
 
 .23 
 
 .21 
 
 ND 
 
 .76 
 
 97.39 
 
 <.067 
 
 <.060 
 
 68.24 
 
 16.44 
 
 .29 
 
 2.19 
 
 .78 
 
 2.10 
 
 4.04 
 
 4.34 
 
 94.66 
 
 2.37 
 
 .61 
 
 ND 
 
 .41 
 
 <.42 
 
 .18 
 
 .20 
 
 H ? 0" 
 
 H ? 0" 
 
 TiO, 
 
 P,O s 
 
 MnO 
 
 BaO 
 
 CO, 
 
 U,0 
 
 0.92 
 
 0.23 
 
 0.94 
 
 ND 
 
 <0.13 
 
 <0.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 .33 
 
 <.1 
 
 .75 
 
 < 0.046 
 
 .13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 2.45 
 
 <.10 
 
 2.26 
 
 <.046 
 
 .19 
 
 <.055 
 
 2.86 
 
 < 0.054 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.17 
 
 <.02 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 .34 
 
 .23 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.1 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.17 
 
 .13 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.1 
 
 <.17 
 
 .136 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.17 
 
 <.02 
 
 <.13 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 .32 
 
 .21 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 .26 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 1.48 
 
 .19 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 .60 
 
 .24 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 13.20 
 
 .16 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 .80 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.33 
 
 <.046 
 
 .13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 1.40 
 
 3.85 
 
 .61 
 
 <.50 
 
 <.05 
 
 .03 
 
 <.06 
 
 .64 
 
 ND 
 
 .35 
 
 .21 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 .35 
 
 .21 
 
 <.17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 4.10 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.33 
 
 <.046 
 
 .72 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 <.22 
 
 4.30 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.33 
 
 <.046 
 
 .80 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 <.22 
 
 3.40 
 
 <.1 
 
 <.50 
 
 <.046 
 
 .90 
 
 <.55 
 
 5.86 
 
 <.054 
 
 5.85 
 
 .34 
 
 <.50 
 
 <.05 
 
 .34 
 
 <.06 
 
 2.25 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 .30 
 
 .62 
 
 <.05 
 
 .08 
 
 .21 
 
 <.10 
 
 ND 
 
 .59 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.50 
 
 <.046 
 
 .04 
 
 <.055 
 
 .44 
 
 <.054 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.17 
 
 <.02 
 
 <.13 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 <.22 
 
 .86 
 
 <.10 
 
 .62 
 
 1.03 
 
 <.03 
 
 <.06 
 
 <.10 
 
 ND 
 
 ND 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.33 
 
 .30 
 
 .05 
 
 <.11 
 
 ND 
 
 <.22 
 
 .60 
 
 <.1 
 
 .35 
 
 <.046 
 
 .09 
 
 .17 
 
 ND 
 
 <.22 
 
 .56 
 
 <.10 
 
 <.50 
 
 <.05 
 
 <.03 
 
 <.06 
 
 <.10 
 
 ND 
 
Table A-5. -Chemical analyses of coal, diamond, and cobalt powder 
 
 19 
 
 Coal: 1 
 
 Moisture 
 
 Volatile 
 
 Carbon: 
 
 Total 
 
 Fixed 
 
 Ash 
 
 S 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 N 
 
 ^im Walters Resources. 
 
 pet 
 
 0.30 
 21.70 
 
 78.90 
 
 67.30 
 
 10.70 
 
 .70 
 
 3.40 
 
 4.50 
 
 1.40 
 
 Coal^-Con. 
 Carbon-Con. 
 
 Al 
 
 Si 
 
 Fe 
 
 Ca 
 
 Mg 
 
 Na 
 
 Diamond: C 
 
 Cobalt powder: Co 
 
 pet 
 
 1.80 
 
 2.40 
 
 1.10 
 
 .20 
 
 .10 
 
 <.10 
 
 100.00 
 
 99.80 
 
 Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type 
 
 Material and additive 1 
 Australian muscovite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum nitrate 
 
 Potassium chloride 
 
 HTAB 
 
 Biotite: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Charcoal granite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water 
 
 Calcium chloride 
 
 Magnesium sulfate 
 
 Sodium chloride 
 
 Zirconium chloride 
 
 Cobalt: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Diamond: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Dresser basalt: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride, repeat 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water . . 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser mine water 
 Feldspar series: 
 
 Albite: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Andesine: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Anorthite: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Bytownite: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Microcline: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Oligoclase: Aluminum chloride 
 
 LCA pegmatite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water 
 
 Aluminum nitrate 
 
 Aluminum nitrate in mine water 
 
 LCA pegmatite sample A: 
 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water 
 
 Aluminum nitrate in mine water 
 
 LCA pegmatite sample B: 
 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water 
 
 Aluminum nitrate in mine water 
 
 Magnesium oxide brick: Nalco 8830 
 
 MINNESOTA TACONITE 
 Whole fraction: 
 
 Sample A: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Sample B: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Nalco 7132 in mine water 
 
 Percol 402 in mine water 
 
 Sample C: Alumin um chloride 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
 Potential, mV 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 -26.81 
 -29.34 
 -27.04 
 -28.41 
 -1 1 .74 
 
 -25.20 
 -19.00 
 -23.50 
 -21.80 
 -22.60 
 -27.10 
 -19.91 
 -20.63 
 
 -18.25 
 -37.03 
 -23.04 
 -22.23 
 
 -21 .72 
 -23.18 
 -23.89 
 -21.86 
 -20.60 
 -24.77 
 
 -18.61 
 -24.63 
 -20.21 
 -24.50 
 
 -20.20 
 -18.97 
 
 -19.27 
 
 -20.56 
 
 17.61 
 
 -17.45 
 -20.78 
 -19.14 
 
 -17.29 
 -19.38 
 -19.63 
 -34.70 
 -35.20 
 -24.89 
 
 -7 
 
 -2 
 
 7.57 X 10' 
 5.20 X 10 
 9.50 X 10"' 
 2.15 X 10"' 
 3.03 X 10"' 
 
 1.40 X 10"' 
 3.53X10"-' 
 1.60X10 
 1.95 X 10" ; 
 3.50 X 10"' 
 2.15 X 10"' 
 2.68 X 10"' 
 2.09 X 10"' 
 
 5.50 X 10"' 
 9.80 X 10" 7 
 1.33 X 10" 1 
 1.50 X10" 4 
 
 1.35 X10" 6 
 4.10 X 10" 7 
 4.00 X10' 7 
 2.20 X10' 7 
 1.65 X10' 6 
 8.60 X10" 7 
 
 7.30 X 10" 7 
 7.38 X 10" 6 
 1.47 X 10" 7 
 3.25 X 10' 6 
 
 7.33 X10" 6 
 7.80 X 10" 6 
 
 7.70 X 10" 6 
 7.63 X 10" 6 
 2.15 X10" 4 
 
 1.40 X 10° 
 1.38 X 10" 4 
 1.65 X 10" 4 
 
 1.20 X 10" 6 
 1.36 X 10" 4 
 1.80 X 10^ 
 1.26 X 10"* 
 
 1.40X10 
 
 -6 
 
20 
 
 Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type-Continued 
 
 Material and additive 1 
 MINNESOTA TACONITE-Con. 
 Magnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Sample B: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Sample C: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Nonmagnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Sample B: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water 
 
 Sample C: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Minntac taconite: 
 
 Sample A: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Sample B: Aluminum chloride 
 
 Rockville Granite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water 
 
 Calcium chloride 
 
 Magnesium sulfate 
 
 Sodium chloride 
 
 Zirconium chloride 
 
 DTAB 
 
 HTAB 
 
 TTAB 
 
 Sioux Quartzite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water 
 
 Aluminum nitrate 
 
 Calcium chloride 
 
 Magnesium sulfate 
 
 Potassium aluminum sulfate 
 
 Sodium chloride 
 
 Titanium iodide 
 
 Zirconium chloride 
 
 Zirconium nitrate 
 
 DTAB 
 
 HTAB 
 
 HTAB in tap water 
 
 TTAB 
 
 Armac Cat 11 
 
 Armac Cat 15 
 
 Armac Cat 19 
 
 Arquad 2C-75 
 
 Nalco 7107 
 
 Nalco 7132 
 
 Nalco 8102 
 
 Nalco 8852 
 
 Percol 402 
 
 Percol 403 
 
 Percol 406 
 
 Percol 408 
 
 Polyacrylamide 
 
 South Dakota feldspar: 
 
 Aluminum chloride 
 
 Calcium chloride 
 
 Magnesium sulfate 
 
 DTAB 
 
 HTAB 
 
 TTAB 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
 Potential, mV 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 -18.85 
 -19.40 
 -20.44 
 
 -14.88 
 -19.87 
 -20.34 
 -20.59 
 
 -16.07 
 -19.34 
 -20.47 
 
 -15.72 
 -20.21 
 -20.18 
 -32.45 
 
 -27.59 
 -27.94 
 
 -24.70 
 -17.70 
 -19.15 
 -13.40 
 -23.00 
 -25.70 
 -20.80 
 -23.80 
 -22.90 
 
 -25.60 
 -20.40 
 -21.38 
 -22.20 
 -19.70 
 -26.35 
 -21.90 
 -26.30 
 -21.80 
 -23.60 
 -22.40 
 -22.83 
 -31.85 
 -20.72 
 -30.48 
 -29.59 
 -29.78 
 -30.14 
 -25.69 
 -27.65 
 -28.19 
 -26.95 
 -29.78 
 -27.03 
 -30.24 
 -31.06 
 -43.56 
 
 -22.10 
 -11.30 
 -11.67 
 -17.10 
 -20.10 
 -17.60 
 
 1.15 X 10 
 1.38 X 10"" 
 1.25 X 10 J 
 
 6.80X10"' 
 1.47X10"" 
 1.50X10"" 
 8.50X10' 
 
 9.30 X 10' 7 
 1.40 X 10" 4 
 1.25X10^ 
 
 9.80 X 10' 7 
 1.43 X 10" 4 
 1.40 X 10" 4 
 
 1.39 X 10' 6 
 
 3.25 X 10" 6 
 3.52 X 10" 6 
 
 1.24 X10" 6 
 3.80 X 10' 5 
 1.14 X10' 2 
 1.85 X 10" 2 
 3.38 X 10" 1 
 1.42 X10" 6 
 4.20 X 10" 4 
 
 7.25 X 10" 7 
 8.20 X10' 6 
 
 6.82 X 10" 7 
 4.50 X 10" 5 
 4.33 X 10" 7 
 
 1.60 X 10" 2 
 1.95 X 10" 2 
 7.88 X 10" 7 
 2.17 X10" 1 
 
 1.61 X10" 5 
 
 1.40 X 10" 6 
 1.50 X 10" 6 
 9.35X10" 
 1.56 X10" 6 
 2.47 X 10" 5 
 7.23 X 10 
 
 2 5.35X10' 5 
 2 1.83X10" 
 V.OO X 10" 
 
 -5 
 
 2 1.43X10" 5 
 2 5.73 X 10' 6 
 2 1.13X 10" 5 
 
 2 2.55 X 10" 5 
 
 ^.eo X 10 s 
 
 3 0.250 
 
 1.41 X10" 6 
 8.80 X 10" 3 
 9.60 X 10" 3 
 7.40 X 10" 
 3.97 X 10" 6 
 6.80 X 10" 5 
 
21 
 
 Table A-6.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by material type-Continued 
 
 Material and additive 1 Potential, mV 
 
 Tennessee marble: 
 
 Aluminum chloride -7.94 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water -5.50 
 
 Calcium chloride -5.30 
 
 Magnesium sulfate -5.50 
 
 Sodium chloride -6.80 
 
 Titanium iodide -5.55 
 
 Zirconium chloride -4.90 
 
 Zirconium nitrate -5.10 
 
 DTAB -7.80 
 
 HTAB -3.80 
 
 TTAB -4.00 
 
 Wausau quartzite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride -14.60 
 
 Calcium chloride -15.00 
 
 Magnesium sulfate -12.30 
 
 Sodium chloride -15.20 
 
 Zirconium chloride -16.60 
 
 Zirconium nitrate -15.60 
 
 DTAB -18.30 
 
 HTAB -16.40 
 
 TTAB -15.60 
 
 Westerly Granite: 
 
 Aluminum chloride -18.20 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water -15.10 
 
 Calcium chloride -17.80 
 
 Magnesium sulfate -15.30 
 
 Sodium chloride -15.00 
 
 Zirconium chloride -14.40 
 
 DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
 
 DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 *AII tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated, 
 came from each material's respective local mine area. 
 
 2 Percent. 
 
 3 Parts per million. 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 1.93 X 10 
 3.73 X 10" 5 
 3.05 X 10" 3 
 4.20 X 10" 3 
 2.80 X10" 1 
 1.51 X 10" 5 
 5.80 X10" 7 
 3.20 X10" 6 
 1.30 X10" 3 
 3.70 X10' 7 
 5.15 X10" 6 
 
 5.80 X 10" 7 
 1.80 X10' 2 
 2.30 X10" 2 
 4.30 X10" 1 
 8.40 X10' 7 
 3.35 X10' 7 
 2.60 X 10" 3 
 3.35 X 10" 6 
 5.40 X 10" 5 
 
 -2 
 
 7.26 X 10' 
 2.40 X 10' : 
 1.08 X 10 
 1.38 X 10" z 
 1.26 X 10" 1 
 7.40 X 10" 7 
 
 Mine waters used 
 
22 
 
 Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive 
 
 Additive and material 1 
 
 Aluminum chloride: 
 
 Australian muscovite 
 
 Biotite 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Cobalt 
 
 Diamond 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Feldspar series: 
 
 Albite 
 
 Andesine 
 
 Anorthite 
 
 Bytownite 
 
 Microcline 
 
 Oligoclase 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 Whole fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Sample C 
 
 Magnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Sample C 
 
 Nonmagnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Sample C 
 
 Minntac taconite: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Aluminum chloride in tap water: 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Aluminum chloride in mine water: 2 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 LCA pegmatite: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Aluminum chloride in November mine water: 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 Whole fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Magnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Nonmagnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water: 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 Whole fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Magnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B , . , 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
 Potential, mV 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 -26.81 
 -11.74 
 -25.20 
 -19.91 
 -20.63 
 -18.25 
 
 -21 .72 
 -23.18 
 -23.89 
 -21.86 
 -20.60 
 -24.77 
 -18.61 
 
 -17.45 
 -17.29 
 -24.89 
 
 -18.85 
 -14.88 
 -20.59 
 
 -16.07 
 -15.72 
 -32.45 
 
 -27.59 
 -27.94 
 -24.70 
 -25.60 
 -22.10 
 -7.94 
 -14.60 
 -18.20 
 
 -19.00 
 -17.70 
 -20.40 
 -5.50 
 -15.10 
 
 -22.23 
 -24.63 
 
 -20.20 
 -19.27 
 
 -20.78 
 -19.38 
 
 -19.40 
 -19.87 
 
 -19.34 
 -20.21 
 
 -19.14 
 -19.63 
 
 -20.44 
 -20.34 
 
 7.57 X 10 
 3.03 X10" 6 
 1.40 X10" 6 
 2.68 X 10" 6 
 
 2.09 X 10" 6 
 5.50 X 10" 7 
 
 1.35 X10" 6 
 
 4.10 X10" 7 
 4.00 X 10" 7 
 2.20 X 10" 7 
 1.65 X10" 5 
 8.60 X10" 7 
 7.30 X10" 7 
 
 1.40X10 
 1.20X10"' 
 1.40 X 10"' 
 
 1.15 X 10 
 6.80 X 10 
 8.50 X 10" 
 
 -7 
 
 9.30 X10" 7 
 9.80 X10' 7 
 1.39 X 10" 7 
 
 3.25 X 10 
 
 3.52 X 10" 6 
 1.24 X 10" 6 
 6.82 X 10" 7 
 1.41 X10" 6 
 1.93 X10" 6 
 5.80 X10" 6 
 
 7.26 X 10" 7 
 
 3.53 X 10" 5 
 3.80 X 10" 5 
 4.50 X 10" 5 
 3.73 X 10" 5 
 2.40 X 10" 5 
 
 1.50 X 10" 
 7.38 X 10 
 
 7.33 X 10" 
 7.70 X 10 
 
 -6 
 
 -6 
 
 1.38 X 10" 4 
 1.36 X 10" 4 
 
 1.38X10" 
 1.47 X10" 4 
 
 1.40X10" 
 1.43 X 10" 
 
 1.65X10" 
 1.80X10" 
 
 1.25X10" 
 1.50X10" 
 
23 
 
 Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive-Continued 
 
 Additive and material 1 
 Aluminum chloride in May mine water-Con. 
 
 Minnesota taconite-Con. 
 Nonmagnetic fraction: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Aluminum chloride in Dresser, Wl, tap water: 
 
 Dresser basalt 
 
 Aluminum nitrate: 
 
 Australian muscovite 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Aluminum nitrate in LCA mine water: 
 
 LCA pegmatite 
 
 LCA pegmatite: 
 
 Sample A 
 
 Sample B 
 
 Calcium chloride: 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Magnesium sulfate: 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite , 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Potassium aluminum sulfate: Sioux Quartzite 
 Potassium chloride: Australian muscovite . . , 
 Sodium chloride: 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Titanium iodide: 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Zirconium chloride: 
 
 Charcoal granite 
 
 Rockville Granite , 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 Westerly Granite 
 
 Zirconium nitrate: 
 
 Sioux Quartzite , 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 DTAB: 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 HTAB: 
 
 Australian muscovite 
 
 Rockville Granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 
 HTAB in tap water: Sioux Quartzite , 
 
 See explanatory notes at end of table. 
 
 Potential, mV 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 -20.47 
 -20.18 
 
 -23.04 
 
 -29.34 
 -20.21 
 -21.38 
 
 -24.50 
 
 -18.97 
 -20.56 
 
 -23.50 
 -19.15 
 -22.20 
 -11.30 
 -5.30 
 -15.00 
 -17.80 
 
 -21.80 
 -13.40 
 -19.70 
 -11.67 
 -5.50 
 -12.30 
 -15.30 
 -26.35 
 -27.04 
 
 -22.60 
 -23.00 
 -21.90 
 -6.80 
 -15.20 
 -15.00 
 
 -26.30 
 -5.55 
 
 -27.10 
 -25.70 
 -21 .80 
 -4.90 
 -16.60 
 -14.40 
 
 -23.60 
 
 -5.10 
 
 -15.60 
 
 -20.80 
 -22.40 
 -16.10 
 -7.80 
 -18.30 
 
 -28.41 
 -23.80 
 -22.83 
 -20.10 
 -3.80 
 -16.40 
 -31.85 
 
 1.25 X 10^ 
 1.40 X 10" 4 
 
 1.33 X10" 4 
 
 5.20 X 10' 7 
 1.47 X10" 7 
 4.33 X10" 7 
 
 3.25 X 10" 6 
 
 7.80 X 10" 6 
 7.63 X 10" 6 
 
 1.60 X10' 2 
 1.14 X 10" 2 
 1.60 X10" 2 
 8.80 X 10" 3 
 3.05 X 10" 3 
 1.80 X10" 2 
 1.08 X 10" 2 
 
 1.95 X10" 2 
 1.85 X10" 2 
 1.95 X10" 2 
 9.60 X 10" 3 
 4.20 X10" 3 
 
 2.30 X 10"' 
 1.38X10' : 
 7.88 X 10' 
 9.50X10' : 
 
 3.50 X10" 1 
 3.38 X10" 1 
 2.17 X 10" 1 
 2.80 X10" 1 
 4.30 X 10" 2 
 1.26 X 10" 1 
 
 1.51 X 10" 5 
 1.61 X10" 5 
 
 2.15 X 10" 6 
 1.42 X 10" 6 
 1.40 X 10" 6 
 5.80 X 10" 7 
 8.40 X 10" 7 
 7.40 X 10' 7 
 
 1.50 X 10"' 
 3.20 X 10"' 
 3.35 X 10" 
 
 4.20 X 10" 
 9.35 X 10"" 
 7.40 X 10" 
 1.30 X 10"- 
 2.60 X 10 
 
 -3 
 
 -6 
 
 2.15 X 10 
 7.25 X 10" 7 
 1.56 X 10" 6 
 3.97 X 10" 6 
 3.70 X 10" 7 
 3.35 X 10" 6 
 2.47 X 10" 5 
 
24 
 
 Table A-7.-Summary of PZC zeta potential results for cationic and anionic additives, by additive-Continued 
 
 Additive and material 1 
 
 Potential, mV 
 
 PZC cone, mol/L 
 
 TTAB: 
 
 Rockville granite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 South Dakota feldspar 
 
 Tennessee marble . . . 
 
 Wausau quartzite 
 Armac series: 2 
 
 Cat 11 
 Cat 15 
 Cat 19 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Arquad 2C-75: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Nalco series: 2 
 
 7107: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 7132: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 7132 in mine water: Minnesota taconite, 
 
 whole fraction, sample B 
 
 8102: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 8830: Magnesium oxide brick 
 
 8852: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Percol series: 2 
 
 402: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 402 in mine water: Minnesota taconite, 
 
 whole fraction, sample B 
 
 403: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 406: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 408: Sioux Quartzite 
 
 Polyacrylamide: 3 Sioux Quartzite 
 
 -22.90 
 -20.72 
 -17.60 
 -4.00 
 -15.60 
 
 -30.48 
 -29.59 
 -29.78 
 -30.14 
 
 -25.69 
 -27.65 
 
 -34.70 
 
 -28.19 
 
 17.61 
 
 -26.95 
 
 -29.78 
 
 -35.20 
 -27.03 
 -30.24 
 -31.06 
 -43.56 
 
 DTAB Dodecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 HTAB Hexadecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 TTAB Tetradecyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. 
 
 J AII tests conducted in DDIW unless otherwise stated. Tap water used was from Minneapolis, MN, unless otherwise stated, 
 came from each material's respective local mine area. 
 2 Concentration in percent. 
 3 Concentration in parts per million. 
 
 8.20X10 
 7.23 X10" 5 
 6.80 X10" 5 
 5.15 X10" 6 
 5.40 X 10 s 
 
 5.35 X 10' 5 
 1.83 X10" 4 
 7.00 X IfJ 4 
 2.23 X10' 5 
 
 1.43 X10" 5 
 5.73 X10" 6 
 
 1.26 X10" 4 
 1.13 X 10 s 
 2.15X10^ 
 1.33 X 10" 5 
 
 2.40X10" 
 
 6.37 X 10 
 1.43 X 10"' 
 2.55 X 10' ; 
 7.60 X 10" ; 
 0.250 
 
 Mine waters used 
 
 Table A-8.-PZC zeta potential results for AICI 3 when using pH modification 
 
 Material and water tested 
 
 Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Before modification After modification 
 
 AICI 3 cone, 
 10"* mol/L 
 
 Dresser basalt: Dresser, Wl, tap water .... 
 Minnesota taconite: 
 Whole fraction, sample A: 
 
 Erie November mine water, pH 5.5 
 
 Erie November mine water, pH 4.0 
 
 Erie May mine water, pH 5.5 
 
 Whole fraction, sample B: 
 
 Erie November mine water, pH 5.5 
 
 Erie November mine water, pH 4.40 .... 
 
 Erie May mine water, pH 5.5 
 
 Salida granite: Denver, CO, tap water .... 
 Sioux Quartzite: 
 
 Fresh Minneapolis tap water 1 
 
 Cold Minneapolis tap water 2 
 
 Hot Minneapolis tap water 3 
 
 ^resh, direct from cold water tap. 
 
 2 From cold water tap, left to stand overnight. 
 
 3 From hot water tap, left to stand overnight. 
 
 -20.47 
 
 -19.98 
 -20.79 
 -21.43 
 
 -21.19 
 -21.10 
 -22.15 
 -31.47 
 
 -28.55 
 -30.28 
 -34.96 
 
 -11.01 
 
 -14.61 
 
 -9.14 
 
 -12.57 
 
 -15.83 
 -10.04 
 -11.41 
 -26.46 
 
 -22.93 
 -26.53 
 -30.14 
 
 1.13 
 
 1.22 
 .71 
 .80 
 
 1.13 
 
 1.00 
 
 .83 
 
 1.20 
 
 1.17 
 1.87 
 1.68 
 
25 
 
 Table A-9.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, 
 and anionic additives with Mahogany granite 
 
 Baseline water and additive cone, ppm 
 
 Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 SIOUX QUARTZITE 
 
 NONIONIC ADDITIVES 
 
 Tap water before adding HEC 
 
 HEC: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Tap water before adding Revert 
 
 Revert: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Tap water before adding Surfynol 465 
 Surfynol 465: 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.5 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 DDIW before adding Tergitol NPX 
 Tergitol NPX: 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.5 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 ANIONIC ADDITIVES 
 
 Tap water before adding Biocut 
 
 Biocut: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 DDIW before adding Nalco 8830 
 
 Nalco 8830: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 100 
 
 190 
 
 Tap water before adding Solulube . . , 
 Solulube: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Tap water before adding Vibrastop . . 
 Vibrastop: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 -37.10 
 
 -34.98 
 -34.16 
 -35.00 
 -35.37 
 -35.30 
 -37.58 
 
 -35.67 
 -36.86 
 -37.14 
 -36.68 
 -36.39 
 -40.74 
 
 -41.34 
 -40.98 
 -40.65 
 -40.55 
 -41.12 
 -41.11 
 -42.15 
 -33.51 
 
 -32.20 
 -34.54 
 -35.52 
 -35.35 
 -37.68 
 
 -43.38 
 
 -42.94 
 -44.80 
 -63.22 
 -67.61 
 -71.98 
 -29.14 
 
 -34.04 
 -42.98 
 -57.21 
 -59.51 
 -75.37 
 -42.63 
 
 -41.49 
 -43.41 
 -45.90 
 -59.95 
 -60.30 
 -42.58 
 
 -44.90 
 -53.94 
 -57.69 
 -58.69 
 -63.41 
 
 ±0.52 
 
 ±.43 
 ±.65 
 ±.36 
 ±.57 
 ±.60 
 ±.86 
 
 ±.39 
 ±.33 
 ±.39 
 ±.66 
 ±.60 
 ±1.80 
 
 ±.38 
 ±.47 
 ±.56 
 ±.56 
 ±.90 
 ±.49 
 ±.58 
 ±1.49 
 
 ±1.20 
 ±.98 
 ±.42 
 ±.64 
 ±.37 
 
 ±.36 
 
 ±.32 
 
 ±.58 
 ±.74 
 ±.67 
 ±.98 
 ±1.54 
 
 ±1.50 
 
 ±.88 
 
 ±2.49 
 
 ±1.96 
 
 ±.66 
 
 ±.56 
 
 ±.90 
 ±.33 
 ±.47 
 
 ±1.96 
 ±.45 
 
 ±1.29 
 
 ±1.92 
 ±.30 
 ±.42 
 
 ±2.13 
 ±.46 
 
26 
 
 Table A-9.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic and anionic additives with Sioux Quartzite, 
 and anionic additives with Mahogany granite-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and additive cone, ppm 
 
 Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 MAHOGANY GRANITE 
 
 ANIONIC ADDITIVES 
 Tap water before adding anionic polymer 
 Anionic polymer: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Tap water before adding ZEP Lubeeze . . 
 ZEP Lubeeze: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Quarry water before adding ZEP Lubeeze 
 ZEP Lubeeze: 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 250 
 
 500 
 
 1 ,000 
 
 2,500 
 
 5,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
 HEC Hydroxyethyl cellulose. 
 
 -37.73 
 
 -39.41 
 -39.32 
 -47.81 
 -44.24 
 -47.35 
 -36.00 
 
 -38.69 
 -44.15 
 -48.47 
 -60.88 
 -65.93 
 -29.63 
 
 -29.41 
 -30.51 
 -33.17 
 -35.21 
 -37.21 
 -37.33 
 -38.97 
 -41 .73 
 -43.90 
 -44.75 
 -46.84 
 -47.31 
 
 ±0.24 
 
 ±1.37 
 ±1.19 
 ±1.01 
 ±2.23 
 ±.81 
 ±1.12 
 
 ±1.11 
 ±.76 
 ±1.03 
 ±1.42 
 ±1.87 
 ±.58 
 
 ±1.17 
 ±.51 
 ±.64 
 ±.47 
 ±.74 
 ±.98 
 ±.32 
 ±.96 
 ±.42 
 ±.34 
 ±.28 
 ±.43 
 
27 
 
 Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO 
 
 (All tests conducted with 5 million molecular weight PEO and stock 
 solution of 1 ,000 ppm unless otherwise noted) 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 
 
 BARRE GRANITE 
 
 ROANOKE, VA, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -34.80 
 
 1 -14.26 
 
 5 -1.18 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 CHARCOAL GRANITE 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -32.22 
 
 1 -13.55 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 COAL (JIM WALTERS RESOURCES) 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 6 million molecular weight PEO: 
 
 Water -31 .47 
 
 1 -10.28 
 
 5 -1.68 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 COBALT POWDER 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -25.02 
 
 1 -18.15 
 
 5 -4.02 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 INCO SECTION 275 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 Quartzite: 
 
 Water -33.54 
 
 1 -11.70 
 
 5 -4.54 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 Pegmatite: 
 
 Water -36.59 
 
 1 -17.35 
 
 5 -4.12 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 INCO TAP WATER 
 Quartzite: 
 
 Water -31.15 
 
 1 -10.50 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 INCO 2800 LEVEL QUARTZITE 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -33.50 
 
 1 -11.01 
 
 5 -4.33 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 ±1.80 
 ±1.33 
 ±.52 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±1.41 
 ±1.74 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±0.98 
 ±1.37 
 ±.32 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 t0.42 
 ±.57 
 ±.47 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 t0.52 
 ±.75 
 ±.29 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.14 
 ±.89 
 ±.18 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.60 
 ±.41 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 t0.35 
 ±.31 
 ±.37 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
28 
 
 Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 
 
 INCO 3400 LEVEL NICKEL-SULFIDE ORE 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -28.62 
 
 1 -12.17 
 
 5 -.99 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 LCA LITHIUM PEGMATITE 
 
 LCA MINE WATER 
 
 Water -27.40 
 
 1 -6.78 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 MAGNESIUM OXIDE BRICK 
 
 DDIW 
 
 DDIW 18.92 
 
 1 .00 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -6.81 
 
 1 -3.54 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 MAHOGANY GRANITE 
 
 SOUTH DAKOTA GRANITE QUARRY WATER 
 Grindings: 
 
 Water -28.32 
 
 1 -10.62 
 
 5 -.92 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 .00 
 
 Saw cuttings: 
 
 Water -26.40 
 
 1 -7.58 
 
 5 .00 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 100 XX) 
 
 MINNESOTA TACONITE, SAMPLE B 
 
 DDIW 
 
 DDIW -31.54 
 
 1 -17.43 
 
 3 -11.74 
 
 7.48 .00 
 
 12.4 .00 
 
 122 .00 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -33.60 
 
 1 -23.35 
 
 3 -6.59 
 
 7.48 -6.10 
 
 12.4 .00 
 
 122 .00 
 
 MINE WATER 
 
 Water -40.68 
 
 1 -10.29 
 
 3 -2.37 
 
 7.48 -2.29 
 
 12.4 .00 
 
 122 .00 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 ±0.26 
 ±.81 
 
 ±1.16 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±0.85 
 ±.28 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±0.59 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±1.21 
 ±.83 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 :0.48 
 ±.26 
 ±.35 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.57 
 ±.26 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 t0.92 
 ±.59 
 ±.75 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 t2.25 
 ±1.21 
 ±.44 
 ±.91 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±1.17 
 
 ±.59 
 ±.64 
 ±.94 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
29 
 
 Table A-10.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm 
 
 Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 MINNTAC TACONITE 
 
 MINE WATER 
 Sample A: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 100 
 
 Sample B: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 100 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 DENVER, CO, TAP WATER 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 bT3iw 
 
 DDIW 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7.48 
 
 12.4 
 
 122 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7.48 
 
 12.4 
 
 122 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7.5 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 -41.79 
 
 -18.73 
 
 -10.44 
 
 -2.03 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -40.02 
 
 -18.11 
 
 -4.53 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 ±0.97 
 ±1.52 
 ±1.54 
 ±1.40 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±2.69 
 
 ±2.63 
 
 ±2.12 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ROCKVILLE GRANITE 
 
 -29.57 
 
 -13.01 
 
 -1.90 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 ±1.14 
 ±1.68 
 ±.15 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 SALIDA GRANITE 
 
 -28.34 
 
 -11.61 
 
 -4.22 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 ±0.41 
 ±.33 
 ±.75 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 SIOUX QUARTZITE 
 
 -29.77 
 
 -16.61 
 
 -7.06 
 
 -3.68 
 
 -1.30 
 
 .00 
 
 -33.01 
 
 -11.25 
 
 -1.18 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.77 
 
 -21.19 
 
 -7.77 
 
 -1.29 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.60 
 
 -28.56 
 
 -15.99 
 
 -.93 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.83 
 
 -32.24 
 
 -13.01 
 
 -.87 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 ±0.50 
 ±.95 
 ±.88 
 ±.77 
 ±.83 
 ±.00 
 
 ±1.69 
 
 ±1.29 
 
 ±.68 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±1.22 
 
 ±2.998 
 
 ±.69 
 
 ±.47 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.39 
 
 ±.76 
 
 ±4.71 
 
 ±.64 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.56 
 
 ±.71 
 
 ±2.65 
 
 ±.43 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
30 
 
 Table A-10.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm 
 
 Zeta potential, mV 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 SIOUX QUARTZITE-Continued 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER-Continued 
 0.1 million molecular weight PEO: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 0.4 million molecular weight PEO: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 100 
 
 0.9 million molecular weight PEO: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 6 million molecular weight PEO: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 5 million molecular weight PEO made with 
 isopropyl alcohol: 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7.5 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 100 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7.5 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 100 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER WITH IRON 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 FARMINGTON, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 -42.33 
 
 -29.46 
 
 -14.01 
 
 -.73 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -42.86 
 
 -30.24 
 
 -14.20 
 
 -.46 
 
 0.00 
 
 .00 
 
 -44.05 
 
 -28.75 
 
 -12.98 
 
 -.30 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -36.83 
 
 -18.53 
 
 -3.61 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.88 
 
 -29.21 
 
 -9.07 
 
 -.47 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.19 
 
 -19.73 
 
 -9.37 
 
 -1.62 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -41.70 
 
 -18.76 
 
 -9.30 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 -35.75 
 -10.41 
 .00 
 .00 
 .00 
 .00 
 
 M.02 
 
 ±.57 
 t2.56 
 ±.75 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.58 
 t1.49 
 £2.09 
 ±.41 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 £1.69 
 
 £2.15 
 
 £1.99 
 
 ±.49 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.86 
 ±.44 
 ±.70 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 £1.55 
 
 £1.63 
 
 £1.99 
 
 ±.69 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 £1.26 
 
 ±.58 
 
 £1.08 
 
 £1.03 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.53 
 £2.03 
 ±.82 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.40 
 £2.59 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 SUDBURY GRANITE 
 
 -32.86 
 
 -14.37 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 £1.29 
 ±.38 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
31 
 
 Table A-1 0.-Zeta potential test results for nonionic PEO-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV Standard deviation 
 
 TENNESSEE MARBLE 
 FARMINGTON, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -5.28 ±0.47 
 
 1 -.90 ±.30 
 
 5 .00 ±.00 
 
 10 .00 ±.00 
 
 50 .00 ±.00 
 
 100 .00 ±m 
 
 TUNGSTEN CARBIDE POWDER 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 Powder: 
 
 Water -28.23 ±0.63 
 
 1 -17.21 ±1.52 
 
 5 .00 ± .00 
 
 10 .00 ±.00 
 
 50 .00 ±.00 
 
 100 .00 ±.00 
 
 Powder with 6 pet Co granules: 
 
 Water -26.93 ±2.34 
 
 1 -14.16 ±1.33 
 
 5 -3.86 ± .46 
 
 10 .00 ±.00 
 
 50 .00 ±.00 
 
 100 .00 ±JD0 
 
 WESTERLY GRANITE 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER 
 
 Water -34.74 ± 1 .03 
 
 1 -16.80 ±.39 
 
 5 -2.65 ± .55 
 
 10 .00 ±.00 
 
 50 .00 ± .00 
 
 100 .m ±M 
 
 DDIW Deionized, distilled water. 
 PEO Polyethylene oxide. 
 
32 
 
 Table A-1 1 .-Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic 
 additives with nonionic PEO 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV 
 
 DROMUS B IN MINNEAPOLIS, MN, TAP WATER-SUDBURY GRANITE 
 
 DROMUS BAT 10 ppm 
 
 Water -33.12 
 
 Add 10 ppm Dromus B -40.92 
 
 1 -28.67 
 
 5 -12.77 
 
 10 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 50 ppm 
 
 Water -33.66 
 
 Add 50 ppm Dromus B -55.01 
 
 1 -21.39 
 
 10 -7.38 
 
 20 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 100 ppm 
 
 Water -33.64 
 
 Add 100 ppm Dromus B -61.61 
 
 1 -31.67 
 
 10 -12.78 
 
 20 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 250 ppm 
 
 Water -33.78 
 
 Add 250 ppm Dromus B -75.70 
 
 1 -41.51 
 
 10 -26.52 
 
 30 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 500 ppm 
 
 Water -33.48 
 
 Add 500 ppm Dromus B -79.30 
 
 1 . -48.45 
 
 10 -28.62 
 
 35 .00 
 
 50 .00 
 
 DROMUS BAT 1,000 ppm 
 
 Water -33.88 
 
 Add 1,000 ppm Dromus B -81.25 
 
 1 -60.65 
 
 10 -43.49 
 
 50 -15.81 
 
 85 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 2,500 ppm 
 
 Water -34.16 
 
 Add 2,500 ppm Dromus B -93.01 
 
 1 -66.13 
 
 10 -52.83 
 
 50 -24.14 
 
 100 .00 
 
 DROMUS B AT 5,000 ppm 
 
 Water -33.84 
 
 Add 5,000 ppm Dromus B -95.23 
 
 1 -66.87 
 
 50 -15.19 
 
 100 J00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE IN SOUTH DAKOTA QUARRY WATER-MAHOGANY GRANITE 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 10 ppm 
 
 Water -29.61 
 
 Add 10 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -30.39 
 
 1 -22.16 
 
 5 -14.11 
 
 10 -6.73 
 
 15 -2.91 
 
 30 .00 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 ±0.59 
 ±.40 
 ±.90 
 ±.74 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.41 
 ±1.37 
 ±.97 
 ±.59 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.51 
 ±.44 
 ±.47 
 ±.59 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.44 
 ±.94 
 ±.96 
 ±.60 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.78 
 ±.96 
 ±.55 
 ±1.22 
 ±.00 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.33 
 ±.88 
 ±.45 
 ±.71 
 ±2.26 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.48 
 
 ±.70 
 ±1.32 
 
 ±.38 
 ±1.20 
 
 ±.00 
 
 ±.70 
 ±.46 
 ±.22 
 ±.23 
 ±.00 
 
 t0.28 
 ±.14 
 ±.25 
 ±.42 
 ±.58 
 ±.52 
 ±.00 
 
33 
 
 Table A-1 1 .-Summary of zeta potential test results using combinations of anionic 
 additives with nonionic PEO-Continued 
 
 Baseline water and PEO cone, ppm Zeta potential, mV Standard deviation 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE IN SOUTH DAKOTA QUARRY WATER-MAHOGANY GRANITE-Continued 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 50 ppm 
 
 Water -29.44 ±0.52 
 
 Add 50 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -31.62 ±.27 
 
 1 -19.93 ±2.28 
 
 10 -12.78 ± .72 
 
 30 -3.44 ± .22 
 
 45 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 100 ppm 
 
 Water -29.72 ±.35 
 
 Add 100 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -32.44 ±.87 
 
 1 -18.08 ±.43 
 
 10 -12.52 ±.38 
 
 30 -4.59 ±.45 
 
 45 -1.69 ±.54 
 
 60 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 250 ppm 
 
 Water -29.66 ±.22 
 
 Add 250 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.14 ±.30 
 
 1 -20.91 ±.73 
 
 10 -12.43 ±.46 
 
 30 -6.00 ± .36 
 
 45 -3.33 ± .34 
 
 60 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 500 ppm 
 
 Water -29.79 ± .22 
 
 Add 500 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.79 ± .72 
 
 1 -24.68 ±.19 
 
 10 -16.11 ±.99 
 
 30 -7.44 ±.36 
 
 60 -1.34 ±.40 
 
 75 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 1,000 ppm 
 
 Water -29.61 ± .28 
 
 Add 1,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -35.48 ±.43 
 
 1 -23.23 ±1.14 
 
 10 -16.73 ± .64 
 
 30 -12.09 ±.55 
 
 60 -7.41 ± .72 
 
 90 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 2,500 ppm 
 
 Water -29.40 ±.23 
 
 Add 2,500 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -34.26 ± .72 
 
 1 -22.36 ± .33 
 
 10 -14.76 ±.63 
 
 30 -9.02 ± .59 
 
 60 -6.04 ±.35 
 
 90 .00 ± .00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 5,000 ppm 
 
 Water -29.61 ± .43 
 
 Add 5,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -39.56 ± .29 
 
 1 -27.32 ±1.16 
 
 10 -16.91 ± .56 
 
 30 -10.94 ± .46 
 
 60 -7.74 ± .34 
 
 90 .00 ±.00 
 
 ZEP LUBEEZE AT 10,000 ppm 
 
 Water -29.48 ± .36 
 
 Add 10,000 ppm ZEP Lubeeze -35.28 ±1.24 
 
 1 -22.18 ±.23 
 
 10 -18.24 ±1.62 
 
 30 -16.20 ±1.45 
 
 90 -4.39 ± .46 
 
 120 .00 ±.00 
 
 PEO Polyethylene oxide. 
 
34 
 
 Table A-1 2.-Average zeta potential values for Sioux Quartzite with AICI 3 
 in DDIW at higher than normal concentrations, millivolts 
 
 Additive cone, mol/L Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 
 
 DDIW -24.91 -27.58 -27.49 
 
 1.0 X 10" 7 -20.60 -21.24 -22.33 
 
 1.0 X10" 6 18.14 21.21 23.79 
 
 3.0 X 10" 6 70.87 69.04 67.30 
 
 1.0 X 10" 5 80.88 85.05 85.60 
 
 3.0 X 10" 5 87.09 87.24 94.94 
 
 1.0 X 10" 4 94.28 92.31 96.65 
 
 1.0 X 10" 3 98.91 98.63 99.36 
 
 DDIW Distilled, deionized water. 
 
 INT.BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA 28982 
 
 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 611-012/00,115 
 
Mi 
 
-o 
 m 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 « -i <D • 
 
 > 
 
 r- 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 TI 
 TI 
 
 Dep 
 
 au o 
 
 ES 
 
 fiingl 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 artm 
 f Mil 
 treet 
 on, 
 
 S3 
 
 > 
 
 °0 
 
 r~ 
 
 O- ? fl> 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 =: 
 
 03 
 
 S 
 
 nt of 
 es 
 
 N.W. 
 .C. 
 
 m 
 c 
 
 (A 
 
 m 
 I 
 
 ■4ft 
 
 z 
 m 
 
 jo- ._ 
 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 u 
 
 
 tO <i> 
 
 § 
 
 
 CO 2. 
 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 o -• 
 
 > 
 
 z 
 m 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 TJ 
 TJ 
 O 
 DO 
 
 3 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 -< 
 m 
 
 3D 
 
 125 90 
 

 
 > V » «. * »- ^ 
 
 5*1$* \<HI ^1 '^rS " o^HSf- ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 *~% 
 
 
 V.ilV.V"" ^ 
 
 
 ^"\ 'JK- . ***** - % WW. : .<sf\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 • a><* 
 
 • ^ A^ »J< 
 
 6? ^is 
 
 
 .^^ A -*S ^» A^^. o% §?• C*< 
 
 % 
 
 f / V^v %-^v V^V %' 
 
 
 
 ^o< 
 
 
 
 -ot^ 
 
 
 .<£°** 
 
 
 • %**':tit&.\f 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 ** v \ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r** 
 
 
 ♦*~** 
 
 <°^ °* ^^t% ^.^fe-% X.^i.% 
 
 
 
 V 6«»? 
 
 
 
 
 HECKMAN 
 
 BINDERY INC. 
 
 ^ FEB 90 
 
 N. MANCHESTER, 
 «^^ INDIANA 46962 
 
 
 
 .i» ..^. 
 
 o » e *<$i^ 
 
 4°" \