Experimental insights into surface chemistry and wetting properties of mineral particles in multiphase systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mineral separation processes like froth flotation rely on differences in wettability, emphasizing the need to understand the interfacial properties and microscale processes occurring on material surfaces. Although the Young contact angle is the primary parameter for wettability quantification, it faces significant limitations when applied to fine particles due to their non-planar shapes and rough surfaces, making the analysis highly system-specific. This study explores the challenges related to the wettability of minerals, including carbonates, quartz, pHosphate minerals such as apatite, and rare-earth-bearing minerals like bastnaesite and monazite. Their respective wettability was determined using static and dynamic contact angle measurements, solvent extraction, and particle attachment-droplet coverage analysis. A higher tendency of apatite, monazite, and bastnaesite to attach to oil droplets under specific conditions (pH around 6) can be attributed to their greater hydrophobicity (higher contact angles >55°). This behavior likely arises from their surface chemical composition and crystalline structure, which favor lower surface energy and reduced affinity to the aqueous phase, while carbonate minerals and quartz, being more hydrophilic minerals, remained in the water phase. The analysis of mineral surface properties indicates the capability for processes like solid-stabilized emulsions to selectively separate and concentrate specific minerals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".